While Wheaton technically has a right to believe whatever it wants and to uphold whatever it wants, it seems foolish to die on this hill. Anyone who believes in one God who was the First Cause, is believing in the same God.
And they still do now. An Arabic-speaking Christian worships Allah, because “Allah” is the Arabic word for god. A Spanish-speaking Christian worships Dios, an English-speaking Christian worships God, a French speaker worships Dieu, and an Arabic-speaking Christian worships Allah. If you walk into a Catholic church in an Arabic speaking country, you will hear prayers to Allah.
“While Wheaton technically has a right to believe whatever it wants and to uphold whatever it wants, it seems foolish to die on this hill. Anyone who believes in one God who was the First Cause, is believing in the same God.”
That is your opinion.
The evangelical church that I was raised in believed that if you weren’t a born-again Christian, then you did not worship the same God that they worship. They believe in one God. They also believe that other religions worship false Gods (i.e., Satan) or imaginary Gods. They don’t believe there are other Gods, or that you can have different views and worship the same God. They believe that God is sending everyone who does not share their view straight to hell.
To me, it sounds like Wheaton probably has a similar view. It isn’t a question of choosing to take a stand on this point. It is fundamental to their view, so there is not much flexibility there.
<<<
They believe that God is sending everyone who does not share their view straight to hell.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Some have a very limited and unsophisticated theology.
Noah Feldman, a secular Jewish and off the charts brilliant legal/religious scholar who teaches at a well known law school in Cambridge Mass recently chimed in on the “one God” debate caused by the Wheaton admin.
He actually defends the Wheaton College administration’s theological view as “perfectly logical view.” He says it is perfectly reasonable to hold that the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of God as Christ (both which Islamic theology explicitly rejects) are so different from the Islamic conception of God as to make the two no longer the same.
“Logically, can it be determined that two things are the same even if it can’t be determined that they exist?”
Sure it can. You can apply logic to ideas in the humanities and arts. Sherlock Holmes never existed, but that’s the same character in A Study in Scarlet and The Hound of the Baskervilles.
@Hanna "“Logically, can it be determined that two things are the same even if it can’t be determined that they exist?”
Sure it can. You can apply logic to ideas in the humanities and arts. Sherlock Holmes never existed, but that’s the same character in A Study in Scarlet and The Hound of the Baskervilles."
Lol. A thoughtful response. You are right in the world of fiction, but I was contemplating reality. I can’t think of a single example in science or nature.
OK, but we’re talking about theology, not science or nature. It’s part of the humanities and has more in common with literature than science. You can apply logic to theology – it’s just humanities logic. Theology makes arguments like: if God says X in this scripture, then God must be Y.
I’d argue that the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and Koran (not to mention the Book of Mormon) are a series of works in the same genre that concern many of the same characters, including God. That argument stands or falls on the evidence contained within the scriptures themselves. It’s not susceptible to empirical testing, but it can be supported or attacked with as much intellectual rigor as a science experiment.
If a group has a very simple theology (we’re right and their text is garbage!), so be it. But then what’s the point of an academically selective college with PhDs on the faculty? I mean, the only purpose of that kind of enterprise is to tackle hard questions with complicated answers. If the questions are easy and the answers obvious, you might as well let any believer teach. 2 plus 2 is always going to equal 4.
I think the global warming debate is similar. You’ve got the group that thinks the science is clear, global warming is man-made, and the projections indicate catastrophic changes in the future unless something is done about it. This something includes switching to green fuels and taxing entities based on their carbon footprint. Etc.
Then there’s the group that thinks it isn’t warming, or that warming has been paused for almost two decades. This group points to the climate scientist email kerfuffle that showed them seeming to politicize the science by promoting a warming view over any contrary indications. Also putting the scientific thumb on the scale by using weather stations affected by poor placement in hot zones, and extrapolating that info. Also the attempt to change readings from prior years based on I-forget-what to show it used to be colder.
Finally there’s the group that accepts global warming, but doesn’t believe it’s caused by man. It’s either caused by solar activity (Maunder minimum/maximum thing), or it’s cyclical.
Same phenomenon. Three totally different viewpoints on what they’re actually looking at and what if anything to do about it.
Islam and Judaism do not accept Christ as God as Christianity does. That is a pretty large difference. They all believe in one God, but not all believe in the three-in-one God.
Christ refers to himself repeatedly as God and as the Son of the Father. John 1 says “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus…), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So – to a Christian, Yahweh (God the Father) and Jesus (God the Son) are simply different forms of the same being. When we say “God” we refer to both, as well as the Holy Spirit. All three are the same God in Protestant churches and I’ll presume the Trinity is accepted in Catholicism as well. (I have been to Catholic services and aside from some ritualistic differences – each Christian church has its own peculiarities – the actual sermons often hit on the same points, make the same interpretations, teach the same lessons, etc.)
It is a difficult concept for many to grasp. I liken it to the Solid/Liquid/Gas forms of matter: God is ice; Jesus is water; and the HS is steam.
I would not call Christianity polytheism; in that sense, it is like Islam and Judaism. Many of the same lessons are the same (especially between Christianity and Judaism, which share the OT obviously).
But the Trinity – the triune God – is one major thing that makes Christianity different from Islam and Judaism.
If Judaism accepted a Messiah at some point, things could get really interesting theologically.
@Hanna “OK, but we’re talking about theology, not science or nature. It’s part of the humanities and has more in common with literature than science. You can apply logic to theology – it’s just humanities logic. Theology makes arguments like: if God says X in this scripture, then God must be Y.”
In more liberal seminaries, I agree with everything you are saying.
In conservative theologies, however, they claim that God involves himself with the natural world all the time. In that case, I think it becomes less like critical reading and more like science.
Christians believe that the Triune God is the SAME God that Jewish people (and muslim people) believe in.
If not, who do these Christians think that the Jewish God is/was?
I am Catholic, so I don’t hold to whatever new fangled ideas that some newish denominations may hold. The God of the Jewish people is the same God that Christians worship. Period. There is no other God. The “difference” is that Christians believe in a Triune God that always existed, but wasn’t revealed until the time of Christ.
quote says it is perfectly reasonable to hold that the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of God as Christ (both which Islamic theology explicitly rejects) are so different from the Islamic conception of God as to make the two no longer the same.
[/quote]
Well, that pretty much describes Judaism too. Judaism rejects the concept of a triune God. And if and when they recognize The Messiah, he will NOT be divine.
It’s still the same God if they believe that God is the Creator (the First Cause).
This may not be a perfect analogy, but imagine that everyone is looking at a rainbow. There’s one rainbow that people see. Some may see red, yellow, blue…some may see red, orange, yellow, blue…some may see red, yellow, green, blue. Some may be insisting that there is no green. Some may be insisting that there is no orange. Some may be insisting that purple is there, too. It’s still the same rainbow.
I have a very conservative Christian friend who attended Wheaton. She’s in her late 50s. She is furious at the school!
Here may be what different people see when they see a rainbow:
http://www.cs.stedwards.edu/~kkiefer2/cosc4351/proj1-7.php
http://www.cs.stedwards.edu/~kkiefer2/cosc4351/colorblind.gif
(though some religious conservatives may just see red when they look at the image labeled as “normal” >:) )
@Trisherella The difference between God and global warning is that the latter can actually studied and measured. Any number of ideas about God can have equal validity, because none of them are susceptible of proof. With global warning, there is a legitimate range of dispute about the extent to which human development is contributing, but anyone who is claiming that it’s all a conspiracy of left-wing scientists fudging the data is participating in politics, not scientific inquiry. It’s a unique delusion of the American far right, a bunch of wannabe lawyers who can’t distinguish between jury arguments and truth.
This. It might make sense for Jews and Muslims to say that they worship a different God from Christians, but it makes no sense whatsoever for Christians to say this. Those who are Biblical fundamentalists cannot say that Abraham worshipped a false God, because the New Testament makes it clear that he didn’t.
@Hunt, take it up with the theologians!
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/01/04/apparent-impasse-over-hijab-wearing-professor
I’m not impressed by the fact that some theologians (reportedly) hold nonsensical views. I am surprised that Wheaton is doubling down on this.