Archbishop: Christian doctrine is ‘offensive to Muslims’

[Bono]

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/07/archbishop-christian-doctrine-is.html

Archbishop: Christian doctrine is ‘offensive to Muslims’

Should any of Cranmer’s readers or communicants be interested, the voting preferences for votes cast electronically at the recent sessions of the General Synod are on-line.

Some bishops abstained and some, in true Ruth Kelly style, absented themselves.

All of this is proving highly entertaining for those who profess allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, highly embarrassing for those who profess allegiance to the Church of England, and profoundly upsetting for those who worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

And as the Lambeth Conference continues apace, the Archbishop of Canterbury has declared that Christian doctrine is ‘offensive to Muslims’.

In a letter to Islamic scholars - A Common Word for the Common Good - he calls for closer dialogue and understanding between Christianity and Islam, and he admits that the Christian belief in the Trinity is ‘difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims’.

What a scholar. What a theologian.

The Lord said this would be the case. The Apostle Paul said it would be the case. And it appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury is almost apologising that it is indeed the case.

Has the Archbishop considered that God becoming man might be offensive to women? Has he considered that he himself might be offensive to Anglicans?

And one wonders why he has never seen fit to issue such a statement out of respect for Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Unitarians, for the Trinity conflicts with their beliefs as well as the Islamic teaching that Allah is one.

He also equates the Crusades with Jihad, noting that ‘Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions; despite the Qur'anic axiom, Islam has been supported in the same way, with extreme penalties for abandoning it, and civil disabilities for those outside the faith.’

No theological or historical distinctions at all: no mention that the Prince of Peace told his followers to lay down their swords, while Mohammed actively took up his.

One awaits the admission by any Islamic scholar that Christians may find the central tenets of Islam offensive – the denial of Jesus as the Son of God; the denial of the crucifixion; the disparaging of the integrity of the Bible; the insistence that the coming of Mohammed was prophesied in the Bible.

The Archbishop’s letter is apparently a response to the letter from Muslim leaders written last September. The Pope beat him to it, without any apology for Christian doctrine. Curiously, Dr Williams describes the document from the Muslim scholars as being ‘hospitable and friendly’. This was not Cranmer’s recollection, but it is wondrous how the perspectives of time distort the reality.

His Grace will now shut up, lest he be accused of hating Anglicans. He is happy to commend the considered musings of Tory Heaven on the matter.

posted by Cranmer at 7:08 AM

[afleitch]

So what Williams said is that Christian doctrine is 'sometimes offensive to Muslims.' And I'm sure he's right. I'm sure it can be. In the same way some Christians might find Muslim doctrine offensive and some athiests might find both Christian and Muslim doctrine offensive.

All Williams can be accused of doing is saying the bleeding obvious.

[Albus Dumbledore]

I find muslim 'doctrine' offensive.

[JSojourner]

So what Williams said is that Christian doctrine is 'sometimes offensive to Muslims.' And I'm sure he's right. I'm sure it can be. In the same way some Christians might find Muslim doctrine offensive and some athiests might find both Christian and Muslim doctrine offensive.

All Williams can be accused of doing is saying the bleeding obvious.

Precisely.  And I, as an Anglican, am hardly embarassed by Rowan Williams' comments.  I remain embarassed by our denomination's futile and senseless angst over issues of sexuality that should have been settled years ago -- and their overall lack of interest or concern about issues of creedal doctrine that should be basic requirements for ordination.

[Torie]

What is offensive to Muslims?  The trinity doctrine?  And if so, what is the plan of action to deal with that? 

[J. J.]

I will say this to our Muslim brethren, it may be offensive, but it is ours.  Some of your doctrine is offensive to us, but it is yours.  We both better get use to it (and we did for a few centuries).  If we are in error, I hope God will understand.  If you are in error, I have faith that God will understand.

As for the Crusades, ah, well, not Western Europe's finest hour.

[Хahar 🤔]

Stupid article. I won't bother to respond to it since Bono posted it.

[JSojourner]

What is offensive to Muslims?  The trinity doctrine?  And if so, what is the plan of action to deal with that? 

Muslims and, frankly, lots of non-Christians (hell, lots of Christians) have serious problems wrapping their mind around the idea of the Trinity.  To Muslims and Jews, there is one God.  God is one.  Not one in three and three in one.  I completely understand their frustration with that idea.  More, before we Christians get too uppity, we need to realize that the Semitic religions (particularly Judaism) are the root from which we have grown.  And we owe them the debt of courtesy, respect and civility.

But when that question is posed to me -- about the Trinity -- I answer it this way:  I don't mean to be flippant or blasphemous.  But if Jesus could explain things using a mustard seed, I see no harm in using ice cream.  Specifically, Neopolitan ice cream.

Ever had it?

Buy it in a cardboard carton and you get one brick of ice cream with three colors and flavors.  Strawberry, Vanilla and Chocolate.  (I always ate the chocolate as a boy and left the rest!)

It's all ice cream.  All of it. The same substance.  But it's quite different, too.

Failing that, I resort to the familial argument.  I am one, not three or four or six.  One.  But my wife knows me as husband.  My daughter knows me as Daddy.  My sisters know me as brother.

Torie and Gm 3 know me as Kommissar of the People's Red Revolution...  <cough> J/K

So it is with God.  God is one.  God is also three, while never ceasing to be one.

[Хahar 🤔]

What is offensive to Muslims?  The trinity doctrine?  And if so, what is the plan of action to deal with that? 

Muslims and, frankly, lots of non-Christians (hell, lots of Christians) have serious problems wrapping their mind around the idea of the Trinity.  To Muslims and Jews, there is one God.  God is one.  Not one in three and three in one.  I completely understand their frustration with that idea.  More, before we Christians get too uppity, we need to realize that the Semitic religions (particularly Judaism) are the root from which we have grown.  And we owe them the debt of courtesy, respect and civility.

But when that question is posed to me -- about the Trinity -- I answer it this way:  I don't mean to be flippant or blasphemous.  But if Jesus could explain things using a mustard seed, I see no harm in using ice cream.  Specifically, Neopolitan ice cream.

Ever had it?

Buy it in a cardboard carton and you get one brick of ice cream with three colors and flavors.  Strawberry, Vanilla and Chocolate.  (I always ate the chocolate as a boy and left the rest!)

It's all ice cream.  All of it. The same substance.  But it's quite different, too.

Failing that, I resort to the familial argument.  I am one, not three or four or six.  One.  But my wife knows me as husband.  My daughter knows me as Daddy.  My sisters know me as brother.

Torie and Gm 3 know me as Kommissar of the People's Red Revolution...  <cough> J/K

So it is with God.  God is one.  God is also three, while never ceasing to be one.

That sort of makes sense, but I still think it's completely wrong. How's that?

[JSojourner]

What is offensive to Muslims?  The trinity doctrine?  And if so, what is the plan of action to deal with that? 

Muslims and, frankly, lots of non-Christians (hell, lots of Christians) have serious problems wrapping their mind around the idea of the Trinity.  To Muslims and Jews, there is one God.  God is one.  Not one in three and three in one.  I completely understand their frustration with that idea.  More, before we Christians get too uppity, we need to realize that the Semitic religions (particularly Judaism) are the root from which we have grown.  And we owe them the debt of courtesy, respect and civility.

But when that question is posed to me -- about the Trinity -- I answer it this way:  I don't mean to be flippant or blasphemous.  But if Jesus could explain things using a mustard seed, I see no harm in using ice cream.  Specifically, Neopolitan ice cream.

Ever had it?

Buy it in a cardboard carton and you get one brick of ice cream with three colors and flavors.  Strawberry, Vanilla and Chocolate.  (I always ate the chocolate as a boy and left the rest!)

It's all ice cream.  All of it. The same substance.  But it's quite different, too.

Failing that, I resort to the familial argument.  I am one, not three or four or six.  One.  But my wife knows me as husband.  My daughter knows me as Daddy.  My sisters know me as brother.

Torie and Gm 3 know me as Kommissar of the People's Red Revolution...  <cough> J/K

So it is with God.  God is one.  God is also three, while never ceasing to be one.

That sort of makes sense, but I still think it's completely wrong. How's that?

Perfectly understandable.

I wouldn't expect a Muslim to agree.  What I do find encouraging is that the few Muslim folks I know, you included, are so very agreeable about disagreement.  Hopefully, that example will rub off on people of all religions who can only hold their ideological and doctrinal foes in contempt.

There's a place for contempt, of course.  But I tend to reserve it for those in any faith driven by hatred.

[??????????]

As for the Crusades, ah, well, not Western Europe's finest hour.

And Islam should get a free pass for all the centuries they tried to conquer and suppress Western Europe? Sorry it's not a one way street in the real world. Islam is a religion of hate and death, its entire history has been one of conquest, domination, hypocrisy and hatred towards women.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Islam is offensive to any right-thinking individual.

[JSojourner]

As for the Crusades, ah, well, not Western Europe's finest hour.

And Islam should get a free pass for all the centuries they tried to conquer and suppress Western Europe? Sorry it's not a one way street in the real world. Islam is a religion of hate and death, its entire history has been one of conquest, domination, hypocrisy and hatred towards women.

No free pass here.  Islam now has, and historically had, many evil and brutal followers.  Just like Christianity.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Islam is an existential threat to any women, non-heterosexuals, seculars, pagans, liberal religious people, non-religious people on the face of the earth.

[Хahar 🤔]

As for the Crusades, ah, well, not Western Europe's finest hour.

And Islam should get a free pass for all the centuries they tried to conquer and suppress Western Europe? Sorry it's not a one way street in the real world. Islam is a religion of hate and death, its entire history has been one of conquest, domination, hypocrisy and hatred towards women.

As could be said about almost any major religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

More, before we Christians get too uppity, we need to realize that the Semitic religions (particularly Judaism) are the root from which we have grown. 

huh?  As far as I am concerned, I share the exact same religion as Peter, David, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Abel, and Adam.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the triple point of water is how I like to think of it...a container of water can consist of three states (liquid, solid, gas) at the same time, but it is still water.  Likewise, God can manifest himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all at the same time.  Three different manifestations of one being, not three different beings.

[Bono]

the triple point of water is how I like to think of it...a container of water can consist of three states (liquid, solid, gas) at the same time, but it is still water.  Likewise, God can manifest himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all at the same time.  Three different manifestations, not three different beings.

You're bordering on modalism, but I do know from your Oneness background that's what you endorse. That's fine,  just don't try to pas it off as Orthodox theology.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the triple point of water is how I like to think of it...a container of water can consist of three states (liquid, solid, gas) at the same time, but it is still water.  Likewise, God can manifest himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all at the same time.  Three different manifestations, not three different beings.

You're bordering on modalism, but I do know from your Oneness background that's what you endorse. That's fine,  just don't try to pas it off as Orthodox theology.

why? because I use the word "manifested'?

1Tim 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

God is either one being, or he is more than one being.  you can not have it both ways. 

Jesus was NOT simply "part" of the Godhead, rather he was the ENTIRE godhead dwelling in human flesh:

Col 2:9 "For in Jesus dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"

So, if the bible clearly says that Christ was the entire godhead manifested in the flesh, then why do Christians want to add confusion to an already incomprehensible situation?

[Bono]

the triple point of water is how I like to think of it...a container of water can consist of three states (liquid, solid, gas) at the same time, but it is still water.  Likewise, God can manifest himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all at the same time.  Three different manifestations, not three different beings.

You're bordering on modalism, but I do know from your Oneness background that's what you endorse. That's fine,  just don't try to pas it off as Orthodox theology.

why? because I use the word "manifested'?

1Tim 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

God is either one being, or he is more than one being.  you can not have it both ways. 

Jesus was NOT simply "part" of the Godhead, rather he was the ENTIRE godhead dwelling in human flesh:

2Cor 2:9 "For in Jesus dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"

So, if the bible clearly says that Christ was the entire godhead manifested in the flesh, then why do Christians want to add confusion to an already incomprehensible situation?

No, not at all, but rather because you argue that the different persons of the trinity are just different modes that God uses when its most convenient for Him, instead of actual persons who exist at all times, different centers of divine consciousness.

I'm sure you meant to quote some other verse, because 2 Corinthians 2:9 is "For to this end also I wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. "

Was Jesus talking to Himself when he prayed John 17:5: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[No, not at all, but rather because you argue that the different persons of the trinity are just different modes that God uses when its most convenient for Him

I don't know what you mean my "mode", but he has provided three different manifestion out of our necessity, not out of his convenience.  He himself had to come and pay the price for our sins, otherwise we would have been lost.  There was no other way.

---

, instead of actual persons who exist at all times, different centers of divine consciousness.

if by multiple persons you mean multiple supreme beings, then you're confused, not lost, just confused.

---

I'm sure you meant to quote some other verse, because 2 Corinthians 2:9 is "For to this end also I wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. "

sorry, i quoted the verse i wanted, but tagged it wrong, should have said Col 2:9

---

Was Jesus talking to Himself when he prayed John 17:5: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I think you need to answer that question, because as Col 2:9 has already stated, "the ENTIRE godhead dwelt in him bodily."

so, he wasn't talking to himself, rather he was simply praying to the higher manifestation of himself.  While in the body of a man, God-in-the=flesh (Jesus Christ) was limited, he was not omnipresent.  It was only after ascending into heaven that this manifestation became omnipresent:

Eph 4:10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

---

And when a believer receives the Holy Spirit, he receives the ENTIRE godhead:

Col 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.  10 And you are complete in him.

In other words, since the entire godhead dwells in Jesus, when Jesus dwells in your heart, you are "complete".  You lack nothing of God, for you have all of God.

So, when one receives the Holy Spirit, you all receiving all of the Godhead, or all three "persons" of the Godhead from your point of view:

John 14:23 "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."

---

So, after all the semantics are over, three biblical facts remain:

1)  God is one God, apart from him there is no God.
2)  Jesus is God manifested in the flesh
3)  Spirit-filled believers have all of God.  They have the Father.  They have the Son.  And they have the Holy Spirit.

and if you and I can't accept those three facts, then one of us is confused.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Was Jesus talking to Himself when he prayed John 17:5: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

after you read my previous post, another way to phrase your question is the following:

Since spirit-filled believers have received the entire Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), when God's Spirit within a believe intercedes for the believer, does the Spirit pray to itself?

Rom Romans 8:26-27 "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will."
 

[Bono]

You cannot take those verses in isolation, as you usually do, while ignoring everything that conflicts with your view. The trinitarian view is explicitly taught in many passages:

a.         Matthew 28:19 - Jesus does not say "baptizing them in the names" (plural), as if there were three Gods, but "in the name" (singular). Neither does he say "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," as if there were one being passing himself off under a threefold name. Rather, the definite article is repeated before each: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thus, while Jesus distinguishes the three, with equal care he unites them under one name.

b.         2 Corinthians 13:14

c.         Ephesians 4:4-6

d.         On several occasions the Father, Son, and HS are mentioned together in united activity or purpose relating to the life and ministry of Jesus: at his conception (Lk. 1:35), baptism (Mt. 3:16-17; John 1:33-34), miracles (Mt. 12:28), and ascension (Lk. 24:49).

e.         On several occasions the Three are portrayed as united in the work of revelation and redemption: Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 14:17-18; 15:16,30; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Col. 1:6-8; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6; Heb. 10:29; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 4:2,13-14; Jude 20-21; Rev. 1:4-5.

Therefore, God is one and three are God – Triunity! Three persons in one essence. That is what, I believe, those passages you mentioned are referring--that both the Spirit and Christ are fully God in their essence--and not as some like the Unitarians argue, lesser beings. That is the only way all passages can be squared. Oneness preachers like to mystify people arguing that trinitarians teach there are three Gods, being in this remarkably like Muslims.

Jesus' prayers basically shortcut the whole Oneness idea. Also, if God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."  If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"?
Oneness theology also teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament.  God was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an angel in the following verses:  Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-8).  But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46).  If they were seeing God Almighty (Exo. 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, then who was it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You cannot take those verses in isolation, as you usually do, while ignoring everything that conflicts with your view. The trinitarian view is explicitly taught in many passages:

a.         Matthew 28:19 - Jesus does not say "baptizing them in the names" (plural), as if there were three Gods, but "in the name" (singular). Neither does he say "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," as if there were one being passing himself off under a threefold name. Rather, the definite article is repeated before each: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thus, while Jesus distinguishes the three, with equal care he unites them under one name.

yet, in Acts, they baptized in ONE NAME:  the name of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ must be the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

dude, don't make me look them up...

2Cor 13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

well, since believers receive the entire godhead when they become spirit-filled, it would be hard not to have the grace love and fellowship of all three, wouldn't it?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eph 4:3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

and how am I in conflict with that?

In fact, it states that "there is one Spirit"....so does a believer receive the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of God? 

Answer:

Believers receive the Holy Spirit:  Acts 8:17 "they received the Holy Spirit"

Believers receives the Spirit of Jesus Christ:  Gal 4:6 "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father'."

Believers receive the Spirit of God: 2 Cor 1:22 "God put his Spirit in our hearts"

Therefore, since there is "only one Spirit", those aren't three different spirits, rather they are three terms used synonymously in scripture to refer to one Spirit.

How is that not obvious?

---

d.         On several occasions the Father, Son, and HS are mentioned together in united activity or purpose relating to the life and ministry of Jesus: at his conception (Lk. 1:35), baptism (Mt. 3:16-17; John 1:33-34), miracles (Mt. 12:28), and ascension (Lk. 24:49).

different manifestations being displayed at the exact same time...matches exactly what I have been saying.

---

e.         On several occasions the Three are portrayed as united in the work of revelation and redemption: Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 14:17-18; 15:16,30; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Col. 1:6-8; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6; Heb. 10:29; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 4:2,13-14; Jude 20-21; Rev. 1:4-5..

different manifestations being displayed at the exact same time...matches exactly what I have been saying.

---

Therefore, God is one and three are God – Triunity! Three persons in one essence. That is what, I believe, those passages you mentioned are referring--that both the Spirit and Christ are fully God in their essence--and not as some like the Unitarians argue, lesser beings. That is the only way all passages can be squared. Oneness preachers like to mystify people arguing that trinitarians teach there are three Gods, being in this remarkably like Muslims.

dude, I haven't studied what is taught, I have just studied scripture.

If scripture says that the entire godhead dwelt in the body of Christ and the entire godhead dwells in the body of believers.  Then that is what I accept.

---

Jesus' prayers basically shortcut the whole Oneness idea. Also, if God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."  If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"?

All I know is what the verse you are quoting says:  Both the Father and Son come into the heart of the believer.  And since we also know that believers receiver the Holy Spirit.  Then how can I come to any other conclusion than to say that a believer receives the entire godhead.

Using your Neopolitan ice cream analogy earily...if you had three seperated ice cream containers (one for the Father, one for the Son, one for the Holy Spirit), then each container would NOT contain individual flavors, rather all three containers would contain Neopolitan ice cream. 

John 14:10 "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me"

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

something tells me you need to stop studying what people teach and start studying the scripture.  If I cared what people taught, then I would be like you and know everything that everyone was teaching.

I don't even know what is meant by the word "mode" in this context.  Mode to me means "rotary adjustable". LOL!

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

God is invisible and has no body, so it is impossible to see God.  Jesus is simply saying that no one has seen God in God's true form. 

The scripture also says that "God lives in unapproachable light" 1Tim 6:16

So, in those verses you quoted, God simply appeared to them in a form that was visible to them, but they didn't really see God in his true form.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Secret rule #1 of Religion and Philosophy, no matter what thread it it is, the thread will turn into jmfcst getting involved in a theology debate.

[Хahar 🤔]

Secret rule #1 of Religion and Philosophy, no matter what thread it it is, the thread will turn into jmfcst getting involved in a theology debate.

Well, not always.