How Should Christians Approach Islam and Muslims?

[tomarin]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I would not say that any worship of something called God is God - though usually that is true, and it has been generally treated that way. Mormonism as Contarini pointed out is a good example of a group that worships God, but not in any Christian sense. More that having identified a number of characteristics that are essential to God and totally unique to him, we can say they have identified God even if their understanding is imperfect or they have added tainted characteristics.

Good posts, Bluegoat. Calmly and rationally argued, as always. Keep 'em coming.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Not everything that Islam says about God is untrue, whatever quotes Mickey posts. There are a number of important, unique, characteristics of God that are affirmed by Islam.

This is not even what we're talking about. I've written before that Islam does affirm some true things about God. That's not a problem. From my point of view, the problem is that Islam does not worship the true God, so even when it does get things right, it's with the wrong referent in mind. Sure, GOD is greatest ("Allahu Akbar"), but Islam's Allah isn't God, so...if anything, this is a good starting point (what is true about God) to use to try and focus the Muslim on the true God, and away from the Qur'anic recension of God.

How do you understand it then?

Paul went to Athens and reasoned and preached among the various communities, arguing from their their understandings (which may have included some truth in them) for the worship of the true God whom he was preaching. This is exactly what we should do with Islam.

You didn't say it, but that is the impression I got.

I'm sorry that I've somehow given you that impression. That was not at all my intention.

yes, I would say that patristic sources are pretty consistent in their treatment of non-Christian conceptions of God. I've bolded that because it is the important point. Mostly they have been quite severe with those who have rejected Christianity. But in their discussions they have always assumed that the monotheistic god recognized by those people is the same as the Christian God, and discussed it in those terms.

This is why I've made the point to differentiate between Christian apologetics against Islam and earlier, pre-Islamic apologetics dealing with other religions, and made the point to mention that the view that Islam is a Christian heresy and not a separate religion seems to have predominated the earliest Christian writing on it (which was mostly apocalyptic, viewing the Muslims' advances as punishment from God for the Christians' sins or lack of fidelity to their religion). None of this means that there aren't apologetics that more directly refute Islam's claims about God in a way that to me indicates that Islam worships a different God. This is where our interpretations differ: Your and others' readings of these apologetic works do not go that far, so you can read St. John Damascene and others as saying all kinds of horrible and true things about Islam's recension of God and still say that Islam worships the true God, somehow. I can't do that, because I do really agree with the Coptic priest I quoted earlier, that at some point, worship of a false idea of God amounts to worship of a false God. People will disagree with where that point is (as we are doing), but I think we all agree that this is true. Many, many conversations with people here on CAF (including ones that you have participated in) show me that most people do ultimately have a sense that certain things cannot be God, even if people think they are (I think I used the example of a roll of tape or a ham sandwich once). Most people just don't seem to apply that principle to Islam, because they think it gets enough things right. I do not. That's all.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

This is not even what we're talking about. I've written before that Islam does affirm some true things about God. That's not a problem. From my point of view, the problem is that Islam does not worship the true God, so even when it does get things right, it's with the wrong referent in mind. Sure, GOD is greatest ("Allahu Akbar"), but Islam's Allah isn't God, so...if anything, this is a good starting point (what is true about God) to use to try and focus the Muslim on the true God, and away from the Qur'anic recension of God.



Paul went to Athens and reasoned and preached among the various communities, arguing from their their understandings (which may have included some truth in them) for the worship of the true God whom he was preaching. This is exactly what we should do with Islam.



I'm sorry that I've somehow given you that impression. That was not at all my intention.



This is why I've made the point to differentiate between Christian apologetics against Islam and earlier, pre-Islamic apologetics dealing with other religions, and made the point to mention that the view that Islam is a Christian heresy and not a separate religion seems to have predominated the earliest Christian writing on it (which was mostly apocalyptic, viewing the Muslims' advances as punishment from God for the Christians' sins or lack of fidelity to their religion). None of this means that there aren't apologetics that more directly refute Islam's claims about God in a way that to me indicates that Islam worships a different God. This is where our interpretations differ: Your and others' readings of these apologetic works do not go that far, so you can read St. John Damascene and others as saying all kinds of horrible and true things about Islam's recension of God and still say that Islam worships the true God, somehow. I can't do that, because I do really agree with the Coptic priest I quoted earlier, that at some point, worship of a false idea of God amounts to worship of a false God. People will disagree with where that point is (as we are doing), but I think we all agree that this is true. Many, many conversations with people here on CAF (including ones that you have participated in) show me that most people do ultimately have a sense that certain things cannot be God, even if people think they are (I think I used the example of a roll of tape or a ham sandwich once). Most people just don't seem to apply that principle to Islam, because they think it gets enough things right. I do not. That's all.

yes, i would say that is a summary of the disagreement. I would read the writings about Islam as occuring within the framework of the writings against other pagans, and I would say that they continue to use the same language as those writers.

What isn`t clear to me is why you feel that isn`t the case, and what you think the line is - even the fuzzy line - on what has to be got right.

[tomarin]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

This is not even what we're talking about. I've written before that Islam does affirm some true things about God. That's not a problem. From my point of view, the problem is that Islam does not worship the true God, so even when it does get things right, it's with the wrong referent in mind. Sure, GOD is greatest ("Allahu Akbar"), but Islam's Allah isn't God, so...if anything, this is a good starting point (what is true about God) to use to try and focus the Muslim on the true God, and away from the Qur'anic recension of God.

I like your point about Islam's recension of God. I think that really gets to the heart of the matter.

Added: I don't think Islam is creative enough to come up with a brand new god. That's why I like the concept of recension, or rewriting.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I also do not have a pre-disposition to the catholic view here. I studied patristics as a student, not a Catholic, or necessarily even as a Christian, since i wasn't one when I started. My view on this was formed by my study of ancient philosophy and patristic philosophy. The Fathers always engaged pagan philosophy, and they could not have done so if they thought it was completely other as you are suggesting. If that is what they had thought, their response would have been to burn it all, because the Church could gain nothing from it.

Where did I write that if something is "completely other" they/we can't engage it? Islam is worshiping something other than the true God, but certainly must engage Muslims anyway. As to "gaining anything" from Islam...I agree with Manuel II Palaeologus on the new things that Islam has brought...we absolutely don't need them. Christianity is perfect, because Christ gave us perfect teachings, because Christ is perfect, as the Word of God is perfect truth. No Muhammad need apply. He's a challenger of the truth, a destroyer, a marauder...not a teacher.

But why? And how does the principle work? I have given patristic arguments, and a rational explanation (having identified essential and unique characteristics of God, they have identified God).. I have made a fairly clear delineation of where the line is (unique, unified, source of all being, uncreated, and probably immaterial = God), and have even given a reason for considering using such an argument apart from just intellectual curiosity (rejecting fundamentalist errors.) I haven't really seen any coherent explanation of your position. Some questionable (to my mind) patristic points, no theological argument, and no explanation of how the principle works for various groups or what the essentials are that need to be affirmed to count as recognizing God.

ну, хотите как хотите...

I think the ultimate difference in our stances is that you have apparently identified God as a collection of attributes, so when other people's religions say that their God has those attributes, then they're in some way talking about God. I do not see things this way. Indeed, we can and should speak about God's attributes, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to view God as a sort of checklist, wherein if someone can say all the right things about God, then their object of worship somehow becomes God. It is not all the right things that Islam claims about God that I would object to anyway, but all the wrong things. For instance, their God does not beget ("lam yalid"). What are we to make of that, when we know that the true God begets, as He has begotten Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten?

Basically, I believe in the inclusiveness property outlined in various Orthodox (and Catholic) writings that affirm that those outside of Christianity may be saved, but I do accommodate any other understanding of God, no matter how many essential truths about God any Christ-denying religion may contain.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

yes, i would say that is a summary of the disagreement. I would read the writings about Islam as occuring within the framework of the writings against other pagans, and I would say that they continue to use the same language as those writers.

What isn`t clear to me is why you feel that isn`t the case, and what you think the line is - even the fuzzy line - on what has to be got right.

Something tells me that you're not going to like my line, but since I apparently haven't been clear enough for you, here it is: You either worship Christ as God or you do not worship God. The Trinity is NOT optional for anyone (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc.), as the Trinity is God, with the necessary worship due to God included in our identification of it as God. There are all kinds of verses in the Bible about God forgiving the errors of past generations, but with the incarnation of Christ, the Word of God, that time is over. Now we worship the One God in spirit and in truth. Anything else is...well...something else! Maybe not entirely wrong in every aspect, but entirely wrong in not worshiping the One God -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are not only one; they're THE ONE. Eternally and absolutely unified, holy, uncreated, and all those other things that monotheists have correctly identified as being true of God.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by tomarin

I like your point about Islam's recension of God. I think that really gets to the heart of the matter.

Added: I don't think Islam is creative enough to come up with a brand new god. That's why I like the concept of recension, or rewriting.

Creativity is not the issue, nor is creation of a brand new God. I have no problem entertaining (at least purely intellectually, because I don't actually believe it myself) that Islam may have started out with some idea of the true God (as Muhammad was taught by the heretic Sargus Bahira), but what it ended up with, what we read in the Qur'an...that is not God. It's just not.

[GaryTaylor]

Ok, lets agree that to a large degree we have a preconceived notion in the West as to the defination of Islam. Its very easy to see that how Islam becomes defined isn't in fact in agreement to Mohammads state of mind and actual life. Why?

Look at the letter written by Mohammad above. Now lets go a step further with Mohammad. Since we cannot separate Islam from Mohammad. And this isn't to say that specific groups within Islam have not taken his thinking and further developed it into something it isn't, nor was intended to be. No doubt this happened.

Mohammads rejection by the Jews was probly his greatest disappointment, and this called his entire religious thinking into question. Yet many of the Jews were friendly to Mohammad and seemed to have joined the muslims in some honorary capacity. They discussed Bible with him and showed him how to rebuff critisms of other Jews. And this knowledge helped Mohammad further develope his own concepts. Mohammad could see that Abraham had lived before either Mose's and Jesus. He also here learned the differnence of Christian and Jewish Theology. And also that there were serious disageements with each other. Mohammad would have also learened the story of Ishmael. Later Abraham had visited Ishmael and together built the Kabah. Ishmael had become the "father" of the Arabs. So to like the Jews they would be sons of Abraham. Obviously to a great interest and joy.

Of course Jews contested this claiming if Mohammad was a Profit why can't he even find his camel? And so forth and so on.

Anyway muslims declared they belonged to no established religion but surrendered to God alone. And were thus returning to the primal religion of Abraham. In other words the first muslim to surrender to God in the muslim think is Abraham.

Mohammed was engaged in a desperate struggle for survival from his opponents in Median, all who were ready to exterminate the ummah. Anyway getting back to the "West" Mohammad is presented as a Warlord who imposed Islam on a reluctant world by a force of arms. In fact he was fighting for his life. He never forced anyone to convert to his religion. As you can see by his personal letter above to Christians. The quran is clear there is no compulsion in religion. In the quran war is held to be abhorrent. And they only just war is one of self-defense. And at times it may well be needed to fight to obtain just values as you see in Egypt. Christains believed the same when Hitler comes to mind.

Has the thinking of Islam changed? Or is the only issue how we perceive its "mind-set"? Does Islam still hold true to the values in fact taught and held by Mohammad or in fact has this been so corrupted is need no be re-defined? We know where Islam came from and how it came to be. Where is it at today? Not all easy questions are they? Is Abraham in fact the first Arab muslim?

This I believe is a better objective view of what we in fact are dealing with. Islam can't be defined by a broad brush stroke and deemed satanic. Could it be satanic? Time will tell. It also may in fact be related to Abraham? I don't think so but a case can be made for sure. Open mind and objectivity has to be the path of understanding. From there we may find the truth.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

These quotes do absolutely nothing to help your position. They really are not even addressing the question.

How do you figure? The martyrs who are about to be killed are calling the religion false (amongst many other adjectives). A false religion has a false god.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Where did I write that if something is "completely other" they/we can't engage it? Islam is worshiping something other than the true God, but certainly must engage Muslims anyway. As to "gaining anything" from Islam...I agree with Manuel II Palaeologus on the new things that Islam has brought...we absolutely don't need them. Christianity is perfect, because Christ gave us perfect teachings, because Christ is perfect, as the Word of God is perfect truth. No Muhammad need apply. He's a challenger of the truth, a destroyer, a marauder...not a teacher.

Yes, I meant engage their intellectual arguments. I am confused I think because it seems like you think their understanding of God, though rational, is resulting in them worshiping something other than the object of their rational comprehension. Even if reason tells them that God is a certain kind of thing or person, and they try to direct their worship to what they perceive, they are still really directing it to something else - not even in part, but wholly.

I don't know how we can engage with people intellectually in such a circumstance.

Re gaining something: ok. So you would reject someone like Thomas using Islamic commentaries on Aristotle? Or in an earlier example, would you avoid reading The Divine Names, or the works of the Cappadocian Fathers, because they rely on post-Christian pagan philosophy? Would you say those theologians gained nothing from those sources which have an incomplete and imperfect understanding? After all, if the objects of Islamic or Greek philosophy are totally not-god, what could we learn from them?

I think the ultimate difference in our stances is that you have apparently identified God as a collection of attributes, so when other people's religions say that their God has those attributes, then they're in some way talking about God. I do not see things this way. Indeed, we can and should speak about God's attributes, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to view God as a sort of checklist, wherein if someone can say all the right things about God, then their object of worship somehow becomes God. It is not all the right things that Islam claims about God that I would object to anyway, but all the wrong things. For instance, their God does not beget ("lam yalid"). What are we to make of that, when we know that the true God begets, as He has begotten Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten?

I would not say that God is a collection of attributes - I might say it was actually heretical, or certainly on the wrong track, to say that.

I would say that we recognize God through some of his attributes, or that that is how we experience him. That is how we can differentiate God from not-god, but it is also a way of thinking that belongs properly to our mode of being (which does come from God) and not God's mode of being (or not-being, really.)

But it is through knowing or experiencing these aspects of God that we can identify him in an intellectual sense. And many of them are unique to God - if we know or experience them, we have known or experienced "part" of God.

If someone directs their worship to these things, how does it go "astray" if they also have incorrect ideas about God, or incomplete ones? Does God reject their worship? - obviously he must perceive it.

Basically, I believe in the inclusiveness property outlined in various Orthodox (and Catholic) writings that affirm that those outside of Christianity may be saved, but I do accommodate any other understanding of God, no matter how many essential truths about God any Christ-denying religion may contain.

I am guessing you mean you do not accommodate them?

I am not understanding what you mean here - I don't see what it is you think you are being asked to do. How are you being asked to accommodate anything? The question is do they have some perception of the "real" God, and are they really able to direct their worship to him? (And what do we need to do to direct our worship to God anyway? Most people pray, including I suspect Muslims, simply in hope that he hears.)

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

This is not even what we're talking about. I've written before that Islam does affirm some true things about God. That's not a problem. From my point of view, the problem is that Islam does not worship the true God, so even when it does get things right, it's with the wrong referent in mind. Sure, GOD is greatest ("Allahu Akbar"), but Islam's Allah isn't God, so...if anything, this is a good starting point (what is true about God) to use to try and focus the Muslim on the true God, and away from the Qur'anic recension of God.

Great post!

[Mickey]

The martyr, St Gedeon (+1818) believed that Islam was falsehood.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Something tells me that you're not going to like my line, but since I apparently haven't been clear enough for you, here it is: You either worship Christ as God or you do not worship God. The Trinity is NOT optional for anyone (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc.), as the Trinity is God, with the necessary worship due to God included in our identification of it as God. There are all kinds of verses in the Bible about God forgiving the errors of past generations, but with the incarnation of Christ, the Word of God, that time is over. Now we worship the One God in spirit and in truth. Anything else is...well...something else! Maybe not entirely wrong in every aspect, but entirely wrong in not worshiping the One God -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are not only one; they're THE ONE. Eternally and absolutely unified, holy, uncreated, and all those other things that monotheists have correctly identified as being true of God.

I see a lot of difficulties with this. Perhaps I can understand your view better if you can answer some questions.

1) It seems a strange way to use language. We usually don't say that a person who partially recognizes something doesn't recognize it at all. If someone correctly identifies some unique characteristics of something, and then adds some false ones, it would be unusual to say they were talking about something else entirely. Why use language differently in this case?

2) None of us knows God in his essence. God is infinite and we are finite - Muslim or Christian or whatever. If you subtract a finite value from an infinite one the remainder is an infinite value. Compared to what God is, the Muslim and Christian understanding are both an infinite world away from the Truth.

3) And to follow on to this, given that we cannot know god in his essence, how can any of us know him well enough to offer our worship to him? This seems to me to be a classical pagan position (and in fact very similar to what I understand Islamic philosophers have argued.)

4)Why would God excuse those who didn't know all of his characteristics before he revealed them in Scripture, but not those who do not understand them now?

5) It seems to make it all about us. That is, it is about how well we understand God. God cannot or will not accept our worship unless we can bring ourselves close enough, intellectually speaking. But surly God knows if we are attempting to worship him at all, no matter how imperfect our understanding of him is? Surely if even the most ill-educated animist, if he perceives even a glimmer of what God is and directs himself to that even in the form of a flower or thunderstorm, God will know it? And will he not accept it, being a God who would condescend to become part of his own creation and go to the land of the dead to be with us?

6) What about those who cannot recognize those characteristics of God - children for example (I am sure my three year old has no real concept of the Trinity or the Incarnation, but she does pray.) Are they really unaware of God?

7) If one cannot recognize God without the Trinity, are we to say the Jews God was not real? It doesn't seem reasonable to say that about Moses, or David, or even Mary?

So to sum up:

Why use language in this way?
Why make God accepting our worship dependent upon the perfection or level of our understanding

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

it seems like you think their understanding of God, though rational

Can we get rid of "rational" as the criterion by which we determine if someone is worshiping the true God? Rationality is great and necessary on some level, but surely every heresy started with some rational musing against what seemed/seems irrational. Nestorius thought it was irrational that a human being should give birth to God, and out of his entirely rational objection a great faith-destroying heresy was born. Arius thought that the Holy Trinity was irrational, and by his objections and artful sophistry he separated himself from the true faith and took vast swaths of the world with him. Both of these men were entirely rational -- and absolutely wrong.

is resulting in them worshiping something other than the object of their rational comprehension.

Indeed, because rationality does not guarantee correct worship. In fact, it can very easily lead away from worship of the true God. See above.

Even if reason tells them that God...

Regarding this clause (even if reason tells them...) -- yes, and? No one has ever gone so wrong in following their reason as when they challenged God (the true God) to conform to their own little world and their definitions of what God can/should/can't/shouldn't do. When God first comes to Moses to tell him of his role in the leadership of the people, Moses gives God a perfectly reasonable excuse: God, I am not eloquent. I'm certainly not the best person for this job. God is having none of it, of course, and so uses Moses, with all his imperfections, to be a great leader of His people. If God had cared for Moses' very rational excuse, then perhaps it could have set a precedent by which man's rationality can dictate to God what is right and what is true. But that's just not what we believe in Christianity. God calls the shots, and most often what he calls us to do is exactly that thing that we can't do (by ourselves and our reason). We don't say "This is God (or from God); my reason has guided me so." We believe in what reason tells us not to, because Satan deceives us by our eyes and our logic, but our faith is above all that because our GOD (the true GOD) is above all that. Reason (in the person who is living in God's will) can lead us well, or it can (in the person who is living as a slave to something other than God) lead us to ruin. It cannot in either case be the defining factor of our FAITH.

I don't know how we can engage with people intellectually in such a circumstance.

Not very "reasonable", is it? And yet here we are...

Re gaining something...

I would look at it in a different way. None of these non-Christian sources can add anything to my faith, because the Christian faith is not lacking in anything. We don't need them, strictly speaking. But we can use others' understandings and the writings generated by them as a springboard to bring people to the truth, and in as far as they may facilitate that they are not absolutely useless. I think I wrote basically the same thing already with regard to Islam in the first paragraph of post #77.

If someone directs their worship to these things, how does it go "astray" if they also have incorrect ideas about God, or incomplete ones? Does God reject their worship? - obviously he must perceive it.

Since I am not God, I really can't comment on this. God may accept their worship, as He knows what they are trying to do/think that they are doing, but that is entirely up to God and I can't say that it does happen or doesn't. I really just don't know. What I do know, however, is that we, the Christian people, are held to a higher standard, because there is NO doubt that we know the true God. We embraced Him openly just as surely as others we are discussing rejected Him openly. So we cannot now let go of Him in front of others, and say that it is somehow okay that they continue in their worship while in rejection of Him. The time is coming, and now is, when we must worship God in spirit and in truth. Only Christianity certainly has the spirit, and only Christianity has the THE TRUTH.

I am guessing you mean you do not accommodate them?

Yes, pardon me. Left out a very important word there! I do not accommodate them. Do NOT.

The question is do they have some perception of the "real" God, and are they really able to direct their worship to him? (And what do we need to do to direct our worship to God anyway? Most people pray, including I suspect Muslims, simply in hope that he hears.)

I'm not understanding the point of your question. "Do they have some perception of the real God"? Well, since they are not worshiping the true God, I don't know what their perception has to do with anything. Is it our perception that determines who or what the true God is? The Muslims perceive that God does not beget, so God does not beget? The Jews perceive that Christ is not God, so Christ is not God? The Scientologists perceive that God is some sort of alien overlord injecting brainwashed alien souls into volcanoes, so God is some sort of alien overlord injecting brainwashed alien souls into volcanoes? But seriously, what do people's perceptions of God have to do with anything? I believe that God is above our ability to perceive Him. The "ocean in the bucket" scenario of (if I'm remembering correctly) St. Augustine. God is the ocean. Our perceptions are the bucket. In every non-Christian religion, there's a hole in the bucket, dear Bluegoat.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I see a lot of difficulties with this. Perhaps I can understand your view better if you can answer some questions.

1) It seems a strange way to use language. We usually don't say that a person who partially recognizes something doesn't recognize it at all. If someone correctly identifies some unique characteristics of something, and then adds some false ones, it would be unusual to say they were talking about something else entirely. Why use language differently in this case?

Because I believe, as my Orthodox priest friend said, that at some point the worship of a false idea of God becomes worship of a false God. I have to believe that we all believe that (you too), but certainly have different understandings of when that point is reached or that line is crossed. My understanding is very strict, precisely because of what I have already written: The time in which God would forgive the kinds of errors committed by past generations is OVER. With the incarnation, we know and see God as He is. As He has revealed Himself to us. So, just as we ought not tell Him "no, God", or "later, God" when He sets upon us His will that we do something/not do something, when He tells us, as He told the Samaritan woman, that the time is NOW when we are to worship God in spirit and in truth, that really does mean that the time is NOW. Sorry to get all "Spaceballs" on you, but NOW is NOW. NOW is not LATER. So we must be strict. For those worshipers of false religions, perhaps LATER will become NOW, but not before they give up their false ideas about God that tell them that God does not beget, that Jesus Christ is not the Only-Begotten, God of God, Light of Light, the Messiah and Savior of all.

2) None of us knows God in his essence. God is infinite and we are finite - Muslim or Christian or whatever. If you subtract a finite value from an infinite one the remainder is an infinite value. Compared to what God is, the Muslim and Christian understanding are both an infinite world away from the Truth.

Where is the question in this? I thought you said I should answer a few questions. Anyway, yes, this is true. Neither of our religions are to be seen as a sort of "cage" for God, actually containing God within our limited human understanding of Him. That doesn't mean that just because we both don't know all there is to know, we are "even" in our ignorance. How could that be when we embrace the truth that they call a lie?

3) And to follow on to this, given that we cannot know god in his essence, how can any of us know him well enough to offer our worship to him? This seems to me to be a classical pagan position (and in fact very similar to what I understand Islamic philosophers have argued.)

Now you are arguing from your own preposition and trying to trap me in it. This is no longer my argument. You're having your own argument, with yourself. Have fun arguing with yourself. I hope you win.

4)Why would God excuse those who didn't know all of his characteristics before he revealed them in Scripture, but not those who do not understand them now?

Is it too obvious to repeat what I wrote in response to question 1? Christ has come. If Christ's coming has split time itself in two (and it has), and established a new covenant by which we are saved (and it has), and given us everything that we need to understand Him to the degree that we can (and it has), then what is the problem? You have a problem with what God has done?

Note: I have written already in posts that you have quoted that is entirely up to God who will be saved, Christian or not. When I write about how God has established what is proper worship and we are not to fall into the errors of past generations, it in no way contradicts that God's sovereignty allows that He save those who are nonetheless in error. It is simply stating the obvious that we (Christians) know what is correct worship, according to our religion which is the correct religion. Others may be saved outside of it, but this is not something I feel comfortable speculating about. I'd rather leave it up to God.