"We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."

Twenty-four years ago today, Ronald Reagan spoke these words after being sworn in as the fortieth president of the United States. Then, the march of history was away from the New Deal, the Great Society, and other liberal schemes. Today, the era of big government has returned. It's my guess that you won't hear anything like this today: "It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government." These words ring more true now than the day President Reagan said them.

You almost make me wish Kerry had won.

His speech was absolutely miserable. Lincoln, Wilson, every liberal neo or otherwise I have ever heard rolled into one.

He is going to "reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant" how can any liberal/progressivist possibly have a problem with this guy? I really do not understand them. He is totally their guy. I can only pray that someday the Bush-Clinton-Bush era will come to an end.

Oh, and speaking of ending tyranny wherever it is to be found Georgie, why not curtail the tyrannical Supreme Court in this country by refusing to enforce their extraconstitutional edicts and get rid of the IRS? Otherwise shut up about ending tyranny.

President Bush said today: "That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before – ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Are you kidding me?! The Koran?!?! Talk about pandering to the multiculturalist and Bush's allies in Saudi Arabia. What about the Koran "sustains our national character?" What about the Koran is "good and true?" Where are these ideals of justice" to be found in the Koran? Does Bush really want us to think these ideals are on the same plane - and do not contradict - Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount?

Of course, I can say, "I told you so." See my #1 reason for not voting for Bush in the first place over at my blog.

Here's a teaser:
"George W. Bush is now officially on record as saying that Christians and Muslims pray to the same god, and that there are many ways to heaven."

Fortunately for Republicans, Democrats aren't paying that much attention. Solid hunks of W's speeches can be spun by the Left as validation of some of their aims for government intervention. Instead, they'd rather be upset that they're not the ones who are, in fact, saying it.

But President Kerry? Don't spring that on me, Brad, I nearly spat cocoa all over the keyboard.

Rest assured, Nightfly, my comment was pure sarcasm. From some of the posts on this board, you'd think that Darth Vader had takent the oath today.

Eric: I'm not about to defend Bush's pandering to the particular heresy you are complaining about, which was condemned by the 19th century popes under the names of "Americanism" and "indifferentism." Some fundamentalist Bush is! Ha! Why do liberals hate his mushy religiosity so much?

But of course Muslims and 'Christians' (and also Jews and Mormons and Catholics) pray to the same God. It just that not everyone is right about the (often significant) details. Islam is just a another heresy among the others (see Hilaire Belloc's _The Great Heresies_ for a nice account).

Exactly right Mr. Short. Not only did Bush put the Islamo-fascists on notice that they don't speak even for THEIR god, he also nailed the fundamental moral distinction that we are fighting for: not democracy, but liberty. Unless all within a country (he mentioned women specifically) have liberty and equal rights, there is no liberty, and we are still at war.

He also extended the liberty theme to the domestic front, calling for people to retain ownership over their Social Security payments. If that happens, people will soon want government out entirely and the centerpiece of illiberal "liberalism" will finally be expunged. President Bush is trying to redirect the river that will clean out the Augean Stable.

Wake up whiners. G.W. gave the difinitive small "r" republican speech. Are you so paranoid you can't even hear it?

Brad,

I wanted Bush to win over Kerry but I am still praying for his conversion to realism or conservatism. Therefore, I feel free to vent on him and his hokey neo-Hegelianism (really it is just simply the fighting faith of the enlightenment in whatever form, or philosopher, you want to choose as representative).

Actually Darth Vader would probably be a sweet president, after all, he was the one who finally rejected and destroyed the Empire right? Besides he could crush peoples throats w/o touching them. We could have gotten rid of Saddam w/o a single casualty.

Short,

I don't know that I really agree with you about the three major monotheisms worshipping the same God. Certainly to the extent that Islam (I will leave Judaism aside) is a religion it points towards the one true God. So does Hinduism. But as you point out by referring to Belloc it is a Christian heresy, as such it is simply diabolical. There is no way for it to be anything else since Mohammed explicitly rejected Christianity, a religion he was not ignorant of. When the Muslim leader in Rome had completed building a huge mosque in view of St. Peter's Basilica he told JPII that "monotheism will eventually triumph." Personally, I took his comment to be rather sinister.

More to the point, the Christian religion is monotheistic but God is triune, three persons in one Godhead. Therefore, rejection of the Son and rejection of the Spirit in apostacy have to entail rejection of the Father, don't they?

Maybe I am being too sensitive or harsh but I have always found it misleading when liberal religious studies teachers wax on about the "rise of monotheism" or the "three great monotheisms."

Are you being serious, Short, about your "same God" comment?

Eric: completely. Look Islam is a religion that takes a lot from Judaism and Christianity, but denies two key mysteries of orthodox Christian dogma, namely the incarnation and the trinity -- and this makes it heretical -- and then it adds some crap from contemporary middle eastern paganisms of the time. Islam is very similar to, say, Mormonism, which denies the trinity but (very importantly) keeps the divinity of Christ. Both also contain a albigensian/puritan element.

The status of Islam as a heresy is plain as day when seen in the light of the history of Christian heresy: denying Jesus's divinity was rather chic for a time (5th, 6th century or so, if I remember correctly) among the upper classes in the first millenium. And Muhammad was on the fringes of the Christian world, and liked a lot of what he heard, just not all of it.

Now what's the point: Islam is neither as much like us as the "indifferentists" like Bush tell us, nor as alien to us as many Christians would like to pretend.

Sure, they are terribly wrong on some points about God, but they are still explicitly directing themselves to the one God prayed to by Abraham, Moses, Mary, and Jesus.

But now I'm sorry I got off topic. The point was that Bush is not really a conservative. He's liberal all over, even in his theology of everyone-can-be-right -- let alone in his Wilsonian foreign policy or FDR/LBJ social engineering.

Short, I agree with you fully about Islam being a Christian heresy. But I also agree with Brian's comments. One might equal one, but one apple does not equal one plum.

C.S. Lewis seems to agree with me, too. See my post over at my blog.

Eric and Brian: I agree that Islam is in general really screwed up in their conception of God, but we slander them *and falsely complement other Christian heresies* if we don't recognize how close they are to us. In addition to the rejection of the incarnation, there is in Islam much that we find in other strains of Manicheaism/algibensianism/puritanism.

Now regarding the bloodthirsty aspect (which is what your CS lewis quote focuses on) which occasionally shows up in Islam: I wish I could say that all Christians lack the "kill them all, let God sort them out" attitude toward unbelievers. (It is, ironically, the types of Christians that hate Islam the most who are probably the most like them.)

Dear Short,

Actually, the blood-thirsty bit is the minor point. The major point is that Tash and Aslan are clearly different gods. The Calormenes were not worshiping the one true God inadequately and wrongly; they were worshipping a completely different god. This a clear violation of the first commandment.

To acknowledge similar pedigrees and similarity of certain doctrines, and to acknowledge that Islam is thus a Christian heresy, is one thing. But there is a huge gulf between that and saying that we worship the same god, no matter how many caveats about insufficiency and error you want to throw in there.

Muslims deny the divinity of Christ. Christ says that no one has seen the Father that hasn't seen Him. Among other things, Jesus is talking about the absolute necessity of recognizing His divinity, and the fact that "I and the Father are One." Failing this, says Jesus, shows that you do not know God, are are thus worhispping a different God. Therefore, Muslims are worshipping an altogether different god than Yahweh, even if a degree of common lineage was travelled to get to these divergent places.

Eric: you provide a very nice argument for your position, and I am sympathetic. Unfortunately, your argument would also prove that non-Christian Jews are "not worshiping the same God" as we are. From the Christian point of view, that's absurd.

My point is this: Islam recognizes that there is one infinite, perfect, all-good God who created the universe and Who transcends it; they hold that the created universe will end and return to the Creator God; they hold that we can have an afterlife with God; they furthermore add that this is the God prayed to by Abraham and Melchisedech, Moses and Aaron, Zachary and John the Baptist, and Jesus.

This is not a coincidence. This is a pretty big core of meaning that Islam shares with Jews and Christians. Muslims don't recognize the divinity or thus the priesthood of Christ (by which Christ stands historically as the fulfillment of the other Jewish preists and by which he makes the sacrifice that saves us). But, hey, the Jews don't see this either, and if we don't worship the God of the Jews, we're in trouble.

"Intellectual Morons",

Why are we debating all this crap? Why don't we just come and say it. Jews and Muslims, although guided by fundamentals of the Old Testament, do not accept Christ the risen savior, and are therefore going to Hell. Plain and simple. I do not make any apologies for this belief. We all know the similarties between Islam and Judaism...blah blah blah! How about this for a similarity, they are both lost!

As far as Bush goes. I'm tired of him selling out to this multi-cultural bull crap. Our leaders have become so inclusive, that it's not possible to understand what they believe in anymore. You can't espouse Christian beliefs while at the same time citing the Koran as an important foundational document for America's history. That's like driving on one side of the road for 200 or some odd years, and then saying, well it's ok to drive on both sides of road, because we all used to do it this way, but not really.

Who are you George W. Bush? Stop trying to make everyone like you! There's plenty who hate you...and they're going to continue to hate you no matter what you say! Use these next four years and do the work that we all want you do. Cut more taxes, appoint conservative judges who will end abortion, get rid of the crazies in the Mid-East, and build up our military so I don't have to worry about Shalaam-Alkar-Hazeem-Arab-Mohammad blowing me the F up!

I would argue that we do not worship the same God as non-believing Jews. The Scripture points to Christ, Jesus said. Today's Jews do not see that. All the faithful saints of the Old Testament that you mention and that are mentioned in Hebrews 11 - and many, many more - did see that, even if they didn't know Him by name. The unfaithful saints of the old testament did not. They, in effect, worshipped the Law instead of the One the Law pointed to. The believers, by contrast, had faith in the One to Whom the Scriptures pointed.

We have much in common with unbelieving Jews - even the same Torah. But we do not believe in the same god. This is not absurd; it is a scripturally-defined fact.

To repeat, then: I'm not denying the similarities that do in fact exist between Jews and Muslims and Christians - whether by pedigree or held doctrine. But what I am saying that there are a million miles of difference between acknowledging those similarities and saying that we worship the same god. Those similarities may even be used by God and Christians for evangelism to help persuade them to follow the One True God. But until they do that, they simply are not believers in the same God that we Christians know and believe.

Your points are well-intentioned and good hearted, Short. You simply go too far.

Eric: You are talking as if one can't worship the Father without knowing about the Son. *But not recognizing the triune nature of the one true God doesn't preclude recognizing the one true God.* I think that Saul and Paul worship the same God -- but after his vision he just learns something new about the same God. (Saul worships the one God under the person of the Father, without recognizing the trinity or the divinity of Jesus Christ.) I don't think Christianity makes any sense unless we say this, because then we wouldn't be able to claim consistent lineage with pre-Christ Jews.

Why can't we say that non-Christian Jews worship God under the person of the Father, but don't recognize the trinity and JC? And if we say this about them, we can also say it about Muslims (even though the latter make some serious errors)?

(By the way Christopher: I don't think it is necessary that Jews and Muslims are "going to hell." Judge not, lest you be judged.)

"I don't think Christianity makes any sense unless we say this, because then we wouldn't be able to claim consistent lineage with pre-Christ Jews."

Ah, Short, but there is the rub. You are letting faulty reasoning trump Scripture. Here is why what I am making sense, and I repeat myself:

The Scripture points to Christ, Jesus said. Today's Jews do not see that. All the faithful saints of the Old Testament that you mention and that are mentioned in Hebrews 11 - and many, many more - did see that, even if they didn't know Him by name. The unfaithful saints of the old testament did not. They, in effect, worshipped the Law instead of the One the Law pointed to. The believers, by contrast, had faith in the One to Whom the Scriptures pointed.

We DO have consistent lineage with pre-Christ Jews, for the reasons just stated.

Short,

John 3:16...it's not complicated. I am not judging anyone, I am interpreting the Bible for what I believe it means. It does not say,

"For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall have everlasting life...except for the Jews and Muslims...who can reject Jesus and still 'get in'...because after all, they are good people, and adhere to a lot of the good stuff that we Christians believe in as well...except they think that Christ was an imposter...but we'll let them in anyway."

Call a spade a spade. Those that reject Jesus Christ are damned. It's plain and simple. God has given us special revelation for a reason. The Old Testament's covenants have been replaced with the covenants that Jesus established at Calvary. The Jews and Muslims may be good people and live by good principles, but are still lost. Works alone do not merit Salvation.

Is the God of Muhammad the Father of Jesus?

Over and out.

Good discussion, though, Short. Thank you. :o)

Eric: You say, correctly, that the pre-Christ faithful Jews (e.g. Abraham) worshiped the one God, (implicitly, including Jesus as the second person of the trinity) even though they didn't know Jesus by name. If we grant that, then we can just as easily say the same about any other person who worships the God of Abraham, but may not recognize the name of Jesus as the second person of the trinity. And I fail to see how I am letting anything 'trump scripture', since you haven't quoted any. Hebrews 11 doesn't support what your saying.

Look, there are lots of Christian heresies -- we shouldn't insist that every heretic is worshiping a different God, they just worship the one God falsely.

I just think its difficult for some Christians to recognize Islam as an early heretical off-shoot of the true religion because they like hating Islam, and they would have to think about themselves in a new light because they'd be somehow related to what they hate. This is just pride, unbecoming of Christians. And it's a failure to love our enemies.

Chris: The Scriptue you quote doesn't say that all who don't believe in Him go to hell (All nonB are H); rather, it says that those who believe in Him don't go to hell (All B are nonH). This is just a logical error.

Short,

I disagree with your interpretation of the scripture. Special revelation in not inclusive, it's exclusive. The Bible does not give several alternatives on how to get to heaven. John 3:16 spells out the one and only way to attain salvation. I don't know how you can interpret that to mean that it is one of the ways one can attain salvation. If so, give me scripture to back it up. I myself, have none.

If you make this argument, then you open a can of worms for everything that is said in the Bible. Just because this is said, doesn't mean that this is not possible or possible? Come on...you can say that for so many things on every different subject. The possibilities are endless. I think your argument is not illogical, but rather, weak.

Once again, Christopher, you're simply reading something into that passage that isn't there. I am not an indifferentist; everyone who gets to heaven does so through the salvific action of Christ. But this does not say that everyone who is saved must know while they are alive how it works.

Reread the passage. It's just logic.

Short,

I understand the logical steps you are trying to explain, I took a course on general logic a few years ago.

But if this passage says that "whosoever believeth in him should not perish", then wouldn't it be logical to say that those who do not believe him would perish?

I understand I am interpreting that into the passage, but I don't see any other conclusion one can come to if there is not more special revelation saying otherwise. Such as, One can believe that Jesus came to save, as well as believe this (insert other fact or theory), and also attain salvation.

If not, then debating whether the passage actually means that those who do not believe WILL perish, is pretty much irrelevant, because it's logical to assume that if there is only way, then all those who do not accept the one way, will naturally perish (understand my thought process?). It's not absolutely neccessary to be that technical in this case, especially when one is not confronted with further proof or evidence.

Chris, once again, where A is "believing in him" and B is "perishing": the text says that 'All A is non-B,' while you are interpreting it as IMPLYING that 'All non-A is B.' Now, is that implied? Logically, no. Vaguely, sure.

But I do want to leave space for people who through no fault of their own haven't accepted Christ: say pre-Christian Athenians, etc. This was the purpose of limbo, traditionally, but that isn't Biblically based. Or we could put them in purgatory (which does have some Biblical basis, I think) with the rest of us for a while. But I'm not willing to say for sure that all such people are in hell. You are.

Jesus gives the keys to Heaven to Simon Peter, the first pope, and the papal tradition doesn't say that all those people are definitely frying.

Short,

I do agree that Pre-Christian believers, such as the Jews, who adhered to the God of Abraham, will indeed, be in Heaven. This is because they were under a different covenant than those who came during and after Christ. Obviously you understand that once Christ fulfilled the prophecy (rose from the dead), he replaced all existing covenants the Jews had, with his sacrificial atonement of sins.

That being said, I UNDERSTAND your logical argument, but that does not mean I agree that logic has any relevance here with my interpretation of scripture. There is still only one way for humans to attain salvation after Christ died. Any logical assertions are simply irrelevant.

As far as Limbo and Purgatory, I see no biblical evidence of this (unless you are of the catholic tradition, in which I am not familiar of all the official beliefs). Personally, as a Protestant, I do not believe in spiritual places, other than Heaven and Hell. I also do not adhere to the Papal tradition (unless it is consistent with what the Bible says), and therefore, I cannot argue along that line. I try and base my beliefs soley on what the Bible says, so almost all decrees by bodies of men (however "holy" they claim to be) are nearly worthless in my eyes.

1) Logic is always relevent.
2) Scripture (St. Paul, Rom 1:19-20) says that some knowledge of God is evident even to those who haven't heard the Word. It also says (Deut 30) that living according to the law and to God's call is necessary for salvation, but that the law and God's call is written on the human heart. So it seems that according to Scripture, even people who have not heard Christ's name have some "knowledge" of Him and of the way of salvation through Him. Do such people *necessarily* go to hell? Well, if you say so, you seem to be going beyond scripture.
3) Everything the Church teaches is "consistent" with scripture.
4) In fact, you have a canon (i.e. Scripture) only because the Church organized it as such. The fact is, the "scripture only" line is unsustainable, because what counts as scripture relies on what the early Church crystallized into the canon. Thus, in order to believe that you have the right "bible", you must also affirm the teaching authority of the Church.

Short,

1) Are the miracles of God logical? I hardly think so. So logic is not "always" relevent.
2) The scripture you quote from the old testament, although accurate, misrepresents my argument. The context of this passage is generally God speaking toward the Israelites, who are under the old covenant. I do interpret that also to mean that God places a desire in man to have a relationship with Him ("law is written on man's heart"), but I also think this is because of general revelation; meaning, the ability of man to look around him, and see God's creation, and know that a higher being created it and him. This therefore, causes man to want to know his creator. Further, general revelation is also the a tool that God used to reach those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. It also says in the Bible that all will have a chance to come to the knowledge of Christ (lacking scripture however, sorry). Again, this being said, THE ONLY WAY TO ATTAIN SALVATION IS THROUGH CHRIST. This is not going beyond scripture.
3)Everything the church teaches is not neccessarily consistent with scripture. Catholics claim that Mary ascended into Heaven and was perfect, and without sin (not in scripture). This directly contradicts the verse "For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God". Catholics also hold to the ideas of Purgatory, which again, are not found in scripture (and don't say Revelation, because that's a weak argument). I can give you a few other examples, but i'll save my breath.
4)Yes the reason we have a Bible is because men organized it as such. However, I do believe that along the way, some books and even verses were not inspired by God and therefore, left out or taken out (i.e. the dozen or so books taken out after the Protestant reformation). So, again, you are wrong. I do not recognize the teaching authority of the Catholic church, because I believe the were and are in error of a great many things (in the past and today). I do hold more stock in the teachings of Protestants, but I still do not believe everything espoused by the church, because the "church" is not infallible (nor is any man).

Chris:
1) Your garbling of Deuteronomy is just funny. You just don't want to think it out.

2) Miricles are not "illogical." It is not a contradiction for Peter to walk on water, or Lazarus to be raised from the dead. If you reject logic, you might as well lobotomize yourself.

3) You gave examples of things that are not biblically based *enough* for you, but this is not the same as presenting teachings that *contradict* the scriptures. For example, purgatory doesn't contradict anything in the bible, in fact it has some biblical basis in 1 Cor. 3:15 and 2 Macc 12:46, for example. And it makes no sense to pray for the dead, unless they are elsewhere than heaven or hell.

4) The bible, OT and NT, Scripture is infallibly true, but it came from somewhere, historically. You are pretending that it was dropped out of heaven, or dug up somewhere (say, like the book of Mormon).

Most fundamentally, you cannot trust that all the Scripture you have is inspired unless you trust that the historical organization of Scripture by the early Church was inspired.

Now as far as throwing out part of the Bible, as happened with Luther: Jefferson also made his own bible by cutting out any parts that were supernatural. What's to keep you from doing the same? Answer: Only your faith that the organization of Scripture was done right in the first place. Perhaps Luther didn't throw out enough. Think about that possibility, and what can protect you from it? Or perhaps we didnt incude enough: the heretical gnosistic "gospels" and letters are excluded from the bible...why? Looking at the history of the NT in the first several centuries makes it clear that you need a reason to believe that what you call Scripture is really Scripture.

I look forward to a response, but I think that this is the end of theology-on-line for me.

Short,

I have thick skin, but your tone and argument style is very arrogant (resembles someone I think I know). On what authority do you speak of that makes your opinion on these matters greater than mine?

As far as my Biblical arguments, you conveniently left out that Mary's supposed ascension up to Heaven is indeed a direct contradiction to scripture (i'm not saying you said that, but merely giving an example).

As far as Thomas Jefferson goes, do you so arrogantly assume that I do not know he was Deist, that he wrote his own version of the Bible that conveniently leaves out Christ's resurrection at the end. I believe it ends, "And they closed the tomb and walked away" or something like that.

There are probably another dozen or so wackos who have done the same thing, so don't pretend i'm ignorant or that you're "enlightening" me.

I am not "pretending" the Bible was dropped out of Heaven. It was written from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. However, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thought God was talking to them "got in". As evidenced (at least in my opinion) by the twelve or so books that Luther and company took out.

As far as the Purgatory argument; how do you interpret Purgatory from "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire"(I Cor. 3:15)...very problematic indeed. And the other verse is Maccabi? Which is definitely in the Catholic version of the Bible, which, unfortunately, I do not accept as Special revelation.

In conclusion. I could probably go head-to-head day and night with you about these matters, but sadly, neither of us would probably persuade each other. I have certain beliefs and obviously you do as well. The difference is that you argue very arrogantly and seem quite ego-driven. I hope that's not how you talk to unbelievers, because I don't think you'll be a good representation for the body of Christ.

Christopher: don't get touchy. I'm sorry I sound arrogant to you. I assumed you had heard of the Jefferson thing before (it's quite famous). But in discussions of serious issues, we should be straightforward, and that often seems arrogant.

But you have haven't given any reasons for me or you or anyone else to believe that St. Augustine's Bible, Jefferson's Bible, and the Gnostic Bibles were wrong, and that Luther got it right once and for all. You were the one who said, "I do believe that along the way, some books and even verses were not inspired by God and therefore, left out or taken out." Did Luther get them all, or are there still some false one's in there? And how can we know?

In other words, we should have a reason to think that Luther and Jefferson aren't really doing the same thing in the end.