tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post597341459357158110..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Christians, Muslims, and the reference of “God”Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger586125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83934047819985654762021-02-11T13:16:02.554-08:002021-02-11T13:16:02.554-08:00Thomas Aquinas had a very low opinion of Islam. I...Thomas Aquinas had a very low opinion of Islam. It does not follow that he is right, or that, if he is, that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians, in however distorted a manner,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88159060031793836032020-12-02T10:35:49.834-08:002020-12-02T10:35:49.834-08:00As a Muslim, let me say something from a different...As a Muslim, let me say something from a different perspective:<br /><br />Do Christians worship the same god with Muslims?<br /><br />It depends on which Christians. If Jesus (peace be upon him) is considered by Christians as a Christian, yes. Jesus (pbuh) worshiped Allah. <br /><br />If by Christians we mean the contemporary Christians who believe that Jesus (pbuh) is god, then no. That is, if a Christian prays to Jesus (pbuh) any Muslim will tell you that you do not worship the true God, he only worships a human being who does not have any divinity.<br /><br />This point being beyond dispute according to Islam, I understand Ed some of your points. <br /><br />But having watched some of your debates, I am really confused about some things you said in this page: You strongly argue for divine simplicity of God, and His unity. Yet, you seem to argue for trinity, and you say that Islam is wrong about rejecting trinity. How is that?<br /><br />How if God is purely simple, can have any crucial differentiations within Himself? A person within God worshiping another person within God?<br /><br />You seem to be inconsistent in this respect. Yahyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768492611755302724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76847924266734482162019-10-08T10:57:43.424-07:002019-10-08T10:57:43.424-07:00Outstanding. You answered a nagging question I'...Outstanding. You answered a nagging question I've had for some time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03046795991226255053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60012341112328241842019-03-24T19:54:37.638-07:002019-03-24T19:54:37.638-07:00This is a bunch or writing that is superfluous. T...This is a bunch or writing that is superfluous. The allah god revealed the Quran to Muhammad...Muslims believe because Muhammad said he got the revelations from his allah god. The allah god, not Muslims, denies Jesus' divinity and death on the cross. These are lies against the Gospels written by eye witnesses to Jesus miracles and statements, one statement being, "the Father and I are one". This is enough to conclude the allah god is not the Father of Jesus...and Jesus claims the God of Abraham as his Father. Today's Jews do not believe in Jesus as God but it is not something they can point to in the Old Testament where God tells Abraham or Moses He has no sons. Just taking the denial of Jesus' divinity and death on the cross concludes for me that the allah god is not my God, the Father of Jesus. Jesus says in John 8:44 that Satan is the father of all lies. I conclude the allah god is Satan. Add to this that the allah god exhorts Muslims to fight and subjugate Christians in Sura 9-29 and that adds to my conclusion the allah god is Satan, the Antichrist.TruthWFreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166986753049499274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9056420103050466782018-08-21T14:51:40.664-07:002018-08-21T14:51:40.664-07:00Dr. Feser,
Thank you for your argument. I have j...Dr. Feser,<br /><br /> Thank you for your argument. I have just one contention. It seems that though you rightly affirm a common referent between Christians and Muslims, you too quickly conclude that the latter worships the true God. It is one thing to truly refer to God another to truly worship Him. Pope Gregory XVI (if im not mistaken) says that the Church teaches that we cannot worship God truly except in Her. Furthermore, St. Thomas says (II-II 10.3) says "Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God to know Him in any way at all, since the object of His opinion is not God." We agree that thr denial of the Trinity is not sufficient in reference to amount to this "false opinion" but surely it is sufficient in worship! Objectively, God is a trinity of persons so to deny this is a false opinion. I can refer to God with mistaken beliefs without "knowing" Him (the object of their opinion is not God) but can I truly worship God without knowing Him as He revealed Himself to be?<br /><br />On worship, Thomas argues: "Since God is truth, to invoke God is to worship Him in spirit and truth, according to John 4:23. Hence a worship that contains falsehood, is inconsistent with a salutary calling upon God." (II-II 93 --Ive forgotten the article). Now this would apply to Arian worship and even Protestant worship which surely holds many true beliefs about the true God based on Divine Revelation. <br /><br />Another way of putting it would be to consider the centuries long prohibition from the Holy Office (16th century to Pius XI mortalium animos) of Communicatio in Sacris even with Orthodox Schismatics (though exceptions were tolerated). In answer to questions of application the Holy Office even forbade praying with Protestants as late as the 1950's. The point here is that if we can jump from referring to God truly to worshipping Him truly, we can easily justify joint Christian-Muslim worship in the mosks in the muslim style. But this has been taught to be immoral which would indicate that when we move from simple reference or even affirmation of true propositions about God (He is loving, He is providential, or even He is Trinity and Jesus was incarnate and died for our sins) to worship we can no longer tolerate even small doctrinal errors about who He is amd what He wills for us as has been revealed. In that sense a false opinion does entail false worship or the worship of our own idea.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15478043268206119101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3882483941928296482018-03-18T09:25:16.201-07:002018-03-18T09:25:16.201-07:00The thing is, here, that the thief is not talking ...The thing is, here, that the thief is not talking about someone who doesn’t exist. He just has the wrong name and event. But he intends to rob the same actually existing person that the first two men were referring to. So Jeff’s story actually proves the opposite of what Jeff intends: it *is* actually the same person that all three are referring to. Hence, this is one God spoken of - different ideas thereof, but the same reverent.dancingcranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13909287683111838852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43725070128500058832018-01-09T21:43:22.171-08:002018-01-09T21:43:22.171-08:00You can understand the arguments about the eternal...You can understand the arguments about the eternality of the Quran as being similar to early arguments about the nature of Christ. In both cases orthodoxy determined the Word of God is coeternal with God. Whereas in Christianity, Christ is Word of God incarnate you could see the Quran in Muslim eyes as God enscripturated.Eahabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955298327982962296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61363140130357928662016-09-05T04:55:21.102-07:002016-09-05T04:55:21.102-07:00Matthew 11:25-30English Standard Version (ESV)
At...Matthew 11:25-30English Standard Version (ESV)<br /><br />At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”<br /><br />English Standard Version (ESV)<br />The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695648288675384791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-217161645009639022016-01-22T00:36:51.957-08:002016-01-22T00:36:51.957-08:00From a non-committed (ie. anti-theist) persective,...From a non-committed (ie. anti-theist) persective, this would only be a valid question if God (or Allah, or whatever) actually exists. It might make for interesting conversation around the fireplace, but has little use for serious philosophers.Gerard Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13760334164514762337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13711457879851444152016-01-16T11:16:46.293-08:002016-01-16T11:16:46.293-08:00THICK or too THIN?
It is crystal clear that the c...<br /><b>THICK or too THIN?</b><br /><br />It is crystal clear that the college Professor’s <i>respondents</i> (not the Professor <i>herself</i> for <i>she</i> will have to clarify <i>her own</i> intended reach) over in the “Different God Reference” <b>*do*</b> fallaciously equate *reference* and the <i>reach</i> thereof to all those other claims (Trinity, fullness of goodness, Quran’s origins, Quran period, fullness of Christ, fullness of worship which successfully goes through, Triune, fullness of love, fullness of Moral Ontology vis-à-vis Christ and Trinity, and so on). <br /><br />Given those fallacious and false identity claims of the “Different God Reference”, let’s <b>clarify:</b><br /><br />[1] *None* of this is about any other some-thing outside of or distal to “reference which <i>goes through</i>” – which is different than “Know” and different than “accompany” and different than “worship which <i>goes through</i>”, and so on. <br /><br />[2] *None* of this is about what happens *after* that actualization of that reference as <b>all things Genesis 1</b> and as <b>all things Kalam 101</b> and as <b>all things Romans 1</b> converge upon the One True God according to <i>Scripture’s terms and definitions</i>. What happens *after* said actualization of said <i>successful reference</i> is a <i>*different*</i> topic. <br /><br />[3] *None* of this is about some non-existent “reference that is the Quran”, for no such reference is claimed by the “Same God Reference” folks. Rather, this is about Scripture’s terms and criteria as to what counts as a “reference which <i>goes through</i>”. If the Quran happens to meet or happens to fail to meet said criteria has *no* impact on *other* references which *do* cohere with Scripture’s terms and criteria as we unpack the <i>Adamic’s</i> various intellectual and emotive <i>motions</i> amid <b>all things Genesis 1</b> and hence amid <b>all things Kalam 101</b> and hence amid <b>all things Romans 1</b><br /><br />[4] *None* of this (reference) is about what counts as <i>Knowing God</i> nor about what counts as <i>the fullness of genuine worship</i> nor about the <i>metaphysical fullness of moral goodness</i> nor about the instantiation of <i>All Sufficiency</i> as we discover in and by <i>Christ</i> the transposition of timeless self-sacrifice within the immutable love of the Necessary Being as All Sufficiency (literally) <i>pours</i> and by pouring (literally) <i>fills</i> mutable and contingent insufficiency to the bitter ends of (literal) time and (literal) physicality.<br /><br /><br />....... the remainder of comments for this theme (three more) are in the other linked Essay by Feser, "Islam, Christianity, and Liberalism Again" in comment #'s 17 - 21 or something like that.<br /><br />It's enough to say here that the "Different God" folks assert that Scripture gets it wrong, that Romans 1 gets it wrong, while their theses gets it right when it comes to <b>Ontologically Thick or too THIN?</b>scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6150827327168898512016-01-16T11:11:59.612-08:002016-01-16T11:11:59.612-08:00THICK or too THIN?
E. Feser, in the thread for th...<b>THICK or too THIN?</b><br /><br />E. Feser, in the thread for the <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/01/islam-christianity-and-liberalism-again.html" rel="nofollow">Islam, Christianity, and Liberalism Again</a> OP, in his comment time-stamped <i>January 16, 2016 at 10:07 AM</i>, stated the following: <br /><br /><i>“……..It is nowhere near a correct reading.”</i><br /><br />Fallaciously equating *reference* to all sorts of *other* claims and sightlines may cause both Feser and other “Same God Reference” folks to be <i>*mis*</i>interpreted. <br /><br /><b>Therefore:</b><br /><br />Theses and theories which claim the “Different God Reference” take what Scripture affirms to be <b>ontologically thick and absolute</b> and foist it as ontologically <b>thin and irrelevant</b>. <br /><br />While such was discussed in more detail in the <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/12/christians-muslims-and-reference-of-god.html" rel="nofollow">Christians, Muslims, and the Reference of God</a> thread, the “Different God Reference” folks often appeal to this notion of <b>“Too Thin”</b>. Given that Scripture defines such as <b>Ontologically Thick</b>, such deserves a few comments. <br /><br />The Bill-Lydia Thesis (borrowed term) and others go <i>beyond reference</i> and into “People of the Book” into the Quran and into what is intended to count as <i>the fullness of genuine worship which successfully goes through</i> as all such lines are <b>fallaciously equated</b> to the degree which <i>*reference* claims to reach</i>. It is unclear if the College Professor in question intended any of “that”, or if she intended, instead, something along the lines of: <br /><br />[1] E. Feser<br />[2] Romans 1<br />[3] Kalam 101<br />[4] Genesis 1<br />[5] Reference amid Referent (the only concept this comment is concerned with)<br />[6] Christ amid the Jewish reference as the Jew rejects the fullness of countless Divine Contours<br /><br />The college Professor will have to clarify and quantify her own intended reach. No further comment on her intentions – proximal, distal, or otherwise – are of any relevance to *reference* as such relates to items 1 through 6. <br /><br /><i>Continued……</i>scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84169220578484473222016-01-15T08:54:13.956-08:002016-01-15T08:54:13.956-08:00Lydia rejoins the debate:
http://whatswrongwithth...Lydia rejoins the debate:<br /><br />http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2016/01/islam_and_the_same_god_questio.html Jeffrey S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10411126704920184190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72596498732250530772016-01-14T23:01:52.930-08:002016-01-14T23:01:52.930-08:00@Mr. Groan: "I must've meant 'chasm&#...@Mr. Groan: "I must've meant 'chasm', but you know me, can't tell my R's from my... S's."<br /><br />:) Yes, do mind that elbow.<br /><br />"P.S.: I think the Golden Calf does not provide a counter-example, but Joe raises a good question, and one more worthy than most of the other 500+ attempted objections."<br /><br />Yup.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13559625404087480022016-01-13T22:01:30.515-08:002016-01-13T22:01:30.515-08:00Laubadetriste, the peppery pound-plastered porcine...Laubadetriste, the peppery pound-plastered porcine parliamentarian: <i>As for me, "charm" is a bridge too far.</i><br /><br />I must've meant "chasm", but you know me, can't tell my R's from my... S's. Next time I'd better mind my P's and Q's. But now it's getting late, I should catch some Z's.<br /><br /><br />P.S.: I think the Golden Calf does not provide a counter-example, but Joe raises a good question, and one more worthy than most of the other 500+ attempted objections.Mr. Groanhttps://openid.stackexchange.com/user/f7408861-1509-4d58-87d5-c64e651632bfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36973818108453504212016-01-13T07:28:16.956-08:002016-01-13T07:28:16.956-08:00To point at a tree, or any other mutable and conti...To point at a tree, or any other mutable and contingent form, and ascribe to it all the proper properties of <b>Pure Actually</b>, is to embark on the delusional. It is no accident that Pure Actuality requires the mind of the Adamic to land on <b>The I AM That I AM</b> and specifically remarks about the dangers of shifting towards mutable and contingent vectors and forms, not only in the Law, but also once the Law is superceded by Christ (in the definitions of Romans 1-2 etc.). <br /><br />Scripture's definitions and criteria sum to the only narrative there *is*.<br /><br />There is not more than one reality, one metanarrative.scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40778144279602129302016-01-13T04:15:01.726-08:002016-01-13T04:15:01.726-08:00Scripture's definitions and criteria are clear...Scripture's definitions and criteria are clear when it comes to carved images of created, contingent forms. Both in the OT and in the NT.<br /><br />Scripture's definitions and criteria are the only true definitions and criteria. <br /><br />Scripture's meta-narrative of God and the Adamic is the only possible narrative. <br /><br />Even if an Angel should preach a different metanarrative........<br /><br />scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78188363684276387472016-01-13T04:07:43.911-08:002016-01-13T04:07:43.911-08:00Joe:
"What would be the benefit of switching...Joe:<br /><br />"What would be the benefit of switching to a lesser god?"<br /><br />Indeed. But this question cuts both ways. If they really did understand the God of Moses to be the metaphysically ultimate being from which all else derives, then why "trade down"? Doesn't that strongly suggest that many of them did <i>not</i> so understand Him?<br /><br />Moreover, as far as I can see, the essential point remains unchanged if some individual Israelites <i>did</i> "exchange the truth of God for a lie." In that case it's still the lie they were worshiping, not the true God.<br /><br />Either way, I don't see that the passage makes a great deal of sense if the Israelites were merely worshiping the true God "through" the idol. It seems clear that they were, for whatever reason, worshiping the idol itself—whether out of ignorance, or out of deliberate rejection, of the true God.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12924537297875555192016-01-13T03:49:16.138-08:002016-01-13T03:49:16.138-08:00Scott/Joe,
Joe makes a good point and, perhaps un...Scott/Joe,<br /><br />Joe makes a good point and, perhaps unknowingly, affirms that some, vis-a-vis Romans 1-2, spy the One True God, and then reduce Him to a created thing, or don't worship at all. Whereas, to gaze into the Heavens and spy, on the other side of the created order, the One True God Who transcends all, vis-a-vis Romans 1-2, affirms that one's reference (which differs from knowing etc.) successfully goes through. The Jew who spies the Singularity Who transcends all (etc.), before any laws or rules, before Sinai has said successful reference as does the Jew who spies the Uncreated God and yet rejects Christ (has that sort of reference) as does the Muslim who rejects Christ. On that clear and singular reference the Christian today borrows both Jewish theology and Islamic theology as they both obviously succeed in going through, and, then, leaves them both behind for a fuller, more complete horizon. <br /><br />Rejecting the fulness of Goodness and the fullness of Trinity and the fullness of God in rejecting Christ fails to deconstruct Christ's affirmation of the Jew nor the many modes of revelation encompassing the Adamic's interfaces with the Divine affirmed in Romans 1-2. For obvious reasons. Caustic errors amid such proper and successful reference are perfectly compatible with said success of said reference, as discussed earlier, and as won't be rehashed in another part 1 through part 5, etc. For obvious reasons.scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36588038621171362372016-01-12T20:14:41.700-08:002016-01-12T20:14:41.700-08:00Scott:
"but they didn't know much about ...Scott:<br /><br />"but they didn't know much about Moses (let alone God)"<br /><br />The Israelites would certainly learn much more about God after the episode with the golden calf. However, through witnessing among other things the 10 plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire by night and cloud by day, the manna and the water from the rock, the Israelites were not without substantial knowledge of God.<br /><br />In Exodus 15, Moses and the Israelites sing to God, <br /><br />"<i>“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?<br />Who is like you, majestic in holiness,<br />awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?"</i><br /><br />Nevertheless if we suppose for a moment that, as you say, "their intent was directed toward something else," as they worshiped before the golden calf, it would have been strange if they conceptualized or understood that new god to be inferior to the God they experienced and sang to in the desert. What would be the benefit of switching to a lesser god?<br /><br />Accordingly, this new god would have also fit Feser's criteria of "<i>being absolutely metaphysically ultimate, being that from which all else derives, being that which does not have and in principle could not have a cause of its own, etc. -- in short, being what classical theism says God essentially is.</i>"<br /><br />God said they "worshiped <i><b>it</b></i>." <br /><br />In dong so, they rejected the closing line of their own Exodus song:<br /><br />"The LORD will reign forever and ever.” (Exodus 15:18)Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2550430609187831152016-01-12T18:49:06.908-08:002016-01-12T18:49:06.908-08:00@Mr.Green: "Pompou— er, Laubadetriste: 'W...@Mr.Green: "Pompou— er, Laubadetriste: 'Which has been pointed out already. Third time's the charm.' / Charm wasn't the first personality-trait that came to mind, but if we can't have truth and beauty…."<br /><br />:) <br /><br />Can't tell if you're referring to Thomas, or to me. If the first, I won't pretend to defend also his *charm*. Why, I feel like "Attorney for the Damned" just pointing out the reasonable doubt left after the case against his knowlegeableness. <br /><br />As for me, "charm" is a bridge too far. "Peppery in a parliamentary loyal-opposition kinda way," at best, and that's me caked with every pound of pig-lipstick on backorder from Maybelline...laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66273215901175770582016-01-12T18:07:29.363-08:002016-01-12T18:07:29.363-08:00(As for the commentaries, I'm familiar with Sp...(As for the commentaries, I'm familiar with Spurgeon and Henry and I have nothing much against either one of them personally, but in considering whether to trust them on questions about idolatry, you'll want to keep in mind that they think Catholics are idolaters too. Whether or not you agree, you'll at least understand why Catholics are unlikely to regard them as in any way authoritative on the subject.)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91779419244531688362016-01-12T18:01:07.717-08:002016-01-12T18:01:07.717-08:00Oops, "librated" = "liberated."...Oops, "librated" = "liberated."Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14320920510814544632016-01-12T18:00:38.948-08:002016-01-12T18:00:38.948-08:00Joe:
"In Exodus 32, the Israelites seem to b...Joe:<br /><br />"In Exodus 32, the Israelites seem to be recognizing God in that way."<br /><br />I think not. The passage itself says (as I see Mr. Green has noted) that the Israelites demanded that Aaron <i>make us gods</i> [or <i>a god</i>] <i>who will go before us</i> and that it was in response to this demand that Aaron made the molten calf. (One of my Catholic commentaries even suggests that he expected them to drop their demand when he asked them for their gold.)<br /><br />As I read it, Aaron tried unsuccessfully to get the recently librated Israelites to redirect their worship to the God of Whom Moses had told them, but they didn't know much about Moses (let alone God) yet and they weren't having any of it.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28332152251081328752016-01-12T17:51:13.262-08:002016-01-12T17:51:13.262-08:00"It basically boils down to: “Christians affi..."It basically boils down to: “Christians affirm X about God and Muslims deny X, therefore they aren’t worshipping the same God.”" <br /><br />This isn't the way I think of it. It's like this: God is objectively a Trinity. The Muslim God (call him "Allah") isn't a Trinity. Therefore, Allah isn't God. I see now that that's a different question than whether Muslims and Christians (and anybody else in the world) worship the same God. If the question is whether the God of Islam is the God of Christianity, the answer is "no." If the question is whether Muslims and Christians (and anyone else in the world) "worship the same God," the answer might be "yes." Weourohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069104780648357256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4963481949381484592016-01-12T17:35:42.754-08:002016-01-12T17:35:42.754-08:00Scott:
You may be right. For better or worse, Spu...Scott:<br /><br />You may be right. For better or worse, Spurgeon reads it as though they were all worshiping the Lord by means of, or "under the form of a bull.":<br /><br /><i>Exodus 32:4. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a gravinq tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.<br /><br />No doubt they copied the Egyptian God, which was in the form of a bull, which the Holy Spirit, by the pen of Moses, here calls a calf. The psalmist probably also alludes to it when he speaks of “an ox or a bullock that hath horns and hoofs.” It seems strange that these people should have thought of worshiping the living God under such a symbol as that.<br /><br />Exodus 32:5. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.<br /><br />“To Jehovah.” They intended to worship Jehovah under the form of a bull — the image of strength. Other idolaters go further, and worship Baal and various false gods, but, between the worship of a golden calf and the worship of false gods, there is very little choice; and, between the idolatry of the heathen and Popery, there is about as much difference as there is between six and half a dozen.</i><br /><br />http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/spe/view.cgi?bk=1&ch=32<br /><br />Mathew Henry also seems to read it in a similar way:<br /><br /><i>Having made the calf in Horeb, they worshiped the graven image, Ps. 106:19 . Aaron, seeing the people fond of their calf, was willing yet further to humour them, and he built an altar before it, and proclaimed a feast to the honour of it (v. 5), a feast of dedication. Yet he calls it a feast to Jehovah; for, brutish as they were, they did not imagine that this image was itself a god, nor did they design to terminate their adoration in the image, but they made it for a representation of the true God, whom they intended to worship in and through this image; and yet this did not excuse them from gross idolatry, any more than it will excuse the papists, whose plea it is that they do not worship the image, but God by the image, so making themselves just such idolaters as the worshipers of the golden calf, whose feast was a feast to Jehovah, and proclaimed to be so, that the most ignorant and unthinking might not mistake it. The people are forward enough to celebrate this feast (v. 6): They rose up early on the morrow, to show how well pleased they were with the solemnity, and, according to the ancient rites of worship, they offered sacrifice to this new-made deity, and then feasted upon the sacrifice; thus having, at the expense of their ear-rings, made their god, they endeavour, at the expense of their beasts, to make this god propitious. Had they offered these sacrifices immediately to Jehovah, without the intervention of an image, they might (for aught I know) have been accepted ch. 20:24 ); but having set up an image before them as a symbol of God’s presence, and so changed the truth of God into a lie, these sacrifices were an abomination, nothing could be more so.</i><br /><br />http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/exodus/32.html<br /><br />Feser's point in this blog seems to hinge largely on this statement:<br /><br /><i>"Now, being absolutely metaphysically ultimate, being that from which all else derives, being that which does not have and in principle could not have a cause of its own, etc. -- in short, being what classical theism says God essentially is -- is, I would say, what is key to determining whether someone’s use of “God” plausibly refers to the true God."</i><br /><br />In Exodus 32, the Israelites seem to be recognizing God in that way. By Feser's standard, they are worshiping God. But God Himself says they are worshiping something else. <br /><br />Muslims are also worshiping something else.Joenoreply@blogger.com