Last Battles Follow Up

After I posted Last Battles, a friend from my church in the States posted a comment on Facebook (the entire comment is copied at the end of this page). I wrote this post in the hours after I saw the comment, but I asked him for permission before I responded to it in blog post form.

---

I think it would be good to clarify the issue. The problem, as I see it, is not the Protestants are calling Catholics out on what is written in their Catechism, namely what is found in section 841 as follows:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

This is a valid critique of Rome. It is taking Rome at its word. If Roman Catholics would have peace and an easier time of things, let them find it in Christ, and not in the replacement of Christ which Rome offers. On this point, I recommend John MacArthur’s series “Explaining The Heresy of the Roman Catholic Church.” For my position in my own words, see the post “On the Day of the Death of the Pope.”

Now, I would like to add to this clarification. The problem is not Rome defending Muslims. The problem is Rome defending the Muslim god. While you differentiate God by His nature or character in your comment, I think where you fall short is defining God by His distinctness of being – that is, Triunity. And this is the real issue. And, in fact, Rome fails both to distinguish the true God from Allah in both nature and being – so good job on that count, you’re doing far better here than they are!

The God of the Bible is of an entirely different being from Allah. For the metaphysical necessity of God being Triune in light of Islam, I recommend starting with this lecture by Andy Bannister, and then trying out one of Colin Gunton’s books.

Michael Reeves hits the nail on the head when it comes to the real problem. Here are some excerpts from Delighting in the Trinity that pinpoint the heart of the issue at hand:

…instead of starting from scratch and seeing that the triune God is a radically different sort of being from any other candidate for “God,” we try to stuff Father, Son and Spirit into how we have always thought of God.
. . .
And it is not just that we are quick to replace the living God with gods of our devising: the world is already filled with innumerable, often wildly different candidates for “God.” Some are good, some are not. Some are personal, some are not. Some are omnipotent, some are not. You see it in the Bible, where the Lord God of Israel, Baal, Dagon, Molech and Artemis are completely different. Or take, for example, how the Qur’an explicitly and sharply distinguishes Allah from the God described by Jesus:
Say not “Trinity.” Desist; it will be better for you: for God is one God. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. (Surah 4.171)
Say: “He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him.” (Surah 112)
In other words, Allah is a single-person God. In no sense is he a Father (“he begets not”), and in no sense does he have a Son (“nor is he begotten”). He is one person, and not three. Allah, then, is an utterly different sort of being to the God who is Father, Son and Spirit. And it is not just incompatibly different numbers we are dealing with here: that difference, as we will see, is going to mean that Allah exists and functions in a completely different way from the Father, Son and Spirit.

The way God is flows directly from who God is. You are exactly right to point to Allah’s character being in line with that of the devil’s, and to the demonic origins of Islam. The only relationship possible with a god like Allah, as you say, is slavery – not sonship. I have written about this here more fully here and in the series this post is in: Allah’s Glory According to the Quran.

Still, I wonder about your statement “I wish Catholics would take this approach, -affirm the ‘From a certain point of view’ while condemning the many heresies of Islamic theology.” I do not believe anyone can or should do this. I believe it is as silly as saying that Tash and Aslan are the same.[1] They are completely different. They are not in the same category of “God.” Root to branch, they stand apart. Rome calls Allah the “Creator” and the “one, merciful God, mankind’s judge.” Rome has identified Allah as the true God.

Islam is heresy. What Allah is flows out into all that they hold to be true. Their theology and culture flows out of their idea of God (for more on this, see the Andy Bannister lecture linked above). Allah is no more God than the wooden statue that men bow down before, or the idols they set up in their own hearts (Isaiah 37:17-20). It is not my idea to draw the distinction between “Gods” from the level of being all the way to the level of character – Paul sets the standard clearly (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, 10:7-10, 14):

…we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. … Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. . . . Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 

Because God is personal from all eternity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (His Being being utterly distinct, that is, Triune), He reveals Himself in a relational way, indeed, in His Person. Jesus shows us who God is and what God is like – there is no God hiding behind Jesus unlike Him. The Father’s character is the exact same as the Son’s character – they share the same nature. Yet men make for themselves countless religions, as Luther wrote,

inventing an infinite number of idols and strange religions by which people went their own way, trusting in works to please gods and goddesses without Christ’s help and seeking by their own works to redeem themselves from evils and sins. The example and writings of all nations demonstrate this.[2]

Calvin, commenting on Romans 1, is helpful here when trying to identifying the core problem in the human heart.

His eternity appears evident, because he is the maker of all things — his power, because he holds all things in his hand and continues their existence — his wisdom, because he has arranged things in such an exquisite order — his goodness, for there is no other cause than himself, why he created all things, and no other reason, why he should be induced to preserve them — his justice, because in his government he punishes the guilty and defends the innocent — his mercy, because he bears with so much forbearance the perversity of men — and his truth, because he is unchangeable. … Since men have not recognized these attributes in God, but have dreamt of him as though he were an empty phantom, they are justly said to have impiously robbed him of his own glory. … having forsaken the truth of God, they turned to the vanity of their own reason, all the acuteness of which is fading and passes away like vapor.

…for it was not peculiar to the philosophers to suppose themselves wise in the knowledge of God, but it was equally common to all nations, and to all ranks of men. There were indeed none who sought not to form some ideas of the majesty of God, and to make him such a God as they could conceive him to be according to their own reason. This presumption I hold is not learned in the schools, but is innate, and comes with us, so to speak, from the womb.

Christians start with the lowest of heavenly wisdom, of which the highest philosophies of men can know nothing of.[3] We start with Christ descended, incarnate, and crucified – the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:30). We know the Father through the Son by the Spirit. The trouble with the religions and philosophies of the world is simply this: rather than acknowledging and worshipping God in His goodness, human beings have always sought to bring Him down to the level of their own corruptness. They project onto the clouds their ideas of God formed after their own hearts (a line I take from Colin Gunton as well as others). It is not that they misidentify God’s essential being alone, or just misunderstand God’s character (nature). They abandon God revealed in Christ completely, the God upon whom men must trust for all things, and build up an image in their own likeness of a God whom they can placate. This is the trouble not only with Islam, but with Rome as a system of religion. Affirming the shell of knowledge about God (His Triunity and the divinity of all three Persons) they deny Him His goodness in God by stripping from Him His role as the only and sufficient Savior. Islam is worse only by degree, and in not outright stripping God of His essential Being as Triune.

In summary, the trouble with Rome on this point is that it defends Allah, and makes the one true God out to be the same as Allah – without distinguishing either Being or Nature – one which you have done, and for which I gladly and wholeheartedly affirm you. Rome affirms both that God’s essential being is the same as Allah’s, and that His nature (or character) is essentially the same. We can affirm neither (and to affirm one is to affirm the other). Our God is Triune, and Jesus is the perfect expression of the Father’s heart in saving sinners by His grace alone. He offers sonship to sinners in free grace originating in Himself alone from all eternity. It is only upon that faith which counts Him as it’s only good and hope that men come to know this God. All other gods spring from the erred wastes of sinful hearts that refuse to trust the true God.

P.S.

I always enjoy a good Chuck Norris joke!

---

The following is the entire Facebook comment by Kenton Park:

I can be sympathetic to the Catholic position on this, but I think there are many concerning features here too.

On the sympathetic side, this sudden obsession with Catholics defending Muslims is because Protestants used a Vatican Counsel to show that Catholics believe that Muslims believe in the same god.  And since Catholics can’t take back a counsel, they’ve got to affirm it.  But here’s the thing, they don’t have to go this hard to defend Muslims on this matter.

For an example: Chuck Norris.

One day when walking home from the studio, two criminals jumped Chuck Norris.  By the time the police arrived, both criminals had broken arms, and the police had to rescue them from Chuck Norris.

One day when walking about the desert, a black cobra snake bit Chuck Norris.  Two days later in the hospital, the snake died of its wounds.

Are these two jokes talking about the same Chuck Norris?  In one sense, yes.  They’re both talking about an action movie star who is borderline [defined].  But in another [sense], no.  The first story is a true story of the real Chuck Norris, while the second is a made up story to parade the real Chuck Norris.  So too, in a sense, Muslims do worship the same God as Christians, but they’ve got the fake version, the rip off, the one not based on history or truth, but based off of fables.  Chuck Norris jokes steal the identity of a real man for their fake stories, just like Islam steals the identity of a real God for their fake stories.

But in another sense: no, Islam does not worship the same god.  The Quran calls Allah “the greatest of all deceivers”, while the Bible calls Satan “the father of lies”.  Islam believes the greatest relationship a man can have with Allah is a slave to master relationship, whereas Christianity says we are sons of God.  Mohammad’s own interpretation of his “visions” when he started having them was that he was demon possessed.  Does this at all sound anything like the God of Christianity?

I wish Catholics would take this approach, -affirm the “From a certain point of view” while condemning the many heresies of Islamic theology.  But instead, they’re [catering] to Muslims.  This is concerning for many reasons, not the least that Islam is trying to take over the western world as we speak, but it is also extremely offensive.  After centuries of Catholics calling Protestant heretics, Orthodox schismatics, and Jews Christ-killers, now they want to affirm Islam as worshiping the same God?  They are throwing all of their allies under the bus and buttering up their most demonic enemy, -the mutual enemy of us all.  It’s a betrayal that would make Judas Iscariot blush.

---

[1] Now, ironically, CS Lewis blurs the lines here. In the Last Battle itself, as quoted from below, and in other works of his.

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

I like Lewis, but I find him weak in many places. Here is one of those places in which I find him erring. I think the rest of this post, particularly what I cite from Calvin on Romans 1, explains more about why I hold Lewis to be wrong.

[2] Martin Luther, Galatians, The Crossway Classics Commentaries, ed. Alistair McGrath and J.I. Packer (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1998), p. xvi

[3] When I say lowest of heaven’s wisdom, I mean Christ descended to us from the highest height of glory. There is a paradox at work here. This is wisdom hidden in the Gospel heartbeat of God, made known in Jesus to the smallest child.