Epagonizesthai

Exegesis of Colossians 2:16-17

2012-01-09T01:01:00.013-05:00

One of the passages that I frequently quote on the Sabbatarianism issue is Colossians 2:16-17. I recently used it in an argument with some Seventh-Day Adventists on the issue of whether or not Christians should keep the Sabbath. Since they contested my claim that the passage in question supports my position, I decided to write down my exegesis of the passage. I'm posting it here for future reference purposes, for the benefit of anybody who is involved in this debate.

Colossians 2:16-17 (KJV): Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Original Greek: Mὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

First of all, it is interesting to note that the passage preceding this (verses 11-15) talks about Christians being the true circumcision, having received a circumcision not made with the hands. What this indicates is that Paul had the circumcision controversy in his mind as he was writing this. Although this epistle was most likely written well after that controversy had already been resolved (cf. Acts 15), the Judaizing heresy was known to have continued in various sectors of the Church well after that (as seen in the existence of such groups as the Ebionites, among others). Paul’s argument in verses 11-15 is that Christians have been made alive in Christ and have been forgiven of their trespasses (verse 13), as Jesus’ death on the cross has cancelled “the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us” (verse 14, NASB), with the “debt” in question being the debt of sin, which in Paul’s theology has death as its penalty (cf. Romans 6:23).

Verse 16 starts with the phrase “Let no man, therefore [Mὴ οὖν τις]...”. The usage of the word “therefore” indicates that verses 16-17 are the conclusion of the argument that Paul is making in verses 11-15. This is where it is important to read Colossians 2:16-17 in light of what Paul has written in his other epistles, particularly Galatians. In particular, we must remember that according to Paul, the Law (with all its accompanying ceremonies, such as circumcision, the temple sacrifices, and keeping of the Sabbath and other Jewish holidays) is meant to be a schoolmaster that will lead us to Christ, but now that Christ has come, we are no longer in need of the schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25). That being said, however, the Law is still good, provided that it is being used lawfully. This lawful use is, of course, to convict sinners of their sin and lead them to the Saviour (1 Timothy 1:8-11).

When Paul says that nobody is to judge the Colossian believers on the basis of the Old Testament Jewish holidays, he is reaffirming the argument that he made in Romans 14, that the keeping of these holidays should be a matter of the individual conscience, and that Christians should decide for themselves whether to observe these holidays and not force the matter upon any of their fellow believers. In so doing, he is pre-emptively stopping the Judaizing heresy from entering into the Colossian church. Now, one could argue at this point that Colossians is concerned more with Greco-Roman pagan philosophies and proto-Gnostic heresies. While this is true, this does not mean that that is the only issue that he addressed. Heresies come at the Church from all directions, and although the Judaizers are less of a concern for Paul in Colossians, he does recognize the possibility that they may attempt to make inroads into the church of Colossae and is cutting them off at the pass (so to speak).

Having mentioned the fact that believers are not to be judged on the basis of the Old Testament Jewish holidays, Paul goes on to make a Christological application in verse 17. Here, he is making a type/antitype distinction, as he states that the Jewish holidays are a “shadow [σκιά] of things to come [τῶν μελλόντων, lit. ‘the coming things,’ a present participial phrase],” and that Christ is the body [σῶμα] that casts the shadow in question. When a figure approaches us from a corner, we usually see its shadow before we see the figure itself. In the same way, the festivals, new moons and Sabbaths are shadows which were cast by Christ before He came into this earth, as a way of letting us know that He was on His way. One of (but not the only) the reasons believers who lived under the Old Covenant kept these holidays was out of faith in God’s promises. But now that the promises have been fulfilled, the body which casted the shadow has arrived, and believers who live under the New Covenant are now to look to the body rather than the shadow, as it does not make sense to look at the shadow rather than the one who casts it.

Historical Postscript: To say that Sunday worship has any kind of pagan influence whatsoever is pure speculation. There is zero evidence whatsoever that the Greco-Roman pagan religions involved setting apart any particular day of the week (let alone Sunday) for worship. I would challenge anybody to come up with a credible church historian that states otherwise. Philip Schaff doesn’t say it. J.N.D Kelly doesn’t say it. Jaroslav Pelikan doesn’t say it. So where is this claim coming from? In fact, we know from historical sources that when Christians met for their worship services on Sunday, they had to do so very early in the morning because Sunday was considered an ordinary working day during the Greco-Roman period.

Now, as I attempted to search for information regarding Sunday with regards to the Pagans, I did come across some sites which quoted historical sources that talked about the Mithra cult meeting on Sunday. The problem with this is that none of these sources make the assumption that is made by the sites that quote them, which is that Mithraism influenced the Christian Church. In point of fact, anybody who is versed in the history of Mithraism would know that Mithraism evolved considerably in its pre-Christian and post-Christian forms. What this means is that it is more likely that Christianity influenced Mithraism than that it was the other way around (and in fact, there are quite a few historians who will adopt this position). Ironically, this is actually historical evidence in favour of the Sunday worship position, since in order for Christianity to influence other religions into worshipping on Sunday, the Christians must have been worshipping on Sunday!

Qur'anic Textual Variants

2012-01-06T17:43:00.003-05:00

I probably posted these three videos elsewhere at some time or another, but I thought it would help to have these three videos compiled in one single place, for easy reference purposes. Also check out the articles I linked to at the end for more information.

Opening Presentation, Bible/Qur'an Dialogue, Queens

The Qur'an - Original Manuscript and Interpretation

Did the Umayyads change the Qur'an?

Further Reading

James R. White - 8 Minutes in John 6

2012-01-04T02:06:00.004-05:00

This video is too good to pass up (excerpted from his online debate with Dr. Michael L. Brown).

8 Minutes in John 6 from Nathan W. Bingham on Vimeo.

Here are links to the whole debate:

The United Church of Canada: Marching Towards Hudaybiyya

2011-10-06T22:38:00.013-04:00

Earlier this week, I was able to sit in for a workshop between some Canadian Muslims (represented by Dr. Zijad Delic, formerly of the Canadian Islamic Congress) and Rev. Dr. Bruce Gregersen of the United Church of Canada. It wasn't a large workshop, as there were only 14 people in attendance. The topic of discussion at that workshop was a pair of documents: A Common Word Between Us and You, a document written by several Muslim leaders addressed to Christian leaders, and That We May Know Each Other, the UCC's official statement regarding their relations with the Muslim community. The workshop lasted for about two hours, and it was basically a mass of ecumenicism on both side, but especially on the United Church's side, since that has been their modus operandi for quite a while now. Aside from the rehashing of the UCC's repudiation of the "exclusivism" of traditional Christianity (which they are quite proud of, since it is the main mark of their "Progressivism"), one of the main things that stuck out for me was in the handout that they were giving out. In it was an excerpt from pages 32-33 of the UCC document, where they ask, "Can Christians Affirm Muhammad as a Prophet?" The answer,which should surprise nobody who is familiar with the UCC, is in the affirmative:

We believe that in this later context there certainly should be no difficulty in affirming Muhammad as a prophet. Any reading of his life reveals the extent to which he sought to overcome injustice and oppression and called people to obedience (and submission) to God. Christians should readily affirm Muhammad as a prophet of justice and obedience to God. It is, however, the former definition of a prophet as an “immediately-inspired spokesperson for God” that is the most challenging and perhaps the most difficult for Christians to address.

A number of well-known theologians have argued that it is possible for Christians to accept this understanding of the prophethood of Muhammad. Roman Catholic scholar Hans Küng suggests that Muhammad’s prophetic role originated not in his own mind but in divine revelation coming from God. He argues that New Testament scripture is open to the expectation of prophets after Jesus, provided their teaching is in basic agreement with his. The Qur’an, he suggests, recapitulates an original understanding of Jesus’ message lost in the early Hellenistic development of the Christian community. The church therefore needs to embrace Muhammad’s insights as a way of recovering this obscured history.

Protestant scholar Montgomery Watt considers Muhammad truly a prophet and that Christians should recognize this, since throughout history there have been many upright and saintly Muslims. Watt emphasizes primarily ethical principles in determining that Islam provides a satisfactory quality of life for individuals and communities and, therefore, as Islam can be judged “true,” so also can Muhammad be seen to be a prophet of God.

Of course, anybody who really takes the time to examine the teachings of Islam compared to Christianity knows that this is absurd on so many levels. If Muhammad's revelations spring from the same source as the biblical prophets, how are we to explain the fact that Sura 9:30 curses Christians for calling Jesus the son of God, when Matthew 16:15-17 states that Jesus called Simon Peter blessed for that very same confession? Besides, an examination of Muhammad's life shows that he was anything but spiritually reliable, and certainly no messenger of peace and justice. But hey, we shouldn't let the facts get in the way of ecumenical dialogue, right?

Aside from that, there were also various talking points that were brought up by both speakers.

Rev. Bruce Gregersen:

Pointed out that the United Church is the first denomination to ever affirm that "the Spirit of God is at work in many different faith communities." And no, that doesn't mean God is leading them to Christ, since they also state that "difference is everywhere around us and, we believe, a great cause for celebration" (Because the fact that billions of people around the world are stuck in spiritual darkness and lack Christ in their lives is a cause of celebration).
Has stated things like "Muslims and Christians worship the same God," and that "we can benefit from what Islam and Muslims have to say to us." You mean like the Pact of Umar?
Made reference to the Western Standard's printing of the Muhammad Cartoons, as well as the UCC's apology to the Canadian Islamic Congress, stating that "it was profoundly disrespectful to publish those cartoons," that the publishing of those cartoons was "an expression of hatred," and that the publishing of these cartoons "has huge implications in a world in which Muslims are being seen as an enemy."
Pointed out that the UCC document was the first study on the doctrine of the Trinity that the UCC has undertaken in thirty years. That just goes to show you how much importance this denomination places on doctrinal soundness. While they pay lip service to the Trinity, their understanding of the doctrine is shown in That We May Know Each Other to be less than solid (hint: They use it as a way of excusing their pluralism).

Dr. Zijad Delic:

Mentioned quite a bit about "love" and "peace." Of course, don't expect much of an attempt to link this back to what the Qur'an and Sunnah actually teach.
Hopes to "bridge the gap of misunderstanding... and show that I have no hidden agenda." Uh-huh.
Quotes a hadith that purportedly states that "Diversity is a mercy." Of course, let's not discuss the fact that the hadith in question is da'if (weak) and does not even talk about diversity among religions.
Says that he intends to send a copy of A Common Word and That We May Know Each Other to various mosques that will hopefully study them and draft similar statements. In doing so, he notes that since Islam has no centralized hierarchy, these documents do not have widespread influence. Of course... it'll be very hard to convince Muslims in more conservative parts of the Islamic world such as Saudi Arabia to embrace the statements contained in these documents, for obvious reasons.
Has stated that "Canada is more Islamic than any Muslim country, because it provides an atmosphere for growth and freedom." Those are Islamic values?

Aside from these talking points, I was able to dig up some interesting facts on our two speakers. Rev. Gregersen, it would seem, has spoken in favour of the idea of Israel being an occupying state (among other things). Also, Dr. Delic was, up until March 2011, a member of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which has a long history of promoting censorhip and extremism. He has even advocated the CIC's attempts to silence critics of Islam such as Mark Steyn on Maclean's via the (badly misnomered) Canadian Human Rights Commissions. I would say that the information herein should give everybody a pretty good idea of what exactly is going on here: The United Church of Canada has already signed its treaty of Hudaybiyya, and is well on its way to dhimmitude. Adding this to the UCC's long history of compromise and abandonment of the Gospel, Bible-believing Canadian Christians should be wary of this denomination and seek to avoid the kind of mistakes that have brought it to where it is now.

Finally, with regards to A Common Word, I would strongly advise everybody to read Sam Solomon's response to this document, as he carefully lays out its deceitful nature, as well as what its implications are for Christians. Islam seeks to exalt itself over every other religion (cf. Sura 9:33), and its adherents will use whatever means they have at their disposal to achieve that end, including cleverly disguised attempts at diplomacy.

The Real Meaning of Eid al-Fitr

2011-08-31T18:35:00.003-04:00

Courtesy of Sheik Yer Mami, who posted this as a comment on Jihad Watch

What do Muslims Really Celebrate on Id al-Fitr?

the celebration of a Muslim military victory over non-Muslims.

The Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr is one of the two most important holidays on the Islamic calendar. Usually marked on the day after the last day of Ramadan, Id al-Fitr celebrates the end of the holy month of fasting. But it also has another meaning for Muslims that dates to the earliest days of Islam.

In 622 CE, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad and his small band of followers embarked on the hijjra and left the city of Mecca for Medina to the north. In Medina, the group found acceptance and safe haven. Secure there from their Meccan enemies, these early Muslims set about building up their war chests by raiding Meccan camel caravans that traveled between Damascus and the Levantine coast and the interior of the Peninsula. Those successful expeditions attracted even more followers to Islam and built up Muhammad's military forces as well as his financial coffers.

Two years later, in 624 CE, Muhammad felt strong enough to move against his old enemies, the pagan Quraish tribe that dominated Mecca. In the Battle of Badr, a smallish force of about 300 Muslims defeated a much larger Quraish force and brought back loads of booty. This battle was a significant turning point for Islam and is celebrated to this day as the Id al-Fitr.

Because 21st century Muslims are not always so eager to call attention to their celebration of a military victory over infidels, the real meaning of Id al-Fitr is often submerged beneath the overall celebration of the end of Ramadan.

The non-Muslim world, every bit as much a target for the forces of jihad today as it was in the 7th century, needs to understand the original meaning of this Islamic holiday so that it will not be fooled by disingenuous attempts to put an acceptable gloss on what is, in fact, the celebration of a Muslim military victory over non-Muslims.

Response to a Muslim on Sura 1:7

2011-08-01T23:25:00.006-04:00

NOTE: I recently emailed the quotes that I mentioned in Who are those Mentioned in Sura 1:7? to a bunch of friends, both Christian and Muslim as part of my effort to contribute to the movement against the implementation of Friday prayers in a middle school in the Toronto District School Board (click here for the news story). So far, I have had only one of the Muslims attempt a response, and it wasn't really all that substantial. Here are her comments and my rebuttal to them:

Every group should be allowed their right to the freedom of belief and religious practice.

I agree. However, there is a vast difference between giving freedom of belief and religious practice, and giving special privileges to one group that normally isn't given to anyone else. This is a clear case of the latter. I have Christian colleagues who have been denied when they requested to form a prayer group at their high schools. Not only that, but there have been a lot of concerns about the implementation of prayers in school causing students to miss classes. Not only that, but there are also concerns about non-Muslims being denied washroom access during these prayer times, and these same students also face intimidation from the majority of Muslim students. There is nothing equal here; TDSB is displaying an obvious case of favouritism.

As you have already quoted below, you can see that there are differences in understanding the verses of the Surah Fatihah.

I'm not sure if you actually read the quotes I gave you. I noted that the classical Sunni Muslim scholars are unanimously agreed on the interpretation of Sura 1:7 as a curse upon the Jews and Christians. It has only been in the past few decades that Muslims here in the west have been attempting to downplay--if not outright deny--the classical interpretation.

Because an understanding of the last verses of Surah Fatihah is disliked by some people, is not a reason to ban prayers in Schools.

I am sorry, but this is not a meaningful reply at all. First of all, it is not just "an understanding," but is the interpretation that virtually all Muslim scholars up until recent decades have agreed upon. Go back to the quotes I gave from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir and the two Jalals. If one simply takes the ijma of the ulema on the interpretation of Sura 1:7, then there is no doubt at all that it is directed against Jews and Christians. It's not a simple matter of one "disliking" an understanding, but of two major world religions being singled out for condemnation in a verse that is recited by every Muslim who recites al Fatihah in their salat prayers.

If you don't want to acknowledge that this is what it means everytime you ask Allah not to make you like the al-maghdub or the al-daleen, then that is not my problem, because denying reality isn't going to make reality go away. The facts are there. I didn't make them up; you can confirm them yourself from Islamic websites such as the ones I linked to. If you care at all about the truth, then I would urge you to look these things up for yourself rather than just hastily dismissing the evidence because they don't match up with what you find comfortable.

May Jehovah God's blessings and mercy be upon you.

Fisher.

Who are those Mentioned in Sura 1:7?

2011-07-27T01:50:00.005-04:00

Just to clear up this issue once and for all, I present three classical Sunni Muslim commentators who make it absolutely clear that Sura 1:7 is a reference to the Jews and Christians:

This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews Allah said about the Jews, (Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath) (5:60). The attribute that the Christians deserve most is that of being led astray, just as Allah said about them, (Who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path) (5:77). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Commentary on Sura 1:7.)

(The path of those whom Thou hast favoured), the Religion of those whom You have blessed with the Religion and who are the followers of Moses, before the blessings of Allah deserted them, in that He shaded them with a white cloud and sent down on them honey and quails when they were in the wilderness. It is also said that (the path of those whom Thou hast favoured) refers to the prophets. (Not of those who earn Thine anger), not the religion of the Jews who earned Your anger, whom You forsook and whose hearts You did not protect until they became complaisant. (Nor of those who go astray), nor the religion of the Christians who erred from Islam. Amen: thus shall be its custodians; it is also said that Amen means let it be so. It is also said that it means: O our Lord! Do with us as we have requested You. And Allah knows best'. (Tafsir Ibn Abbas. Commentary on Sura 1:7.)

the path of those whom You have favoured, with guidance (from alladhīna together with its relative clause is substituted by [ghayri l-maghdūbi ‘alayhim]) not [the path] of those against whom there is wrath, namely, the Jews, and nor of those who are astray, namely, the Christians. The subtle meaning implied by this substitution is that the guided ones are neither the Jews nor the Christians. But God knows best what is right, and to Him is the Return and the [final] Resort. May God bless our lord Muhammad (s), his Family and Companions and grant them everlasting peace. Sufficient is God for us; an excellent Guardian is He. There is no power and no strength save in God, the High, the Tremendous. (Tafsir Al Jalalayn. Commentary on Sura 1:7.)

Ian Clary Reviews Michael Coren's "Why Catholics Are Right"

2011-07-18T01:33:00.002-04:00

Michael Coren is an important voice for conservatives in Canada. He has been a talk-radio host, a columnist for a number of major Canadian newspapers and is the face of the popular The Michael Coren Show on television. Opinions that he shares on any subject are sure to get a wide hearing. Originally from England, Coren has written a number of biographies of his literary countrymen including C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Though he was not raised to be devoutly religious, Coren converted to Roman Catholicism while living in England. After his arrival in Canada he grew disenfranchised with certain aspects of the Roman Church and spent a number of years exploring evangelical options. Around eight years ago he was received back into the Catholic fold. His recent book Why Catholics Are Right is written to help “Catholics who want to defend their beliefs but need a little help” (7).

This is the introduction to the book review done by my colleague and brother in Christ Ian Clary of the Hope's Reason apologetics journal to the book Why Catholics Are Right, which was written by popular Canadian political commentator (and convert to Roman Catholicism) Michael Coren. The book is aimed at addressing popular critiques of the Roman Catholic Church, and provide some kind of justification for believing that it is the true Church. I had been meaning to do a review of this book myself, but have so far been unable to procure a copy of the book. Be that as it may, I am glad that bro. Clary has done the job, and I would like to encourage readers to check out his review of the book. See the book itself as well to see for yourself how well its arguments stand.

Ian Clary - Why Catholics are Right (Book Review)

David Wilkerson - A Call to Anguish

2011-07-06T17:59:00.001-04:00

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Scientific Errors

2011-06-29T18:46:00.004-04:00

If there is one thing that distinguishes the Ahmadiyya from mainstream Islam (other than the fact that they believe in a prophet who came after Muhammad), it is their emphasis upon what they consider to be the rational and scientific. This tendency towards rationalism will sometimes cause Ahmadis to become much less inclined towards supernatural explanations than orthodox Muslims (as seen for example by their attempts to naturalize the virgin birth, among other miracles). It is somewhat ironic then that as I was reading Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, I noticed that he makes some rather glaring scientific errors in the first chapter of the book. For example, he makes the following statement regarding the effect of one's diet on one's disposition:

Experience also shows that different types of food affect the intellect and the mind in different ways. For instance, careful observation would disclose that people who refrain altogether from eating meat gradually suffer a decline of the faculty of bravery; they lose courage and thus suffer the loss of a divinely bestowed praiseworthy faculty. This is reinforced by the evidence of the divine law of nature that the herbivorous animals do not possess the same degree of courage as do carnivorous ones. The same applies to birds. Thus there is no doubt that morals are affected by food. Conversely those who are given to a diet consisting mainly of meat and eat very little of greens suffer a decline of meekness or humility. Those who adopt the middle course develop both types of moral qualities.[1]

Now, this is an obviously false assertion that is regularly proved by those who run into vegetarians who possess plenty of bravery and/or lack humility. I don't think any dietician or physiologist would ever accept a statement such as this as having any kind of scientific validity. In addition to this, we find another glaring scientific error two and a half pages later, where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad attempts to base his belief in the development of the soul inside the body on the theory of spontaneous generation. Here, we read:

The Book of God does not mean that the soul descends from heaven as a separate entity or falls upon the earth from the atmosphere and then by chance gets mixed with the sperm and enters the womb with it. There is no basis for such a notion. The law of nature rejects it. We observe daily that thousands of insects infect impure and stale foods and are generated in unwashed wounds. Dirty linen secretes hundreds of lice and all sorts of worms are generated inside a person's stomach. It cannot be said that all these come from outside or can be observed as descending from heaven. The truth is that the soul is developed in the body and this also proves that it is created and is not self-existent.[2]

While I would certainly agree that God creates the human soul in the body and does not zap it into the body from heaven, I do not base such a belief on an outdated scientific concept. French chemist Louis Pasteur already laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest back in 1859.[3] That is nearly four decades before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote down the essay in question. Glaring factual errors such as these serve to show that the Ahmadiyya's brightest minds aren't nearly as rational and scientific as they make themselves out to be.

End Notes

Ahmad, Mirza Ghulam. The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam. Tilford: Islam International Publications, Ltd., 1996. p. 5.
Ibid., pp. 7-8.
Evers, Chris and Russell Levine. "The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)." The National Health Museum. http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php.

Critique of Islamic Jesus Movie

2011-06-17T03:41:00.007-04:00

Back in 2008, an Iranian director named Nader Talebzadeh directed a movie depicting the life of Jesus from the Islamic perspective, officially called The Messiah. It is touted as "an Islamic answer to Western productions like Mel Gibson's 2004 blockbuster 'The Passion of the Christ,' which which he [Nader] praised as admirable but quite simply 'wrong'" (link). It is surprising to know that such a production exists since Muslims normally shun the making of any kind of representation of the prophets (pictorial or otherwise).

Be that as it may, I recently came across an eleven minute excerpt of the film, courtesy of none other than Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam (with whom I am friends on Facebook). For those who want to see the clip, here it is:

Here are some of my thoughts on the video:

In the first place, why is Jesus portrayed as having blond hair? It's bad enough that many westerners depict Jesus as a blond-haired Caucasian, but I'm surprised that our Iranian Muslim colleagues made the same error. I mean seriously, the hair colour just looks plain bad, and it would've been best if they stuck to dark brown hair.
The first four minutes or so of the video are allegedly based on the Christian Narrative (i.e. the New Testament). Yet, we find that there are many obvious errors. For example, Jesus (Judas?) is depicted as being arrested in a house, even though we know from the Gospels that He was actually arrested in the garden of Gethsemane. A lot of the costumes don't look quite right either; one wonders if they bothered consulting any historians or biblical scholars for accuracy on these matters, although I highly doubt it.
More important than what the film gets wrong is what it omits entirely. There is no mention, for example, of how the disciples attempted to rescue Jesus, and how Jesus rebuked them by saying,
Do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?" (Matthew 26:53-54).
These verses are very important as they contradict the Islamic claim that Jesus was unwilling to die on the cross and wanted to be rescued from it, so it is not surprising at all that the ones who made this film chose to omit it. I guess they only want to take those parts of the "Christian narrative" that they can twist into their own viewpoint, whilst throwing out everything else.
In addition, no mention is ever made of what crime Jesus is being accused of. When one looks at the account as recorded by Mark, the reason becomes obvious why:
But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows (Mark 14:61-65, ESV).
Islam denies that Jesus is the divine Son of God or that He ever claimed to be such (cf. Suras 6:101, 9:30, 19:88-92, etc.). Yet as shown in the Gospels, that is precisely the claim for which Jesus was arrested and sentenced to death. To paraphrase David Wood, the Jews would have had no problem with Jesus if all He said was that they should believe in God and obey the Torah. After all, they were already doing that! Rather, Jesus must have been teaching something that was so radically offensive to the Jews that they would accuse Him of blasphemy. Claiming to be the divine Son of God is precisely that claim, and it continues to offend both Jews and Muslims to this very day.
About four minutes into the video, we find the following caption: "Continuation of the events according to Islamic sources and the Gospel of Barnabas..." Should we really be surprised that the Gospel of Barnabas is now being touted as a source at this point? That document is constantly being touted as the staple piece of anti-Christian Islamic propaganda despite the fact that it has already been debunked as a forgery numerous times. As Islamic scholar Cyril Glassé points out:
As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran. (link)
By far the most ridiculous portion of the video is the part where Judas is miraculously transformed into a look-alike of Jesus. Okay, so if everything that is attributed to Jesus from the time He is arrested to the time He is crucified was actually Judas, riddle me this:
a. Why did Judas never correct the Jewish and Roman authorities by saying that it was actually him?

b. How could Judas betray "Jesus" by leading the temple guards to Him if the one he is leading them to is actually himself?

c. Where did the story of Judas hanging himself in Matthew 27:3-10 come from?

d. Where did the stories of Jesus saying that He is the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14 and that He has a kingdom that is not of this world come from?

e. Who was it really that appeared to the disciples after three days and why was he claiming to be the resurrected Jesus?
Those who accept the version of events that is recounted in the Islamic Jesus movie must answer these questions, although they would be hard pressed to provide answers that will make any sense of the facts as they really are.

To cap it off, it must be said that the Islamic perspective on the crucifixion of Jesus does not make any sense, either historically or logically. It does not make sense historically because all the earliest sources (not only the Gospels but even secular sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) that talk about Jesus agree unanimously that He was put to death under Pontius Pilate. Somehow, we are supposed to believe on the authority of a text that came six centuries later that it never really happened but that it was only made to appear so. It also does not make sense logically because it would make God out to be a deceiver. To drive that point home, let us look at the one passage in the Qur'an that talks about the crucifixion:

That they [the Jews] rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (Sura 4:156-168).

First of all, it puts into the Jews' mouth the affirmation of Jesus as the Messiah (or Christ) and as Allah's messenger, yet they never accepted Jesus' claim to hold these two titles. Also, when the Qur'an says "it was made to appear to them," who is being referred to here? Is it only the Jews who rejected Jesus? If so, then we are at a loss as to why Jesus' true followers (who are allegedly guided by God, cf. Suras 3:52-55 and 61:14) ended up believing that He was killed as well.

On the other hand, if they were also included among those to whom it was made to appear so, then that means Allah failed to fulfill the promise made in the aforementioned Qur'anic passages to guide Jesus' disciples and make them victorious until the day of Resurrection, since they fell into kufr. The upshot of this is that Allah is the true founder of Christianity, since Christianity's premise is that Jesus died and rose again after three days (which, if we are to take Sura 4:156-158 at face value, is what Allah made it seem to have happened). The problem posed by this is quite glaring.

Thus, I must conclude that the only reasonable explanation that can be accepted is the one given to us by Jesus' apostles: That He truly did die on the cross, and He truly did rise again after three days. In the words of the apostle Peter:

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (1 Peter 2:22-25, ESV).

And Allah knows best. ;)

Anachronisms in the Qur'an

2011-06-15T20:18:00.004-04:00

Anachronism #1: Joseph sold for Dirhams

"[Joseph's] brethren sold him for a miserable price, for a few dirhams counted out: in such low estimation did they hold him!" (Sura 12:20)

Joseph lived around the nineteenth century B.C. The dirham, which is derived from the Greek drachma (δραχμή), could not be found earlier than the twelfth century B.C. So how could the Qur'an claim that Joseph was sold using a currency that wasn't to be invented for another seven centuries?

Anachronism #2: David's Chain Mail

"We bestowed Grace aforetime on David from ourselves: 'O ye Mountains! Sing ye back the Praises of Allah with him! and ye birds also! And We made the iron soft for him;- Commanding, 'Make thou coast of mail, balancing well the rings of chain armour, and work ye righteousness; for be sure I see clearly all that ye do.'" (Sura 34:10-11)

David lived around the tenth century B.C., whereas chain mail armour was not to be invented until around the fifth century B.C. by the Celts. How could David have produced a form of armour that wasn't to exist for another five centuries after his time?

Anachronism #3: Crucifixion in Ancient Egypt

"O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you, he will pour out the wine for his lord to drink: as for the other, he will hang from the cross, and the birds will eat from off his head. So hath been decreed that matter whereof ye twain do enquire." (Sura 12:41)

"Pharaoh said: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment!" (Sura 20:71)

In the two Qur'an quotes mentioned above, it is mentioned that crucifixion/impalement was used as a method of execution by the Egyptians during the time of Joseph (nineteenth century B.C.) and Moses (fifteenth century B.C.). Yet crucifixion/impalement as a form of execution was not invented until around the 6th century B.C. by the Persians (not the Egyptians). Surely, if the Qur'an had any sense of history, we would not expect to find historical errors such as this one.

Anachronism #4: Haman in Pharaoh's Court

"And We wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders in faith and make them heirs, to establish a firm place for them in the land, and to show Pharaoh, Haman, and their hosts, at their hands, the very things against which they were taking precautions. So We sent this inspiration to the mother of Moses: 'Suckle thy child, but when thou hast fears about him, cast him into the river, but fear not nor grieve: for We shall restore him to thee, and We shall make him one of Our apostles.' Then the people of Pharaoh picked him up from the river: It was intended that Moses should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: for Pharaoh and Haman and all their hosts were men of sin." (Sura 28:5-8, cf. 28:38, 29:39, 40:24,36)

Haman was an Agagite noble who lived in Persia (not Egypt) around the sixth century B.C., and is the main antagonist in the book of Esther. It behooves any thinking person to wonder why the Qur'an records Haman being present in the court of Pharaoh and opposing Moses, who lived nine centuries before his time in a completely different culture and context. Did Haman somehow invent a time machine to travel back in time and oppose Moses?

(Reposted from a Christian-Muslim discussion page on Facebook.)

John Chrysostom on Penal Substitution

2011-06-07T19:54:00.001-04:00

It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22.) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

Source:

NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3, v. 13.

(HT: Pr. David T. King)

A Note on Sura 3:78

2011-05-05T16:25:00.022-04:00

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! (Sura al Imran 3:78)

According to early commentators Abdullah Ibn Abbas (A.D. 619-687) and Wahb Ibn Munabbih (A.D. 655-737), this verse demonstrates that although the Jews can alter the meaning of the text by reciting in their tongues (i.e. orally) something other than what the written text actually says (or writing them, if one includes books like the Mishnah), they cannot change the actual contents of the text, which remain uncorrupted.

Several centuries later, however, Ismail Ibn Kathir (A.D. 1301–1373) states otherwise and argues that the text of the Bible (or rather, its Arabic translation) has indeed been altered. It is noteworthy to look at his commentary on the verse in question to see how he interacts with Ibn Abbas and Ibn Munabbih on this subject:

Allah states that some Jews, may Allah's curses descend on them, distort Allah's Words with their tongues, change them from their appropriate places, and alter their intended meanings. They do this to deceive the ignorant people by making it appear that their words are in the Book of Allah. They attribute their own lies to Allah, even though they know that they have lied and invented falsehood. Therefore, Allah said, (and they speak a lie against Allah while they know it.) Mujahid, Ash-Sha`bi, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that, (who distort the Book with their tongues,) means, "They alter them (Allah's Words).”

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah's creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books, they alter and distort their apparent meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and the Injil remain as Allah revealed them, and no letter in them was removed. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. Then, (they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;) As for Allah's Books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed.'' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement.

However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed.
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Commentary on Sura 3:78. Italics mine.)

(Note: When the commentary refers to the "books that they wrote themselves," this is most likely a reference to the Mishnah, since it is in the Mishnah that Jews compiled their rabbis' interpretations of the Scriptures.)

So we see that there has been an evolution in Islamic thought regarding the authenticity of the Bible. Early Muslim scholars and commentators teach that the Qur'an testifies to the authenticity of the Biblical text, and it is only the Jews and Christians who misinterpret this text. Later on, however, it would appear that once Arabic translations of the Bible have become available to the Muslims, they began to allege that it is not just the interpretation of the Bible but the very text itself (or at the very least, the Arabic translation of the text, since most Muslims did not have access to the original Greek and Hebrew) that has been modified, as seen by the contrast between the interpretation of Sura 3:78 provided by Ibn Kathir with that provided by his predecessors Ibn Abbas and Ibn Munabbih.

At the face of it, it is quite clear that the verse teaches only that the Bible has been misinterpreted, not that its text has been corrupted, since it talks about sections of it being distorted only with their tongues (not their pens).

Furthermore, although "a party" from among Jews have been accused of tampering with the written text (Sura al Baqarah 2:75-79), this charge is never made against all Jews, and it is certainly never made against Christians. After all, even the Qur'an states that not all Jews and Christians are alike, and that some of them recite the contents of the books correctly (cf. Sura al Imran 3:113-115).

This, coupled with various Qur'anic references to the confirming of the books that were "between his [i.e. Muhammad's] hands ... the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)" (Sura al Imran 3:3) and injunctions to "ask those who have been reading the Book from before you" (Sura Yunus 10:94) demonstrate that the Qur'an testifies to the overall authenticity of the text of the Bible.

A Couple of Good Blog Posts on OT Law

2011-04-30T04:06:00.002-04:00

I recently had the pleasure of getting acquainted with Sister Malak (a relatively young Reformed Christian and a former Shi'a Muslim) via facebook. Although she's been a Christian for only a year, she shows a lot of promise when it comes to understanding Christian theology. In particular, I would like to endorse two posts from her blog on the use of the Mosaic Law:

Toronto Baptist Seminary Essays

2011-04-25T00:39:00.003-04:00

For those who've been wondering why I've barely posted at all in the past eight months, it's because I've been busy finishing my one year bible diploma program at Toronto Baptist Seminary. I have done a lot of theological and apologetical writing for that program, so to compensate for my relative inactivity in the blogosphere, I decided that I would post four of my best articles here on Epagonizesthai. These have some pretty good apologetic value and I do believe these constitute some of my best work so far, so they're worth looking at.

For Christian Foundations:

The Christian Doctrine of God Explained and Defended for Muslims

For Comparative World Religions:

Contrasting Christian and Muslim Views on the Female Gender

For the Gospel of John:

The Divine Logos: The Christology of the Gospel of John

For Systematic Theology:

He Will Save His People: A Case for Particular Redemption

Is the “Ayah of the Sword” Really as Militant as it Sounds?

2011-04-23T02:33:00.009-04:00

In a discussion regarding the a context of Sura At-Tawba, one of my Muslim colleagues linked me to an article[1] supposedly explaining verse 5, the famous “ayah of the sword,” as it is often called. I would like to review and critique the article to see whether the case that it makes holds any water. Quotes from the original article are in underline.

When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.

It’s pretty hard to deny that there was a lot of conflict between Hindus and Muslims ever since Islam first came into the Indian subcontinent. After all, that is the reason why today we have India on the one hand and Pakistan and Bangladesh on the other. As historian Will Durant has noted: “...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.”[2] Winfried Corduan notes: “The relationship between the Hindu population and the Muslim government was perpetually hostile.”[3] The reason why Hindus by and large have been able to preserve their heritage is because unlike most other subjugated peoples, the Hindus were very nationalistic and chose to fight back rather than allow themselves to be cowed into submission (no puns intended).

Case in point: Early on in the history of the Sikh religion, the tenth Guru Gobind Singh commanded all male members of the Khalsa order to carry the Kirpan (dagger or sword). To this day we still see Sikhs doing this, although back then they actually did use the Kirpan to fight rather than just carry them for ceremonial purposes. Why? Because the Sikhs used their swords to counteract Muslim aggression; many Sikhs at the time were being harassed and killed by their Muslim overlords, which forced them to fight back. The reason why Sikhism still exists today is because its followers chose to militarize rather than give in to Islamic intimidation.[4]

Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians.

And it used to be a whole lot higher prior to the Islamic conquest in the seventh century. Don’t even get me started on the numerous human rights violations that go on in Egypt, because that could be an essay in and of itself.

Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)

Islamic Spain, admittedly, did have a track record of being more tolerant than most other Muslim regimes (relatively speaking). However, this is the exception to the rule, and for the most part Jews have faced a lot of death and oppression at the hands of Muslims (remember the Banu Qurayza?). There is a theological reason for this: There is a hadith where Muhammad is reported as saying, “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” (Sahih Muslim 41:6985).[5]

Also, Brown University professor Andrew G. Bostom recently published a 766 page volume entitled “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History,” which documents the numerous references to oppression and mistrust of Jews that are to be found all over Muslim tradition and history. This is also proved by the fact that the recent increase in Muslims in France has resulted in an increase in the number of attacks against French Jews and synagogues, along with an increasing number of French Jews leaving France to find safety in Israel, with a similar trend being reported in other European countries that have high rates of Muslim immigration as well.[6]

The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying “all” cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to “kill the infidels...”

Which just makes you wonder why civil rights’ violations and martyrdoms of non-Muslims are a constant throughout all of Dar al-Islam. I can point to killings, kidnappings and other such atrocities being committed by Muslims from as far west as Morocco to as far east as Indonesia, as well as very other country in between those two. If Islam is such a peaceful and tolerant religion, why is it so hard to be a Jew or a Christian in any of the 50 plus Muslim majority countries that exist today? If this claim was true, these countries should be at the top when it comes to tolerance and freedom of religion.

I’m going to skip over the discussion of the word “infidel” because it’s a red herring; it really doesn’t matter to me what word one uses. In fact, I myself will avoid the use of the term and prefer the Qur’anic words “kafir” and “mushrik.”

In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam.

Funny enough, one eyewitness report by a Turkish soldier states that the genocide was carried out under the fatwa of a leading Islamic sheikh at the time who stated that it was lawful to kill the Armenians.[7] This underscores the religious element behind the massacre. So, if the genocides against the Armenians and Greeks were carried out for nationalistic reasons, then why is it that the Muslims in Egypt, Mesopotamia and North Africa (which were also under the rule of the Ottoman empire) remained relatively unmolested? Is it a mere coincidence that the Turks targeted Christian Greeks and Armenians and yet spared the Muslims in the aforementioned lands? Highly implausible.

Also, the thesis that the attacks upon the East Timorese by the Indonesians were motivated by nationalistic reasons is contradicted by the fact that other Indonesians who are not Muslim (or are not recognized as such) frequently experience the exact same kind of treatment. A good example of this is a recent incident where three members of the Ahmadiyya sect (which claims to be Muslim yet is regarded as heretical and thus non-Muslim by most Sunnis) have been killed by a mob of 1,500 Sunni Muslims.[8]

(1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in chapter (surah) 96.

(2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, “a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly.” Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran.

That is only if one does not take into account the doctrine of the abrogator and abrogated (al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh). Simply put, if a later verse says the total opposite of an earlier verse, the later one takes precedence and abrogates the earlier verse. This is taught in the following Qur’anic verses:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Sura 2:106)

When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. (Sura 16:101)

For more information on this doctrine, see Abdullah Al Araby’s article “The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation.”[9] Most of the relevant information concerning which verses abrogate which can be found therein. Also, it is worth looking at a chronological ordering of the suras in order to know which ones come earlier and which ones come later.

For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good.

(3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" (2:194), also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" (41:34).

The key to understanding these verses is to read it in light of Sura 48:29 (which is a very late sura and thus has precedence). In it, we read: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.” Related to this is a tradition where Muhammad is reported as saying, “Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.” (Sahih Muslim, 26:5389)[9]

So does Islam promote mercy and forgiveness? Only if you’re a Muslim, since believers are commanded to be compassionate towards one another (unless one apostatizes, since Muhammad also said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” in Sahih Al-Bukhari 9: 84:57). However, if you’re a Dhimmi, then an entirely different set of rules apply. For example, the punishment for murdering a Muslim is death, yet we have a hadith which reports that “no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 9:83:50). There are so many more documents expressing the same sentiment, but to highlight the oppressive nature of Dhimmitude would again require an essay in and of itself.[10]

When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the situational and contextual factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse (2:194) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse (16:126) gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text.

(4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), “God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.” The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect.

And yet we have numerous examples throughout the ahadith and in Islamic history where those who do not transgress are not “treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect.” Again, I will not go into examples, as they would be too many to count.

Those who transgress should be fought, “And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors,” (2:190). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, “there is no compulsion in religion,” (2:256).

The problem is that since the Qur’an came in stages, there was a stage when only defensive fighting was allowed, but in the later period this policy was changed and offensive warfare became permitted. As one famous hadith puts it:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 1:2:24).

Also, the verse which states “there is no compulsion in religion” is generally regarded by Muslim scholars to have been abrogated by later verses (such as those in sura 9). Again, see the aforementioned article by Al Araby.

(5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." One of the main concerns of Chapter (Surah) 9 of the Quran (a Surah is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts.

(6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse (9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.” Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of (9:5), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse (9:6), “If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.”

The problem with this explanation should be obvious: At this point in time, Muslims had already dominated Mecca, so the pagans were in no position whatsoever to launch any kind of offensive against the Muslims. Also the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir paints a different picture. He states that when the verse says “fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them,” this means “on the earth in general.” Unless we make the implausible hypothesis that every pagan around the world had declared war on Islam, this could not possibly mean defensive jihad only.

Further on, he writes: “[D]o not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” That does not sound like defense to me. Mentioning verse 6 doesn’t really prove much since it only applies to Pagans who are willing to convert to Islam; for those who aren’t, the above-mentioned mandate still holds. As Muhammad again said: “Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs” (Malik’s Muwatta 45:5:17). Yes, very tolerant.

Sura 9:5 is called the “ayah of the sword” for a reason: It authorizes complete unmitigated warfare against Dar al-Harb. This is evidenced from reading the rest of the sura, particularly the following ayat:

Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers (verse 14).

It is He Who hath sent His Apostle with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it) (verse 32).

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed (verse 73).

But the Apostle, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper (verse 88),

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him (verse 123).

Remember: We’re talking about just one sura. Similar statements can be found in other places as well, and their frequency increases the later in time one goes.

Understanding the verses' historical context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse (8:61), “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

Sura 8 was revealed during the earlier defensive phase, which is right around the beginning of the Medinan period. Remember once again that the later passages take precedence. Ironically, that little piece of “historical context” proves the exact opposite of what is being claimed here.

The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all available Quranic evidence.

I agree. However, as I have just shown, the historical context behind Sura At-Tawba only worsens the impact of these verses, especially when one takes into account the various ahadith and commentaries that expand upon and clarify these passages.

End Notes

“Kill the Infidels, Surah 9:5.” Muslim Access. http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp.
Quoted by Nosostro, Rit in “Hindu-Muslim Conflict and the Partition of India.” Hyper History. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t3w30pakistanindia.htm.
Corduan, Winfried. Neighbouring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. 261.
Ibid., 264-265. Interesting note: Of the ten gurus of Sikhism, two of them (Arjan and Tegh Bahadu) were killed by the Muslim emperors of their day, and the tenth guru, Gobind Singh, was assassinated by a Muslim henchman.
All Hadith quotations are taken from “The Hadith Database.” International Islamic University of Malaysia. http://www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith.
Ye’or, Bat. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005. 25-28.
Baas, Sayied Ahmed Moukhtar. “First-hand account by a Turkish army officer on the deportation of Armenians from Trebizond and Erzerum, December 26, 1916.” Armenian National Institute. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/br-12-26-16-text.html.
Maala, Abdul Musawir. Ahmadiyya Times. http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2011/02/indonesia-3-ahmadi-muslims-killed.html.
Al Araby, Abdullah. “The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation.” Islam Review. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml.
Bat Ye’or has written four well-researched scholarly books on this topic which are well worth obtaining and reading for more information on Dhimmitude. These are: The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996), Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001) and The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom (Deror Books, 2010).

Another Afghan Christian Needs Help

2011-04-06T13:28:00.002-04:00

Every time an Afghan comes to faith in Christ, he or she is in grave danger of being executed for apostasy by the government of Afghanistan. Although Said Musa has been released, another Afghan convert to Christianity, Shoaib Assadullah, is still in prison and it is feared that he may also be put on death row for his conversion. Please pray for this brother, that he may be rescued from his condition and given safe asylum away from the clutches of Islamic law.

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN (BosNewsLife)-- An Afghan man who was arrested for converting to Christianity and fears he may be executed, remained behind bars Wednesday, March 30, more than a month after another convert was released amid international pressure.

Shoaib Assadullah, 23, was reportedly detained October 21 in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif for giving a Bible to a man who later reported him to local authorities. While in prison, Assadullah said he was physically abused and receiving death threats from fellow inmates.

"Several times I have been attacked physically and threatened with death by fellow prisoners, especially [from members of the] Taliban [group] and anti-government prisoners who are in jail," he wrote in a letter dated February 17 and monitored by BosNewsLife.

"These assaults on my human dignity have affected me negatively, close to the point of death,” the Afghan Christian added.

Read the rest of the story here:

Bos News Life - Detained Afghan Christian Fears Execution

On Silencing the Opposition

2011-03-26T16:41:00.002-04:00

Lately, I have been conversing with some Christian brethren who believe that the solution to some of the opposing viewpoints that threaten our peace, security and freedom is to have these viewpoints silenced and their literature banned. While I understand the concern that my brethren have concerning this issue, I have to argue that it is a bad idea to systematically silence the opposition. Here are my two main reasons why:

One: We are all interested in convincing others of our own position's correctness and the others' incorrectness. However, the general public cannot make this decision unless they have access to what the other position has to say. If we are truly convinced that our position is the correct position and all others are false (and in some cases even dangerous to our society), then let us by all means allow both sides to speak and debate these issues. Afterwards let the general public examine what both sides have said and allow them the opportunity to decide for themselves who is correct. Besides, sometimes a viewpoint's own proponents are their own best refutation; you know they're wrong just by listening to them make poor arguments or reasons.

Two: A government that bans any one religous viewpoint, it won't be very long before they find reasons to ban other religious viewpoints, and that includes our own. I am sure that many of us have had to deal with people who have attempted to silence us or prevent our viewpoints from being heard. Unfortunately, if we argue that such should be the case with any other religion, then we are just giving people ammunition to silence us even more.

As a good historical case in point: Back in the 40s or 50s, prominent Canadian Baptist minister Rev. T. T. Shields advocated that Jehovah's Witnesses should be allowed the freedom to propagate their viewpoints, even though Shields (and all of us here who are Evangelical Christians) strongly disagree with them. The reason for this was that Rev. Shields understood that if the state could ban Jehovah's Witnesses from propagating their religious views, it won't be too far off before they start doing the same with thing Evangelical Christians. As it is, we already have enough trouble getting the general public to listen to us, so there is no need for us to make it harder for ourselves.

That's just by two cents. Hope you take them into consideration. Grace and peace.

Said Musa About to be Executed

2011-02-20T22:05:00.003-05:00

"Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." -Muhammad (Sahih Al-Bukhari 9:84:57)

And that is exactly what the government of Afghanistan is bent on doing to Christian convert Said Musa. Unfortunately, most news sources in America and Canada refuse to report this egregious violation of human rights (which is odd because they seem to have no qualms about publicizing some backwoods Florida pastor's decision to burn Qur'ans), so it is up to the rest of us to make these kinds of things known. Pray that this brother in Christ will be released from prison and find safe asylum in the west.

A terrible drama is unfolding in Afghanistan: There are reports that Said Musa, whose situation ... will soon be executed for the ‘crime’ of choosing to become a Christian.

Musa was one of about 25 Christians arrested on May 31, 2010, after a May 27 Noorin TV program showed video of a worship service held by indigenous Afghan Christians; he was arrested as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy. He converted to Christianity eight years ago, is the father of six young children, had a leg amputated after he stepped on a landmine while serving in the Afghan Army, and now has a prosthetic leg. His oldest child is eight and one is disabled (she cannot speak). He worked for the Red Cross/Red Crescent as an adviser to other amputees.

He was forced to appear before a judge without any legal counsel and without knowledge of the charges against him. “Nobody [wanted to be my] defender before the court. When I said ‘I am a Christian man,’ he [a potential lawyer] immediately spat on me and abused me and mocked me. . . . I am alone between 400 [people with] terrible values in the jail, like a sheep.” He has been beaten, mocked, and subjected to sleep deprivation and sexual abuse while in prison. No Afghan lawyer will defend him and authorities denied him access to a foreign lawyer.

Any and every human being who is imprisoned, abused, or tortured for the free and peaceful expression of their faith deserves our support, but Musa is also a remarkable person and Christian. In a letter smuggled to the West, he says, “The authority and prisoners in jail did many bad behaviour with me about my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, they did sexual things with me, beat me by wood, by hands, by legs, put some things on my head.”

He added a thing much more important to him, that they “mocked me ‘he’s Jesus Christ,’ spat on me, nobody let me for sleep night and day. . . . Please, please, for the sake of Lord Jesus Christ help me.”

Read the rest of it here:

Paul Marshall - America Quiet on the Execution of Afghan Christian Said Musa

Internal Conflicts within the Toronto Muslim Community

2011-02-09T09:15:00.003-05:00

I've been to Masjid Qurtaba in person, and I heard about the cancelled debate from Bartimaeus, but I didn't know this story would find its way into the National Post. Interesting cover story on the internal conflicts between conservatives and secular/liberal Muslims in Toronto.

HT: Prof. Tony Costa

More than 600 people showed up at the North American Muslim Foundation on a recent Saturday to hear a debate over secular liberalism in Islam.

It would have been something of a face off. The prospective debaters, Tarek Fatah, author and self-described secular Muslim, and Sheharyar Shaikh, president of NAMF and a conservative imam at Masjid Qurtabah, are known polemicists who have not shied away from very public disagreements in the past.

In fact, the event only came about after an open challenge to Mr. Fatah was published late last year by Mr. Shaikh, who called on the controversial author to publicly defend his moderate views, which have been called unIslamic by some in the Canadian Muslim community. Mr. Shaikh-- who has openly defended polygamy and opposed secular education for Muslims -- is among them.

When it was announced shortly after 6 p.m. that the debate was cancelled after Mr. Fatah declined to participate at the last minute, more than 600 people were disappointed.

Pope Says Condoms Allowable in Some Situations

2010-11-21T16:27:00.002-05:00

As somebody who has been hearing denunciations of contraceptive use coming from priests and bishops for many years, this comes as major news to me. I wonder how this will play out in the years to come.

Pope Benedict XVI said in comments released Saturday that the use of condoms may be morally acceptable in some cases to prevent the spread of AIDS, possibly foreshadowing a shift in the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the issue.

The pope's remarks outline an exception to the church's long-held policy against the use of artificial contraception, including condoms.

The pontiff, speaking to the author of a book that will be published next week, cited the example of a prostitute.

"There could be single cases that can be justified, for instance when a prostitute uses a condom, and this can be a first step towards a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to develop again the awareness of the fact that not all is allowed and that one cannot do everything one wants," Benedict said.

Read the rest of the news article here:

CNN News - Pope says condoms may be OK in some circumstances

More Bad Anti-Calvinist Arguments

2010-11-19T23:22:00.001-05:00

I don't know about you guys, but I think videos like this just refute themselves.

Islam and Dogs

2010-11-08T16:54:00.004-05:00

Because a close friend of mine who is an Afghani Muslim brought up the topic of why she's not allowed to own a puppy (despite really wanting one), I thought I'd do some research on what the hadiths have to say on the matter (since the Qur'an appears to be silent on this issue.) This is what I have been able to dig up:

1) Killing Dogs

Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 004, Book 054, Hadith Number 540)

Narated By Abdullah ibn Mughaffal : The Prophet (pbuh) said: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.
(Abu Dawud Book 010, Hadith Number 2839)

A hadith like this has been narrated from Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters except for the fact that in the hadith transmitted by Yahya those words are: "He (the Holy Prophet) gave concession in the case of the dog for looking after the herd, for hunting and for watching the cultivated land," and there is no mention of this addition (i.e. concession in case of watching the cultivated lands) except in the hadith transmitted by Yahya.
(Sahih Muslim Book 002, Hadith Number 0552)

Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) saying: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) forbade their killing. He (the Holy Prophet further) said: It is your duty the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil.
(Sahih Muslim Book 010, Hadith Number 3813)

Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and then said: what is the trouble with them (the people of Medina)? How dogs are nuisance to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds. In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Yahya, he (the Holy Prophet) permitted the keeping of dogs for (the protection of) herds, for hunting and (the protection of) cultivated land.
(Sahih Muslim Book 010, Hadith Number 3814)

Maimuna reported that one morning Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah's Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) spent the day in this sad (mood). Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: you promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).
(Sahih Muslim Book 024, Hadith Number 5248.)

2) Dogs annulling prayer

Narated By 'Aisha : The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him."
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 001, Book 009, Hadith Number 490)

Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of 'Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah(may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.
(Sahih Muslim Book 004, Hadith Number 1032)

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an ass and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.
(Sahih Muslim Book 004, Hadith Number 1034)

3) Loss of reward for keeping dogs

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who keeps a dog other than that meant for watching the herd or for hunting loses every day out of his deeds equal to two qirat.
(Sahih Muslim Book 010, Hadith Number 3815)

Narated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw.
(Abu Dawud Book 002, Hadith Number 0704)

Narated By Abu Huraira : Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle." Abu Huraira (in another narration) said from the Prophet, "unless it is used for guarding sheep or farms, or for hunting." Narrated Abu Hazim from Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A dog for guarding cattle or for hunting."
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 003, Book 039, Hadith Number 515)

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who attends the funeral till the prayer is offered for (the dead), for him is the reward of one qirat, and he who attends (and stays) till he is buried, for him is the reward of two qirats. It was said: What are the qirats? He said: They are equivalent to two huge mountains. Two other narrators added: Ibn 'Umar used to pray and then depart (without waiting for the burial of the dead). When the tradition of Abu Huraira reached him, he said: "We have lost many qirats."
(Sahih Muslim Book 004, Hadith Number 2062)

4) Angels stopping the visitation of angels

Narated By Abu Talha : I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 004, Book 054, Hadith Number 448)

Narated By Salim's father : Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, "We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog."
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 004, Book 054, Hadith Number 450)

Narrated By Salim's father : Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet but he delayed and the Prophet got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, "We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog."
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 007, Book 072, Hadith Number 843)

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Angels do not enter the house in which there are portrayals or pictures.
(Sahih Muslim Book 024, Hadith Number 5276)

5) Sale of dogs

Narated By 'Aun bin Abu Juhaifa : My father bought a slave who practiced the profession of cupping. (My father broke the slave's instruments of cupping). I asked my father why he had done so. He replied, "The Prophet forbade the acceptance of the price of a dog or blood, and also forbade the profession of tattooing, getting tattooed and receiving or giving Riba, (usury), and cursed the picture-makers."
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 003, Book 034, Hadith Number 299)

Narated By Abu Masud Al-Ansari : Allah's Apostle regarded illegal the price of a dog, the earnings of a prostitute, and the charges taken by a soothsayer.
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 003, Book 036, Hadith Number 482)

Aba Mas'ud al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) forbade the charging of price of the dog, and earnings of a prostitute and sweets offered to a kahin.
(Sahih Muslim Book 010, Hadith Number 3803)

More information, see Silas' analysis of these passages in his article on Answering Islam:

Silas - Muhammad and the Dogs

Note: See also Sahih Muslim 2:557-559

Dr. Christine Schirrmacher - Articles on Islam

2010-10-28T01:00:00.003-04:00

From the World Evangelical Alliance. For future reference:

Predestination Versus Fatalism

2010-10-25T12:28:00.003-04:00

By Lorraine Boettner

Much misunderstanding arises through confusing the Christian Doctrine of Predestination with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism. There is, in reality, only one point of agreement between the two, which is, that both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. The essential difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal God. Predestination holds that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism holds that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly within its grasp as mighty river carries a piece of wood.

Predestination teaches that from eternity God has had one unified plan or purpose which He is bringing to perfection through this world order of events. It holds that all of His decrees are rational determinations founded on sufficient reason, and that He has fixed one great goal "toward which the whole creation moves." Predestination holds that the ends designed in this plan are first, the glory of God; and second, the good of His people. On the other hand Fatalism excludes the idea of final causes. It snatches the reins of universal empire from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, and gives them into the hands of a blind necessity. It attributes the course of nature and the experiences of mankind to an unknown, irresistible force, against which it is vain to struggle and childish to repine.

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas, while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man. Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love, mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance which nothing can shake.

Predestination therefore differs from Fatalism as much as the acts of a man differ from those of a machine, or as much as the unfailing love of the heavenly Father differs from the force of gravitation. "It reveals to us," says Smith, "the glorious truth that our lives and our sensitive hearts are held, not in the iron cog-wheels of a vast and pitiless Fate, nor in the whirling loom of a crazy Chance, but in the almighty hands of an infinitely good and wise God."

Calvin emphatically repudiated the charge that his doctrine was Fatalism. "Fate," says he, "is a term given by the Stoics to their doctrine of necessity, which they had formed out of a labyrinth of contradictory reasonings; a doctrine calculated to call God Himself to order, and to set Him laws whereby to work. Predestination I define to be, according to the Holy Scriptures, that free and unfettered counsel of God by which He rules all mankind, and all men and things, and also all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and incomprehensible justice." And again, ". . . had you but been willing to look into my books, you would have been convinced at once how offensive to me is the profane term fate: nay, you would have learned that this same abhorrent term was cast in the teeth of Augustine by his opponents."

Luther says that the doctrine of Fatalism among the heathen is a proof that "the knowledge of Predestination and of the prescience of God, was no less left in the world than the notion of divinity itself." In the history of philosophy Materialism has proven itself essentially fatalistic. Pantheism also has been strongly tinged with it.

No man can be a consistent fatalist. For to be consistent he would have to reason something like this: "If I am to die today, it will do me no good to eat, for I shall die anyway. Nor do I need to eat if I am to live many years yet, for I shall live anyway. Therefore I will not eat." Needless to say, if God has foreordained that a man shall live, He has also foreordained that he shall be kept from the suicidal folly of refusing to eat.

"This doctrine," says Hamilton, "is only superficially like the pagan 'fate.' The Christian is in the hands not of a cold, immutable determinism, but of a warm, loving heavenly Father, who loved us and gave His Son to die for us on Calvary! The Christian knows that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, even to them that are called according to His purpose.' The Christian can trust God because he knows He is all-wise, loving, just and holy. He sees the end from the beginning, so that there is no reason to become panicky when things seem to be going against us."

Hence, only a person who has not examined this doctrine of Predestination, or one who is maliciously inclined, will rashly charge that it is Fatalism. There is no excuse for anyone making this mistake who knows what Predestination is and what Fatalism is.

Since the universe is one systematized unit we must choose between Fatalism, which ultimately does away with mind and purpose, and this biblical doctrine of Predestination, which holds that God created all things, that His providence extends to all His works, and that while free Himself He has also provided that we shall be free within the limits of our natures. Instead of our doctrine of Predestination being the same with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism, it is its absolute opposite and only alternative.

Source

Boettner, Lorraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004. pp. 130-131.

Christians Blow Up More People Than Muslims?

2010-10-21T19:32:00.003-04:00

(HT: David Wood via the Answering Muslims Blog)

No Comment.

Reflection on Grace

2010-10-18T01:56:00.003-04:00

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”
(Job 1:12-13)

God is great. God is good. He is faithful to provide for His children. Sometimes it’s so easy to forget that every good thing that we have is “from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17). Even when it we don’t seem to be getting what we want, it’s worth remembering that we still have some blessings from God. If you feel tempted to think that He has forgotten you in your affliction, just remember that the very breath with which you pour out your complaints to Him is granted by Him. He hasn’t forgotten you, but you may well have forgotten His goodness to you.

That is one of the things that I’ve learned to wrestle with. Even though God has given me innumerable blessings that I could never in a million years deserve, sometimes He chooses to withhold something that I fervently desire, and He is perfectly just in doing so. God isn’t obligated to give me anything, for His thoughts are higher than my thoughts and His ways than my ways (Isaiah 55:8-9), and those who think they can just name and claim whatever they want from Him have completely missed the point of God’s grace. Why should He give any of us health or wealth or even the most basic of our needs? The fact that He chooses to do so despite our unworthiness is a testimony to His grace and mercy, “[f]or he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). I think Saint Augustine said it best when he wrote in his Confessions, “Grant what you command, and command what you will” (Book 10, ch. 28).

The past few months have been quite taxing, but I’m not complaining. He is passing me through the fire, so that I would be purified and refined like silver and gold (Malachi 3:3). And I know that even if all these things pass away from my grasp, I still have Him, and that is sufficient:

When my soul was embittered,
when I was pricked in heart,
I was brutish and ignorant;
I was like a beast toward you.
Nevertheless, I am continually with you;
you hold my right hand.
You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory.
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
(Psalm 73:25-26)

For those of us who trust in Christ, this is the promise that is given to us: That even though there will be times when He appears to be far from us, He is actually there in the fire along with us, just as He was in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And whatever be the case, these are only temporary trials, which shall soon be done away with when we are received up into glory. “So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:16-17).

Closing prayer (from the Valley of Vision):

Lord, high and holy, meek and lowly,
Thou has brought me to the valley of vision,
where I live in the depths but see thee in the heights;
hemmed in by mountains of sin I behold Thy glory.

Let me learn by paradox
that the way down is the way up,
that to be low is to be high,
that the broken heart is the healed heart,
that the contrite spirit is the rejoicing spirit,
that the repenting soul is the victorious soul,
that to have nothing is to possess all,
that to bear the cross is to wear the crown,
that to give is to receive,
that the valley is the place of vision.

Lord, in the daytime stars can be seen from
deepest wells,
and the deeper the wells the brighter
Thy stars shine;

Let me find Thy light in my darkness,
Thy life in my death,
Thy joy in my sorrow,
Thy grace in my sin,
Thy riches in my poverty
Thy glory in my valley.

A.W. Pink and the Gap Theory

2010-10-07T23:03:00.007-04:00

As I was reading Arthur W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God (which I am borrowing from a library), I came upon an interesting section where Pink discusses the work of the Holy Spirit in regenerating an individual. He likens it to the Holy Spirit's work in renewing the desolate world in Genesis 1. The interesting part about it is that Pink here argues for a Gap[1] interpretation of Genesis, which he then uses as a springboard for his discussion on the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. In the fourth chapter of his book, he writes,

A beautiful type of the operations of the Holy Spirit antecedent to the sinner's "belief of the truth", is found in the first chapter of Genesis. We read in verse 2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The original Hebrew here might be literally rendered thus: "And the earth had become a desolate ruin, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In "the beginning" the earth was not created in the condition described in verse 2. Between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some awful catastrophe had occurred—possibly the fall of Satan—and, as the consequence, the earth had been blasted and blighted, and had become a "desolate ruin", lying beneath a pall of "darkness." Such also is the history of man. Today, man is not in the condition in which he left the hands of his Creator: an awful catastrophe has happened, and now man is a "desolate ruin" and in total "darkness" concerning spiritual things. Next we read in Genesis 1 how God refashioned the ruined earth and created new things to inhabit it. First we read, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Next we are told, "And God said, Let there be light; and there was light." The order is the same in the new creation: there is first the action of the Spirit, and then the Word of God giving light. Before the Word found entrance into the scene of desolation and darkness, bringing with it the light, the Spirit of God "moved." So it is in the new creation. "The entrance of Thy words giveth light" (Ps. 119:130), but before it can enter the darkened human heart the Spirit of God must operate upon it.[2]

As a friend of mine pointed out, it is noteworthy that the prophet Jeremiah speaks of the restoration of Israel using the language of creation: "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light" (Jeremiah 4:23). How well this interpretation holds up, however, I will leave for the reader to decide.[3]

End Notes

The gap theory postulates that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also reputed to encompass the so-called “geologic ages.” Proponents of the gap theory also postulate that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) and that the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God. (Sofield, Jack C. The Gap Theory of Genesis Chapter One. Bible.org. <http://bible.org/article/gap-theory-genesis-chapter-one>.)
Pink, Arthur Walkington. The Sovereignty of God (Sixth Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1959 (repr. 1975) pp. 90-91.
For a good book critiquing the Gap theory, I would recommend Weston W. Fields' Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory. New Leaf Publishing Group, 2005.

The Spirituality of Tertullian

2010-10-05T22:22:00.003-04:00

This is a short summary of the spirituality of Tertullian that I had to write based on a lecture on early Christian spirituality delivered by David Robinson from Westminster Chapel (the one in Toronto, not the one in London). I submitted this to Dr. Michael Haykin yesterday.

Tertullian is widely considered to be one of the earliest of the Latin church fathers. He comes from Carthage, North Africa. This region was originally settled by the Phoenicians (who came to be known as the Punics), and has been under Roman occupation since the second century B. C., towards the end of the Punic Wars, and was resettled during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Christian missionaries arrived in Carthage sometime around the second century from either Rome or Asia Minor (though more likely the latter, since Tertullian appears more Antiochene in his thinking), and it was witnessing the martyrdom of these early Christians that drove Tertullian to convert to Christianity.

This early church father has received a bad reputation from many scholars who are critical of his writings and the way he expresses himself. He is regarded as being sarcastic, anti-philosophical and misogynistic. The fact that he converted from orthodox Christianity to Montanism is also used as grounds to criticize him. However, once one is able to get past these criticisms, one can see a lot of merit in his character. He is very gospel-centered, is passionate about upholding the truth, is a deep thinker and a humble man (who considers himself to be “someone of no rank”). He is also a good rhetorician and can write in both Greek and Latin (although it is only his Latin writings that have survived). He is also highly influenced by Irenaeus of Lyons.

Tertullian’s writings can be classified into three main categories: Apologetics, refutation of heresy, and doctrinal/moral instruction. All of these writings were produced as a response to a specific movement or event that took place during his lifetime. For example, his most famous work was a five-volume refutation of the heretic Marcion. This work is considered to be a classic example of Tertullian’s writing, and demonstrates his wittiness and sharp rhetorical skills when addressing important issues. Tertullian refutes Marcion by taking the latter’s own canon and demonstrating that its contents support orthodox Christianity rather than Marcionite dualism.

In his writings, Tertullian displays the profundity of his thought. For example, he saw scripture as the Vox Domini (voice of God), was a very avid proponent of Old Testament typology (for example, if it had anything to do with wood, he connected it to the cross), and considered the Old Testament to be full of sacramenta (mysteries). His theology was quite word-centered; he believed that the Bible was at the centre of the life of the Church. He also argued that the Bible was the unique property of the Church, and only “holy persons” (whom he most likely would have equated to prophetic figures, not the bishops and presbyters). He is an important witness when it comes to the canon of scripture, since he quotes virtually all of the New Testament books except for the second and third epistles of John. He argued against Roman persecution, stating that it only caused more people (such as himself) to convert to Christianity. He demonstrated the superiority of Christianity over the pagan religious systems, demonstrating for example, the unique simplicity of baptism over and against the pomp of the pagan rituals. His treatises on moral instruction set the pace for many Christian writers to come after him. A prominent example is his writing on Patience, which was the first treatise of its kind in Christian literature, and was picked up in the writings of later church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo. Perhaps most significantly, he was also the first to use the term Trinitas to refer to the nature of the Godhead, describing God as being one substantia but three personae.

It is generally believed that Tertullian had converted from orthodox Christianity to “The New Prophecy”(today known as Montanism) around 206 or 207 A. D., although some have suggested that he merely had sympathies for the sect, and did not actually become a member of them. This sect, having been founded during the early 170s in Asia Minor by Montanus and the two “prophetesses” Prisca and Maxmilla, was very charismatic (putting much emphasis on prophecy and ecstatic utterances), disregarded ecclesiastical authorities, and put high value on martyrdom and asceticism (hence the description of Montanism as the “Church of the Martyrs”). Tertullian’s adherence to Montanist distinctives is seen most clearly in his ecclesiology; for him, the Church was God’s pure bride, and it did not have room in it for sinners. This is seen in his arguments against the admission of adulterers and fornicators back into the fellowship of the Church after they have committed grievous sin. This rigorist stance was common among many North African Christians, as seen not only in Tertullian, but also in later North African Christians such as Cyprian of Carthage and the Donatist movement. Also, for Tertullian, the Church wasdefined by the presence of the Holy Spirit, and criticized the mainstream Church for neglecting the gifts of the Spirit. He demonstrates this in his treatise against a Modalist from Rome by the name of Praxeas. In it, he accused the latter of “crucifying the father and putting to flight the paraclete.” Finally, he regarded the Church as “the people who anticipate the Kingdom,” which points to his inaugurated eschatology.

In summary, Tertullian can be said to be one of the most interesting characters of the Christian period. He is very witty in his writings, is very forceful in making his points and argues quite well, even when it turns out upon closer examination that his views are wrong. Through the influence of his writings, he set the pace for future Latin church fathers (especially North African ones) to come.

Anti-Missionaries Say the Darndest Things

2010-09-10T23:19:00.005-04:00

So recently, I wrote a series of articles rebutting the contents of a website called Crusade Watch. The articles themselves are in The Aristophrenium (see here for part 1, part 2 and part 3), though I wanted to point out how hilariously crazy and/or funny the claims being made in this site are. In particular, they have a page called "Why Oppose Evangelism" which contains many of the wackiest anti-missionary claims I have ever seen. Here are some examples (emphases mine):

Evangelical fudamentalism breeds intolerance. This intolerance effects even the families as fundamentalist Christians develop the mentality of 'I am right; you are wrong'. This mentality seems to be reason for higher divorce rates among Christians.

Some great thinkers [who?] consider the practice of evangelism equivalent to Satanism.

Many prominent Christians [who?] feel that Western Evangelism is a commercial empire just like any other business. The evangelicals exploit people's soft corner for religion and buy into their over-priced and often useless products. Examples are Pat Robertson's and Benny Hinn's businesses. [Because everybody knows that Robertson and Hinn are representatives of Evangelicalism as a whole.]

Most of the missionaries and Christian groups claim that Christianity and white race [When all else fails, play the race card.] have the highest moral values whereas all other religions and cultures are corrupt.

USA, which produced the world's top inventions and scientists is under siege due to Christian fundamentalism. These fundamentalists are opposed to scientific development because most of the scientific findings contradict Bible. Example: Bible states that Sun rotates around Earth and Earth is flat. Galileo who questioned this theory was put under house arrest and denied medical services he request.Â American Christian fundamentalists are against research and science on evolution as they believe that Adam & Eve created the world. [LOL what?]

Many evangelical churches are known to promote irrational and uncivillized acts such as witchcraft and exorcism which often involve child abuse. [And the evidence for this claim?]

A non-Christian who viewed the society as one entity after conversion to Christianity begins to see the society as two categories 'us' vs. 'them'. 'us' being the 'saved' and 'them' not worth living. He develops hate and illwill towards everything 'them' reveres. [Yeah, that's what Matthew 5:43-48 preaches, right?]

Increasingly world is accepting evangelical missions as an expression of hate crime. [It is???]

Most of the true Christian denomonations [way to know which denominations are the "true" ones. *coughliberalscough*] are not involved in missions and evangelism. They strongly argue that missions is the corrupted and evil expression of true Christianity. [Sure, because Jesus would never teach His apostles to "go out and make disciples of all nations," riiight?]

"Either convert and fight against India or DIE" is the message echoing across the 7 states (called 7 sisters) of North-east India. [Yeah, because Jesus taught them to evangelize that way...]

Church is against abortion, birth-control pills etc which brings misery to women's lives. Millions of women find their life devastated because of church. [Roman Catholicism =/= Christianity as a whole]

In Christianity a women is inferior to man. [I guess this guy never read Galatians 3:28, or studied early Christian attitudes towards women in comparison to the rest of the prevailing culture at the time.] Many women who enjoyed complete freedom and respect in their native religion become second class members in their own homes and family. [I'm sure the Hindu practice of immolating the wives of recently deceased men helped foster gender equality.]

Many evangelical leaders initiated and promoted war against heathen so that the field is open to harvest the souls. Many of the evangelical leaders and missionaries are War Criminals. [Who are these unnamed "evangelical leaders and missionaries?" Inquiring minds would like to know.]

Time and again world's renowned scholars [Who are they???] have clearly proved [How?] evangelism as an imperialistic activity. But because they operate in the spiritual realm, they continue to enjoy a fuzzy kind of permission to conduct a kind of business that is largely impossible in other less ethereal spheres of life.

It is amazing what those who oppose the Gospel of Jesus Christ will come up with to try and suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Aristophrenium Articles

2010-09-05T16:23:00.002-04:00

For those who may or may not already know, I've been writing for quite a while for The Aristophrenium now, and it has been a real pleasure working with Ryft and the rest of the team in that website. At this point, I have already written quite a few articles for them, and it's getting a bit hard to find them all so I've decided to produce a compendium of most of the articles I've produced for that website so far.

On Textual Criticism

On Hindu Pluralism

On Christology

The Deity of Christ: Ante-Nicene Beliefs

On Roman Catholicism

Was Mary Sinless?
A Follow-Up on “Was Mary Sinless?”
James Two in Relation to Sola Fide

Tony Costa vs. Bassam Zawadi

2010-08-13T19:42:00.004-04:00

Topic debate: Was Muhammad assured of his salvation?

Video taken by yours truly (via Bartimaeus' camcorder).

See the ABNsat website for more live debates featuring Rev. Tony Costa versus various Islamic apologists.

On Wife-Beating and Islam

2010-08-12T19:04:00.002-04:00

For those who may be interested to know, Negeen Mayel just recently published her first article on the Answering Muslims blog. It's on the recent abuse of an Afghan woman and the parallel between that and the treatment of Muhammad's wife, Aisha. Check it out:

Negeen Mayel - The Face of the 21st Century Aisha

A Dialogue on Epistemology and Christ's Lordship

2010-08-12T03:22:00.006-04:00

This is a recent dialogue that I had with a person who professes to be a Christian yet whose reasoning is grounded upon humanistic principles. This is an example of what happens when a person's thinking is based upon worldly ideology rather than the self-consistent word of God.

Much of the dialogue has been left unedited. I only removed some superfluous comments and took out our names. The other person shall be known only by the initials "C.D.H." His comments will be shaded cyan.

C.D.H:

If we are to forfeit reason at the foot of the cross then all is lost and I'm out.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei

Wise words from a man of God who was ironically imprisoned by the Catholic Church for challenging the geocentric model of astronomy in favor of a heliocentric one. Should we learn a lesson from him or are we doomed to repeat the Catholic Churches mistake? If we find that Faith, and I mean the concept of " accepting things blindly," type faith, takes off where reason leaves off... then we find ourselves in a dead end. Only confirming what the "new atheists" think of Christians. How sad.

Fisher:

There's a difference between abandoning reason and having a self-consistent foundation on which we are able to reason from.

By all means, come let us reason, but let's not come with this ridiculous notion that our ability to reason is somehow autonomous.

So what do we base our reasoning upon? In other words, what should be our final authority?

‎C.D.H:

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
-Siddhārtha Gautama

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
- Buddha

I'm unsure what the final authority ought to be, but how can something be true if I can poke holes in it with my own common sense? I have had no reason to doubt the authority of the bible thus far, but establishing it as the objective frame of reference is an entirely different story. If the laws of logic are contingent upon God's personal revelation, then I will have no problem establishing it as my objective frame of reference. But if this position is bankrupt, then using the Bible as an objective reference is... utter foolery.

Fisher:

So, fallible human reasoning is the measure of all things? How very... humanistic...

The buddha quotes tell all. Your own reason, and your own common sense. With all due respect, good sir, men are not gods; our reasoning is fallible and thus cannot be the basis on which we can establish what is ultimately true and what is not.

Please note, I am not picking at you for the sake of theological nitpicking. It is just that if you are to confess Jesus as Lord, you ought to confess that He is Lord over our epistemology as well. After all, it is in only Christ "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3, NIV)

So regarding what you said: How do you know if the divine revelation is bankrupt or not as an objective frame of reference? Easy: Verify its consistency. If the Bible is what is says it is, then it will not only be consistent with itself, but will also give us a consistent way of interpreting all facts (as opposed to interpreting the facts using our own fallible reasoning as the final frame of reference).

I am telling you this so no one will deceive you with well-crafted arguments... Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
(Colossians 2:4,8, NLT)

C.D.H:

Okay then... then what is to happen should scripture say something incoherent?

Fisher:

Then it is not a self-consistent objective frame of reference, and would thus prove not to be of God.

Here's my question: When you ask whether scripture can say something "incoherent," on what grounds can we say whether something is coherentor not?

C.D.H:

I really am unsure as to how it logically follow that finding one flaw in Scripture = the entire thing is not of God. And to answer your question, simple common sense really...

‎Fisher:

"Your own reason and your own common sense" again?

Since you quoted Buddha, allow me to quote some *Christian* writers:

Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone.
(Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Ch. 1.)

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.
(Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. 4:17.)

C.D.H:

*sigh* Warning: hypothetical situation... if the Bible clearly said 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe it? I wouldn't, and yes, my own reason, and my own common sense. What I know for a fact is that axioms exist and I am capable of comprehending them to some degree. Do I understand or know how they are here? No, they may be metaphysically necessary for all I know. But if they themselves disagree with what you hold to be their source, then what source is left?

Fisher:

That's precisely the point: Since truth is one, and is entirely self-consistent the Bible would never make a false claim such as "2 + 2 = 5." Once again, I would like to ask that you not turn the doctrine of divine Revelation into a caricature of itself.

Simple question: If Christ Jesus is Lord over all things, is He Lord over your epistemology and rational thought as well?

C.D.H:

I'm ending this for the night... This is all going to go into pointless circles until I make up my mind on presuppositionalism. To be honest with you, right now.. it looks really, really dumb. If logic is metaphysically necessary, then no -- but if they are contingent upon the Lord himself, then yes.

Fisher:

I'm done for the night as well. We shall continue this some other time. But as for your last comment: Christ's Lordship admits of no exceptions. That includes logic and reasoning. We submit mind, body and soul to Him, and we ought not to allow any part of our life and thought to remain autonomous.

Here is my final exhortation to you: Think biblically, since "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:4-5, NASB)

That is all. God bless.

The Potter and the Clay

2010-08-06T10:32:00.003-04:00

By George Whitefield

If it be inquired, who is to be the potter? And by whose agency this marred clay is to be formed into another vessel? Or in other words, if it be asked, how this great and mighty change is to be effected? I answer, not by the mere dint and force of moral suasion [persuasion]. This is good in its place. And I am so far from thinking, that Christian preachers should not make use of rational arguments and motives in their sermons, that I cannot think they are fit to preach at all, who either cannot, or will not use them. We have the example of the great God himself for such a practice; “Come (says he) and let us reason together.” And St. Paul, that prince of preachers, “reasoned of temperance, and righteousness, and a judgment to come.” And it is remarkable, “that whilst he was reasoning of these things, Felix trembled.” Nor are the most persuasive strains of holy rhetoric less needful for a scribe ready instructed to the kingdom of God. The scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, every where abound with them. And when can they be more properly employed, and brought forth, than when we are acting as ambassadors or heaven, and beseeching poor sinners, as in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God. All this we readily grant. But at the same time, I would as soon go to yonder church-yard, and attempt to raise the dead carcasses, with a “come forth,” as to preach to dead souls, did I not hope for some superior power to make the word effectual to the designed end. I should only be like a sounding brass for any saving purpose, or as a tinkling cymbal. Neither is this change to be wrought by the power of our own free-will. This is an idol every where set up, but we dare not fall down and worship it. “No man (says Christ) can come to me, unless the Father draw him.” Our own free-will, if improved, may restrain us from the commission of many evils, and put us in the way of conversion; but, after exerting our utmost efforts (and we are bound in duty to exert them) we shall find the words of our own church article to be true, that “man since the fall hath no power to turn to God.” No, we might as soon attempt to stop the ebbing and flowing of the tide, and calm the most tempestuous sea, as to imagine that we can subdue, or bring under proper regulations, our own unruly wills and affections by any strength inherent in ourselves.

And therefore, that I may keep you no longer in suspense, I inform you, that this heavenly potter, this blessed agent, is the Almighty Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost, the third person in the most adorable Trinity, coessential with the Father and the Son. This is that Spirit, which at the beginning of time moved on the face of the waters, when nature lay in one universal chaos. This was the Spirit that overshadowed the Holy Virgin, before that holy thing was born of her: and this same Spirit must come, and move upon the chaos of our souls, before we can properly be called the sons of God. This is what John the Baptist calls “being baptized with the Holy Ghost,” without which, his and all other baptisms, whether infant or adult, avail nothing. This is that fire, which our Lord came to send into our earthly hearts, and which I pray the Lord of all lords to kindle in every unrenewed one this day.

As for the extraordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, such as working of miracles, or speaking with divers kinds of tongues, they are long since ceased. But as for this miracle of miracles, turning the soul to God by the more ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, this abides yet, and will abide till time itself shall be nor more. For it is he that sanctifieth us, and all the elect people of God. On this account, true believers are said to be “born from above, to be born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Their second, as well as their first creation, is truly and purely divine. It is, therefore, called “a creation;” but put ye on (says the apostle) the new man which is created” — And how? Even as the first man was, “after God in righteousness and true holiness.”

Source

George Whitefield - The Potter and the Clay

Hussein Wario Is At It Again

2010-08-05T18:06:00.006-04:00

So Hussein starts off by attacking Dr. White for his criticisms of Ergun Caner. Then, he proceeds to attack Acts 17 Apologetics and Dr. White (again) for defending them. Now, he wants to go more specific and direct his vitriol against Negeen Mayel. He has done exactly this in his latest blog post, My Free Speech Trumps the Gospel.

The offending comments are not in the actual blog itself. However, if you look at the comment box where David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi (among others) take Wario to task for his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, he links to this video and endorses it as proving that Acts 17's comments regarding Negeen's behaviour has been deceptive. Of course, the entire video is just a mass of spin-doctoring (the video seems to have been made by a Christian, but who knows if it is just a Muslim practicing taqiyyah?) that twists the facts to make it seem like the Acts 17 members have been lying about their testimony.

Whatever the case, David Wood has published his response to Wario on the Acts 17 blog. I don't need to repeat any of the refutations of Wario's vitriol. Let everybody look at what David has said in response to Wario, and see who is really speaking the truth on this matter.

PS - There is somebody posting as "Dr. Oakley" in the comments box, siding with Wario against Acts 17 and Wario's critics. I have no idea who this person is (Maybe it's Peter Lumpkins? I don't know.), but given that Dr. Oakley is James White's nickname, it is quite deceptive for someone to use that title like that.

Jamin Hubner - On Hyper-Dispensationalism

2010-08-03T00:45:00.002-04:00

Jamin Hubner over at Real Apologetics has been posting some really good articles on Hyper-Dispensationalism. I thought it might be worth reposting those articles here for anybody who may want to study up on this issue:

Contending Earnestly For the Faith (Sermon)

2010-08-01T21:11:00.006-04:00

This is a little farewell message I gave to the Christian Fellowship that I was running at my old high school before I graduated. I gave it to a group of about 10 members (including myself) as an exhortation to continue working for God's glory in the coming years. I just thought it might be a good idea to post it here for posterity's sake.

Sermon Title:

Contending Earnestly For the Faith

Sermon Text:

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
(Jude 1:3, NASB)

Sermon Proposition:

We need the Holy Spirit to come... to bring about a revival.

Bible translations used:

ESV – English Standard Version

NASB – New American Standard Bible

I want you all to know that it has been a great pleasure being with you and having fellowship together. I thank the Lord God for every moment that we have had together, especially with those of you whom we have done prayers and evangelism outreach with. Since I am leaving [name of high school deleted], and will no longer be with you next year, I decided to leave you all with this short message to encourage all of you for the following school year and the rest of the years to come.

Now, you just heard the bible passage from Jude which I am basing my message on. I want this to be the theme of this Fellowship for those of you who will continue to take part next year. Never forget, brothers and sisters, that we are living in a world that is perishing in sin and depravity. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “the god of this world [that is, Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4, ESV). Many around us appear lively and energetic, but God’s word makes it plain that spiritually, they are “dead in trespasses and sins... [being] by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:1,3). And what shall we do about this? The answer is given to us by Jude: We must contend! We must “contend earnestly for the faith” by doing everything that God has granted us to do so that light may come to this world. Let us proclaim to the world “our common salvation,” which we have received from God by His free grace. My contention then, brothers and sisters, is that we need the Holy Spirit to come upon this school—this neighbourhood even—to bring about a revival.

Yes, you heard me right. I said revival. I long to see the days of the great awakening come to life in this age, and I long to see God bring up preachers like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield of old; men who were empowered by the Spirit to proclaim the Gospel fearlessly, show sinners their lost state and need for Christ and win thousands of souls into eternal life. May the Spirit quicken us today just as He did back in those days. For this to happen though, there are three important things that I want you all to bear in mind:

First off, I want you to remember that a true revival is one that is initiated by the Spirit of God. When the masses linger in their deadness, the only thing that can make any difference is the reviving, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Do not think that we can accomplish anything by our own effort and willpower. We have no strength of our own to rely upon. As the Psalmist once put it, “Unless the LORD builds the house, they labour in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, the watchman keeps awake in vain” (Psalm 127:1, NASB). Always remember that those who are born again are born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13, NASB), and that “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except in the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3, ESV). “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9, ESV). When we evangelize, are but tools in the hands of the Sovereign Architect. One proverbs states, I am not one to entertain the idea that we have any spark of goodness that we should choose God on our own. My friend, those of us who have made the good confession have done so because we are in the Spirit. And we must pray that God may send forth His Spirit to make others born again and as a result believe. It’s like what it says in that old hymn,

Did we in our own strength confide,
Our striving would be losing.

Let God go forth ahead of us, that the Lord Christ may be the general to lead this army into victory. Pray for the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, for He who was able to change our hearts and cause us to be born again is able to do likewise towards others as well.

That being said, let us also remember that we must constantly check ourselves against the measuring rod of God’s word. It is the only sure standard that we have; Do not go “beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6)! Remember that “Scripture is breathed out [or inspired] by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (1 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV). I am afraid that we often replace scripture with gimmicks and programs to entice people into believing. My friends, neither Jesus nor the apostles nor anybody in the early church ever did that. Whatever you are doing, make sure it is in accordance with scripture. Read it regularly. Get a daily reading plan. Memorize some verses. Make sure you’re not neglecting your bible study. Most important of all, make sure that you’re applying the Word to all that you do in life. Do not be led astray by fleshly emotions or traditions of men. If you think you are being led by the Spirit, check the scriptures to see if you are being lead according to God’s word. This is the surest way to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1, ESV).

Finally, learn to communicate effectively to those around us. Paul said in his epistle to the Colossians that you must “conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, by salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person” (Colossians 4:5-6, NASB). We run into different people every day, and we must know how to answer each of them according to where they are. This is where your bible knowledge comes in. Use the Word to answer. Don’t be afraid to make use of all the resources that God has made available. Remember that you must, in the words of the apostle Peter, “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15, NASB). If you can learn how to redeem the time, you will be able win countless souls over into the Kingdom of Heaven.

There are many more words that I wish to say to you, but because time is short, I leave you with these words. For all of you who are coming back next year, may you keep the light shining for all to see. May you be like that great preacher Jonathan Edwards, who resolved to live for God even if nobody else would do so. And let us never cease praying that God may bring about spiritual revival in our school, in our families and in our neighbourhood. Finally, since we began with a passage from Jude, we shall end with one from Jude as well. Verses 20 onward state:

But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever.

Amen.
(Jude 1:20-25, ESV)

And may Lord God be with you on your journey through this present life, and may you always be working for the glory of His name.

Anne Rice Quits Christianity

2010-07-31T00:07:00.005-04:00

This just goes to show you that the cross has always been and always will be foolishness to the natural mind:

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. “I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten …years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else...

...As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

Read the rest of it here:

Published Now - Anne Rice Quits Christianity

Clark Pinnock Retires from McMaster

2010-07-29T13:22:00.008-04:00

Wesleyanism is winning the day, which is why the Calvinists are so defensive.
-Clark Pinnock

*Rolls eyes* Whatever. I guess he hasn't noticed the recent resurgence of Calvinists in Evangelicalism, plus the advances being made by theologians in the Reformed camp (Three words: The Gospel Coalition). I wonder what he means by "winning," because I don't see Wesleyan-Arminians winning anything anytime soon.

Personally, I am quite glad that he is resigning from his post. I hope McMaster Divinity School will get somebody more doctrinally sound to take his place.

News Article

Christian Week - A new direction for Clark Pinnock

Oh Really, Hussein Wario?

2010-07-27T16:11:00.009-04:00

Hussein Wario is a person whom I cannot quite make heads or tails out of. It escapes me how somebody could be so intent on defending Ergun Caner (who has done nothing but lie about his past, slander Calvinists and misrepresent Islamic beliefs) whilst simultaneously posting criticisms of Acts 17 Apologetics (who have been boldly proclaiming the Gospel even in the midst of hostile crowds of Muslims). I have been following the events that have been taking place in Dearborn ever since the arrests, and I must say that all of the evidence points overwhelmingly to the innocence of the Dearborn four. Mr. Wario does not seem to get this, though. In one of his recent blog posts, The Glorified Deceit, he continues his criticisms of Acts 17 Apologetics and Alpha and Omega Ministries for defending Acts 17. He begins with this little point:

On July 2, I wrote for the first time on the arrests of Acts 17 Apologetics missionaries in Dearborn, Michigan. Christians, including Dr. James White, urged their fellow Christians—even witnesses to the arrests—for restraint in passing their judgment because these missionaries had “everything” they did on video. While Dr. White asked Christians to wait for the video evidence, he did not stop from denigrating the City of Dearborn and its police department. I wondered how he would react this strongly when he was not in Dearborn, let alone be a witness. An Arab Christian even notified Dr. White of his concerns of Acts 17 missionaries and he was called to wait for the video evidence.

I think somebody should inform Mr. Wario that Dr. James White was right up there in Michigan when the events took place. The places where the debates and ABN programs took place were a stone's throw away from Dearborn. He even had a discussion with some of the missionaries the afternoon before the arrests took place. In his own words:

I had spent about an hour with Nabeel, David, and Nageen [sic](I am uncertain if Paul was with us at lunch) the afternoon they were arrested at the ABN studios. I was talking with the head of ABN when they came in (we had gotten some burritos for them at a local restaurant). As soon as Nabeel came in he told me he had just finished a class on systematic theology, said he thought he had a good grip on the issues relating to Reformed theology, and launched a series of good questions for me. This led to a discussion on the key elements of my beliefs as a Calvinist. It was not an argument, it was a good period of questions on Nabeel's part, answers on mine. And Nabeel was listening carefully to my replies. This is how I know Nabeel...as an honest hearted young man, brilliant (a medical doctor!), teachable, intense. I have tried to be a good example of a more mature believer for him, as little contact as we have had. And I hope I have done the same for David (this was the first time I met Nageen [sic]).

In any case, when I had people telling me about bad behavior of Nabeel and David, I was immediately suspicious. But why would Christian groups bear false witness about them? Well, why has Hussein Wario become a wild-eyed defender of Ergun Caner? I do not know, but it happens. But I have said to a number of folks, "How about we just wait for the video footage?" And now we have it. (link)

And you can argue, "Well yeah, but he wasn't there when the actual arrests took place." That does not invalidate his statements at all. I have friends who saw the arrests firsthand, and they corroborate Dr. White's statements.

Dearborn Police Department returned the cameras “intact” or “without erasing all the footage” [Acts 17 Apologetics statements] a fortnight ago. As promised, footages [sic] of the arrests were posted. Most Christians, mostly Dr. White’s fans, quickly asked their fellow Christians to repent publicly for questioning the arrests. I have wondered how witnesses could recant what they witnessed prior to the arrests that footages [sic] don’t debunk.

I'm wondering which "witnesses" Wario is referring to here. I already posted the video of my friend who is a witness to the events and can testify that everything Dr. White and the Acts 17 team have said are true. He's not the only one either. Perhaps if we knew better who these people are who allegedly witnessed Acts 17 doing their disorderly conduct, we can take a better look at their claims and see how reliable they are.

Since posted footages weren’t answering questions, I wrote a post on July 19 of how 15-20 minutes of footage before the first arrest could provide clues. I was specific. Nageen’s [sic] arrest. A concerned Christian was upset with me. He sent me a message and we went back and forth for a while. He ended up asking Acts 17 on Facebook for the video footage prior to Nageen’s [sic] arrest. The message was clear. The footage should be what transpired before the first arrest. How hard can it be? Guess what video was posted? Dubbed, “The Missing Footage,” it has nothing to do with the first arrest. Nageen had already been arrested at that point. The public needs to know what happened that necessitated the criminal complaint. They want people to believe that they were victims of injustice. How evasive and misleading can they get? Can they just admit that not all of their activities—legal or “illegal”—were on camera?

First of all, I wonder how hard it is to remember a person's name. Her name is spelt Negeen. With an e. Come on people, get it right.

That aside, most of the people who were accusing the Acts 17 team of disorderly conduct allege that it took place in the 15 minutes that transpired between Negeen's arrest and the arrest of the other three. The purpose of the missing footage being released was to put that myth to rest once and for all. And as for why there would be a criminal complaint against Negeen, the answer is obvious: The police don't want another person taking video footage of the arrests when they happen, so they decided to get her out of the way (harassing her in a very rude and uncivilized manner in the process). To quote her own words, "I wasn't aware that videotaping in America had become illegal." (link)

Even with these questions still lingering, Dr. White still gives this group a platform to spread their myth about being arrested in Dearborn for being a Christian, etcetera. They were on “Iron Sharpens Iron” last Wednesday, courtesy of Dr. White, discussing the arrests. He “very highly recommended” the appearance.

Just for your information, Acts 17 Apologetics isn't the only group that has suffered from the unlawful practices of the powers that be in Dearborn. Dozens of Christians have been treated similarly. For example, we have this interview of a Christian who talks about how they and other Christians (such as George Saieg's ministry) are prevented from distributing literature while Muslims who do the exact same thing get a free pass.

Dr. White—a man known for his straight answers—keeps on changing his story as well. From his initial post about “the rule of law (not Sharia) in Dearborn” to the most recent one belittling Josh McDowell witnessing to Muslims. Apparently, he learned the hard way that Christians still preach or distribute Bibles and tracts in Dearborn.

I don't quite understand either why Josh McDowell's ministry went unhindered while many other Christian ministries (not just Acts 17 Apologeticss) were. I would guess that McDowell had taken special care to be as inoffensive as possible in distributing books there. And if some Muslims come to Christ as a result of his ministry there, then that's great! However, that does not change the fact that titling his video "Sharia Love" is simply in poor taste, and is an insult to our brothers and sisters in Christ who have to endure the devastating effects of Sharia law in majority Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

I wonder if he has ever been to Dearborn to write such a scathing initial post on the arrests. Does anyone know? Sad, how his objectivity is lacking and integrity somewhat wanting. It seems they matter only when investigating Dr. Ergun Caner. On that note, Liberty University rendered its verdict four weeks ago and that has not stopped Dr. White from continuing his discussion.

I don't want to get into the Ergun Caner issue for the main reason that it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. However, as I pointed out earlier, Dr. White was in fact in Michigan during the time of the arrests. I have watched his appearances on the Jesus or Muhammad programs that were being shown at around that same general time period. It is simply naive to think that he does not know what he is talking about when he posts his criticisms

A mere red herring because Dr. White refuses to acknowledge that he has been wrong in criticizing the Dearborn police, Josh McDowell ministries, other Christians and organizations. Evidence of his deceit is even on his Alpha & Omega Ministries website. His fans never question it. Instead, they glorify it.

I have been quite observant of what has been going on lately, having gone through ever available bit of information that has become available ever since the events first occurred. I would say that Dr. White is right on the money in everything he has said regarding the Dearborn police and Josh McDowell ministries. Now, I don't know what other Christian organizations Mr. Wario is alluding to here. Are there Christians who saw the events and will testify that Acts 17 and Dr. White are wrong? I don't know. But I have heard the testimonies of people who were there and they point overwhelmingly to only one conclusion: Acts 17 Apologetics is innocent of all charges that have been laid against them.

Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
let the sea roar, and all that fills it;
let the field exult, and everything in it!
Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy
before the Lord, for he comes,
for he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness,
and the peoples in his faithfulness.
(Psalm 96:11-13, ESV)

NOTE: In the initial version of this post, I mistakenly said that Dr. White was in Dearborn. What I should have said was that he was within a stone's throw away from Dearborn. Thanks to Hussein Wario for correcting me on that one minor point wherein I misspoke, but that does not negate anything else that I've said.

In Defense of Nabeel Qureshi

2010-07-27T01:52:00.007-04:00

Due to their ministry efforts in explaining and critiquing the Islamic religion, Acts 17 Apologetics has been the target of propaganda by various Muslims online. One such example is a YouTube channel that goes by the name of RefutingActs17. Whoever runs this channel has been busy taking pot shots at various Acts 17 members, although careful viewers should note that there is little actual substance to the attacks being made. Be that as it may, there are some videos on that channel where Nabeel Qureshi’s statements are chopped up into short little sound bites and used as ammo to attack Nabeel. It is worth taking a look at some of these attempts:

Video One – “Exposing Nabeel Qureshi: It's Getting Islamic Around Here!”

Description: Just watch the bigoted and islamophobic sentiments of Nabeel Qureshi flow as he visits 'Islam-o-Town' of London.

Comment: Now, you could probably conclude from the short sound bite offered that Nabeel is providing us with “bigoted and islamophobic sentiments.” However, there is a bit of sleight of hand here, as viewing the original video in its context reveals that there is nothing bigoted or islamophobic about what he said. Immediately after saying “things are getting a lot more Islamic around here,” he then goes on to say, "and really, I have no problem with that. If Islam is a religion of peace and there's no stifling of personal rights or anything of that sort, I have no problem with that." It is really quite dishonest to just pluck that one statement out of context and use it to misrepresent what Nabeel is actually trying to convey here.

Of course, Nabeel goes on to explain that "that is not the case" based on some facts that he cites, not to mention his own observations while in London. And he is not being totally negative either. He even says at one point that he doesn't agree with all of the claims that other critics of Islam make. Whatever the case, what he says is certainly true, so this particular pot shot really does not really succeed accomplish anything other than demonstrating the fact that the video maker has a serious axe to grind against Acts 17 Apologetics.

Video Two – “Exposing Nabeel Qureshi: Dearborn Muslim Youth Are Racist And Threatening”

Description: Watch-out! The Dearborn Muslim Youth are both racist and threatening according to Nabeel Qureshi.

Comment: At the time that this video was made, the footage of the racist and threatening comments had not yet been released. However, since the video footage proving that the claims made by Paul Rezkalla were right all along have been released, I think it would be safe to say that this particular attack no longer really holds. This is just an example of how these Islamic propagandists are seeking to take advantage of the media blackout to cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of the Acts 17 members.

Video Three – “Exposing Nabeel Qureshi: Was I an Ahmadi, or a Muslim?"

Description: We've finally been able to put together a convincing argument that Nabeel was never a Muslim, and never has been a Muslim. Nabeel was an Ahmadi, a member of a highly heretical deviant group known as Ahmadiyya. They are branded as heretics in every Muslim country and barely make up even 0.1% of the entire Muslim Populace.

Comment: I have always known that Nabeel Qureshi was a former Ahmadi. This really isn’t particularly new to me, and neither am I surprised that those who are within the fold of Orthodox Sunni Islam would use this as an excuse to discredit his testimony.

First of all, it is ridiculous to claim that he tries to pass himself off as a former mainstream Muslim. I have heard him give his testimony before on Iron Sharpens Iron, and he is quite clear about being a former member of the Ahmadiyya movement. In an article he wrote on the massacre of Ahmadis that took place in Lahore two months ago, he states, “The victims were Ahmadi Muslims, the sect of Islam in which I was born and raised.”[1] And to top it all off, in his conversion story, he makes it quite explicit in an endnote that he was raised as an Ahmadi:

I mention that I had learned a very peaceful version of Islam. I belonged to the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam, a sect that many Muslims consider heretical. One of the distinguishing features of this movement is that they consider military jihad to be abolished. As I wish to be forthright with all my readers, this note serves to explicitly state which sect of Islam I belonged to.[2]

As for whether the fact that Nabeel is a former Ahmadi makes him a liar: Whether Ahmadis actually are Muslims or not is not really my concern. However, let me concede just for the sake of argument that the Sunnis are correct in saying that Ahmadis are not really Muslims . That does not mean that he is lying. In order to be a liar, you would have to know that what you are saying is false. However, since Nabeel was taught all his life that he was a Muslim, and he took this for granted to be true, the worst charge that one could raise against him is that he had been tricked by his Jama’at into honestly (albeit mistakenly) believing that he was a Muslim when he actually wasn’t.

Let me give an equivalent from a Christian perspective: I deal with various cults (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons) that profess to be Christian, even though they deny many of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. Now, I could say that they had been fed lies by their leaders, but I would not say that they are liars themselves. They may be honest in thinking themselves to be Christians, but they are honestly mistaken.

So why does he not mention these things to the youths he is dialoguing with in the video? The answer is obvious: As the video maker himself acknowledges (0:27-0:30), the youths don’t even know what an Ahmadi is! There are more important things that needed to be discussed, so delineating the differences between Orthodox Islam and the Ahmadiyya movement would be a waste of time at this point.

(Note: In the comments section of this video, it appears that the channel owner has blocked the person who had been calling for Nabeel’s execution. Kudos to the channel owner for distancing himself from such a violent extremist, yet this does not soften the arguments that are being raised against him.)

Video Four - "Exposing Nabeel Qureshi: Bible Hasn't Changed...Much"

Description: Nabeel Qureshi admitted from the very beginning that he had willingly accepted a flawed religious text.

Comment: The vast majority of Muslims know little about textual criticism, and many of the ones who do rely on some rather biased sources such as Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.[3] Suffice to say, the video maker does not really explain anything, but is once again taking one little sound bite and ripping out of context (I even chuckle a bit at one of the video comments that talks about “30,000 corrupt manuscripts that all differ from one another.”). Now, it is true that when copies of the bible are produced, the scribes inevitably make copying errors. However, the vast majority of these errors are neither viable (the errors are obvious or are produced way too late to have any chance of being the original reading) nor significant (minor copying errors like spelling errors and word order that do not affect the meaning of the text). Also, an error made by a scribe in one part of the world will most likely not affect manuscripts made anywhere else in the world, which is why comparing manuscripts that were copied in widely divergent geographical regions is a very effective method of filtering out textual variants and verifying the original reading.

Ultimately, it is not a question of whether manuscripts of the bible have errors in them, but whether these errors prevent us from knowing what the original text of the bible actually says. You can have thousands of manuscripts that all have errors in them, but unless every single manuscript has mistakes in the exact same spot (and really, this is where the “they all differ from one another” argument falls flat on its face), this is does not provide any evidence that the bible has been corrupted. In fact, given the superior textual tradition of the bible compared to other literary works dating from the same age, we have much more certainty on what the bible says than any other book written before the invention of the printing press. It is truly “an embarrassment of riches,” as renowned textual scholar Daniel Wallace often puts it. As Dr. Bruce Metzger states in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,

During the twentieth century, with the discovery of several New Testament manuscripts much older than any that had hitherto been available, it has become possible to produce editions of the New Testament that approximate ever more closely to what is regarded as the wording of the original documents[4]

To add to this, Drs. Normal Geisler and William Nix also state that,

The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book—a form that is 99.5 percent pure.[5]

I would add to this that in the remaining 0.5 percent where there is any signficant doubt concerning the original reading, not a single cardinal Christian doctrine is affected. In other words, our biblical faith remains intact. (For more information, see this article that I wrote for the Aristophrenium)

Conclusion

I doubt that this will be the last time I have to deal with RefutingActs17, as the channel owner has only recently begun to start posting videos criticizing Acts 17 Apologetics. However, a quick skim through the videos in question show that there is very little substance to the claims being made. For the most part, what you get is a volley of name-calling such as “bigoted,” “islamophobic,” “tinkerbell,” etc. Nevertheless, I hope that this article will help to expose the false accusations being raised against Nabeel Qureshi and the other members of Acts 17, and vindicate these brothers and sister in Christ.

End Notes

Qureshi, Nabeel. Muslims Slaughter 70 of My People, Who Are Also Muslims. Answering Muslims. <http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/05/muslims-slaughter-70-of-my-people-who.html>.

Qureshi, Nabeel. Crossing Over: An Intellectual and Spiritual Journey from Islam to Christianity. Answering Islam. <http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Qureshi/testimony.htm>.

I do not have the space or time to explain the problems with Ehrman’s arguments, so I would like to direct the reader to Daniel Wallace’s review of Misquoting Jesus: <http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart>.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Second Edition). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. p. 10.

Geisler, Norman L. And William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago IL: Moody Press, 1980. p. 367.

Weird Stuff People Say on Youtube

2010-07-24T23:54:00.014-04:00

What you are about to read is a recording of a dialogue I recently had with a fellow on Youtube named "paisleyatlarge." This is just an example of how Youtube acts as an internet ignorance aggregator. His assertions obviously have no merit to them whatsoever, but I wanted to toy around with this fellow a bit to see what kind of utter nonsense he would spout. Here are his initial comments (with my initial rebuttals):

There was an apparition of jesus a few years ago, His face miraculously appeared on a wall of an old abandoned gas station down in Mexico. The devout came from far and near, prayed, sang, lit candles, incense, made dedications, promises, and had vigils. One evening a man went up to the magic image and rubbed it with his finger. Some of the white wash came off, and revealed that underneath was an old poster advertising a Willie Nelson concert.

An Interesting anecdote, but says nothing at all about the truth or falsity of the Christian faith.

Mormonism, xtianity, they are all man-made. xtianity was made up on command of Constantine by the council of Nicea, and did not exist before then. It was all made up including the story of jesus. You can study the historic evidence yourself, if you look up legitimate historians rather than xtian apologists.

Can you please explain to me the writings of such the ante-Nicene Fathers such as Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, etc. who all taught what Christians today believe long before Constantine came along?

His response to my initial comments (with my rebuttals):

The very popular gnostic ideas of "christos" goes back at least til 200bce but was not what people think of today as "christ" (un-bodied spirit). The closest ideas were possibly Ireneus, because he was the most irrascibly aggressive, his ideas gained ground. The teachings of Marcion, original fragments of "Mark" there was IS CHRESTOS, (IS later changed to IES or IESU, jesus, no "j" in alphbet then, and CHRESTOS (good, helpful, useful) rather than CHRISTOS (annointed).

What "original" fragments of Mark are you talking about. The oldest manuscripts of Mark that we have are widely available (they can be viewed online at csntm.org) and they read nothing like what you just claimed.

IS CHRESTOS wasn't born, was sort of a 'ghost' that appeared to save us from god (jehovah) who created all the material world, was less skilful, bad actally, than the new unknown god of love IS. Marcion also edited the letters of Apollonius into being the letters of 'paul', to create the first xtian scriptures (as well as fleshing out the myth of jesus with the life of Apollonius). For all his trouble, he was excommunicated by the Romans, but they kept his book, was all they had!

Although it is true that Apollonius lived around the same time as Paul and the NT writers, the main body of Apollonian belief didn't develop until centuries later, and did so as a response to the spread of Chrsitianity. So if any borrowing took place, it would actually have been the other way around. Not only that, but I defy you to provide me with any credible historical source that says Paul's letters were originally Apollonius'.

Eusebius changed Marcions scriptures to IES (jesus) to attract the popular joshua cults, to CHRISTOS to draw in remaining gnostic, therapeuts & essenes, the astrotheological aspects of Egypt, etc. for the pagans, to create the myth to unify the nation. That was way too little space for not nearly enough info, no room to reference, so only a VERY bare skeleton. I hate to do that. Really, you or anyone else can study this on your own, the catholic encyclpdia online's a good source. And with a humble heart I gratefully give you most profound thanks for being so kind and astute to not mention "The Antiquities of the Jew", by Josephus.

Are you relying on the primary sources or what some secondary source tells you? These patristic writers' sources are available online (ccel.org). I've read them myself, and the reality there is nothing like what you just claimed.

But I'm on a roll... the "pre-nicene fathers" are naturally very important for the church which tries desperately to draw a tenuous thread between them even back to 'polycarp' who was supposed to know 'peter', trying to produce history for their version of christ, who with all he was supposed to have said and done, acclaimed to have been so widely known, not a single contemporary historian of his area even mentions him by name. Nor paul. Pre-Nicene fathers believed a hodgpodge.

That's a lot of assertions, but nothing that I can find from any credible historical source. Got any citations to back those up?

The third wave of assertions and rebuttals:

Apollonius biography of his VERY LONG and fruitful life wasn't written until around 200 (I think) and is the longest biography written of an historical person of that period. Have you read it? Surely it is not totally historical or factual, a good book, but reeks of the fabulous, and Damis is the "gullible" foil for Pol's wisdom. His legends were known far and wide, to the point of apotheosis, his temple was in Tyana, and his legend, 'beliefs' developed after he died.

I don't question that there was a historical figure named Apollonius. However, I do find it rather telling that you have no problem with accepting a biography that was written a century after he died [Note: Apollonius died at approximately 100 A.D.], while at the same time rejecting the Gospels which took much less time (20-60 years) to be written.

But before his "beliefs" were developed, he had actually left direct letters behind, purchased by the wealthy businessman/bishop Marcion, who edited them (in reverse order) into being the letters of "paul". The earlest fragmensts of "mark" also reflect the teaching of Marcion, pointing to him as probable author (and that would be the 'gospel' spoken of in the letters of paul)

More assertions without evidence. Would you care to link us to any source that will provide the original text of Apollonius' letters so that I and anybody else who is interested could examine the texts for ourselves?

Anyone can see that Apollonius and "jesus" are two very completely different stories, two men both with very different beliefs. But you can see how the life of Pol and memory of his legend easily added flesh to the myth of jesus. Also, most the emperors didn't like pol nor his followers for the most part, so only a tiny part of pol's ca 100 years for jesus, perhaps leading to the idea "if all he said and did was written down, the world wouldn't be big enough to hold the books

I think that rather than proving that 'paul's' letters were originally Apollonius (a real historic person,but they were edited by Marcion) it might be best if SOMEONE would finally prove to us and the rest of the waiting world of history that there EVER was such a person, such an INFLUENTIAL and highly regarded person, as 'paul of tarsus', who magically managed to leave no more historic foot prints than did 'jesus'.

No historian worth his salt denies that there was a historical figure named Paul. Since we mentioned the apostolic fathers, several of them (such as Clement, a noted elder of the church of Rome who is mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3) knew the apostle in person. Unless you want to deny that Clement and the other apostolic fathers existed either, there is really no question that there was indeed a man named Saul of Tarsus.

When you deal with someone who starts denying that the apostle Paul was a real historical figure, you know that you are dealing with a complete loony. I shall relent from posting any more of the (evidently fruitless) youtube dialogue at this point.

Baptist Bishops?

2010-07-22T01:59:00.006-04:00

Stranger things have happened, I guess...

From left, Bishops Rodney S. Sampson, John M. Borders III, and Edward Stephens Jr. at Border's ordination ceremony in Memphis. (Pretrinia Martin)

The Rev. John M. Borders III approached the pulpit at Morning Star Baptist Church on a recent Sunday wearing his usual suit and tie. He adjusted his glasses, as he often does, and proceeded to deliver to the packed sanctuary a thunderstorm of a sermon on a theme from Revelation: “No more delays!’’

In the pews, some sobbed. Some shouted, “Yes, Lord!’’ Some just breathed, until Borders concluded with a hushed prayer.

The only outward sign that something was different was the new ring on the pastor’s finger, a thick gold ring with a purple stone. It symbolized his recent elevation, in a ceremony in Memphis two weeks before, to the position of bishop.

The title of bishop, accompanied by such emblems of authority, was uncommon among hierarchy-spurning Baptists until recently, but it is being adopted by a growing number of Baptist pastors, most of them African-American. Borders and other new bishops have acquired some of the ceremonial garb — croziers (pastoral staffs), zucchettos (skullcaps) and chasubles (robes) — that their spiritual forefathers left behind when they broke from the Church of England in the 17th century. Some, including Borders, have even embraced the doctrine of apostolic succession — the belief in an unbroken line from Jesus’ apostles to today’s bishops.

Borders, a sober man who regards his flock with obvious affection, spoke lightly of his role as shepherd during his sermon.

“When I watch you,’’ he said with a smile, “I see a congregation of miracles.’’

Read the rest of it in the original article:

Lisa Wangsness - More Baptist Pastors Adopt Bishop Title

Why I Believe - The Testimony

2010-07-21T00:41:00.009-04:00

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.
(1 John 1:1-2)

I was recently posed with the question of how I know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, for a pretty short question, I must admit that there are so many things that need to be said regarding this topic. More than I could fit within a two hour timeframe (which is the amount of time I took to write this little article), so I shall try as best as I can to answer this question that was given me. Lord willing, I shall try to "give an answer for the hope that is in me" (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). I know that my mind is limited, so may this be a good starting point for further study on this topic.

Now, I want to say that there are two aspects to my answer to this question. There is the objective aspect, and then there is the subjective aspect. I shall deal with the objective aspect first:

Look again at the passage which I quoted at the beginning of this passage. The apostle John talks about that which he has heard and seen. Many of the world's religions (especially Eastern religions) focus on the esoteric and otherworldly, with no objective grounds by which we can determine whether they are true or false. Christianity is very different from that. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ, the eternal Word by which all things were created, came down to earth, lived as a flesh-and-blood human being amongst us, died, rose again three days later and ascended into Heaven. The Bible that we have today was written down primarily to provide us with a witness to what happened during those thirty-odd years that our Lord walked upon this earth (true, it speaks of many other things as well, but ultimately Christ is the centre of divine revelation). I believe that the Bible is God's Word because God has used the written Word to bear witness to the living Word. As the author of Hebrews put it, "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world" (Hebrews 1:2).

Whether the Bible is to be recognized as the Word of God depends on whether it truly gives us a reliable and sufficient witness to Jesus' life and work. After all, if this is God's Word, then we should expect it to provide us with a truthful account of the primary object of revelation. Did Jesus really die on the cross and return to life three days later? If not, then the Bible is little more than an interesting museum artifact that we can spit upon and poke fun at. But if He indeed rose from the grave, then He is vindicated in all that He has claimed for Himself as the "Son of Man" who is "seated at the right hand of Power" (Mark 14:62). Paul said as much when he wrote,

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
(1 Corinthians 15:12-19)

The idea, of course, is that this is not the case, for as he goes on to explain, "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:20-21). Earlier in the same chapter of the same epistle, he speaks of the resurrected Christ appearing to many witnesses, including himself (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). What this indicates is that the Resurrection is not just some abstract concept that mortal men devised. Most of the men who wrote these scriptures actually saw the risen Christ. Some of them (such as James and Paul) were skeptical about the Christian claims and yet came to faith in spite of their predisposition to disbelieve in the Gospel. This would make no sense if they did not truly encounter the risen Christ. It would be absurd: These men had everything to lose and nothing to gain unless they truly experienced what they claimed to have experienced. They were willing to suffer persecution and die for the sake of this testimony. If these men were just "following cleverly devised tales," as Peter put it in 2 Peter 1:16, then we have no way of making heads or tails out of how they acted. Simon Greenleaf, a prominent American lawyer writing in the nineteenth century, points out how weighty the testimony of the apostles really is. Writing as a lawyer who examines the truthfulness of their accounts based on the rules of legal evidence, he writes,

The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them.

Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency.

It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so cross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication.[1]

We can produce endless theories to explain away the events that occurred (and many skeptics have attempted to do just that over the past two centuries), but the fact is that none of these explanations hold water. Only the Christian worldview can account for the fact that the apostles were transformed from doubters and cowards into brave spirit-filled evangelists who would go out to distant lands and proclaim what they knew to be true, even to the point of death. To again quote Greenleaf:

All that Christianity asks of men... is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.[2]

When all is said and done, we may find that what is written in the Bible is vindicated as being true. B.F. Westcott, the great biblical scholar who started the great tradition of modern New Testament textual criticism, put it succinctly:

Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than he resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.[3]

In summary, I believe the Bible to be God's Word based on the truthfulness of its testimony. The men whom He used to pen it down had no reason whatsoever to invent their stories, and the many alternative explanations that those who disbelieve in the bible have put forward all fail to account for all the facts and explain why things happened as they did, leaving the Christian message as the only possible explanation.

And now I come to the subjective aspect of my reason:

We must understand that although the historical events recorded for us in the Bible are empirically verifiable, there are some aspects that you can't verify through analysis of facts. This is the case with the inspiration of scripture. I can tell you what the Bible tells about itself:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV)

But how do you "prove" this to be true? In one sense, you can't. It's not as though you can conduct some sort of scientific experiment that can detect whether the words of the Bible have God's Spirit in them. But this does not automatically mean that we take what the Bible says on "blind faith." As I asserted in the earlier part of this writing, there are many grounds by which we can know the objective reality of what scripture says. I think the point is captured best by the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he wrote this analogy on how faith works:

One must analyze the word faith and see that it can mean two completely opposite things.

Suppose we are climbing in the Alps and are very high on the bare rock and suddenly the fog shuts down. The guide turns to us and says that the ice is forming and that there is no hope; before morning we will all freeze to death here on the shoulder of the mountain. Simply to keep warm, the guide keeps us moving in the dense fog further out on the shoulder until none of us have any idea where we are. After an hour or so, someone says to the guide: "Suppose I dropped and hit a ledge ten feet down in the fog. What would happen then?" The guide would say that you might make it till the morning and thus live. So, with absolutely no knowledge or any reason to support his action, one of the group hangs and drops into the fog. This would be one kind of faith, a leap of faith.

Suppose, however, after we have worked out on the shoulder in the midst of the fog and the growing ice on the rock, we had stopped and we heard a voice which said: "You cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on another ridge. I have lived in these mountains, man and boy, for over sixty years and I know every foot of them. I assure you that ten feet below you there is a ledge. If you hang and drop, you can make it through the night and I will get you in the morning."

I would not hang and drop at once, but would ask questions to try to ascertain if the man knew what he was talking about and if he was not my enemy. In the Alps, for example, I would ask him his name. If the name he gave me was the name of a family from that part of the mountains, it would count a great deal to me. In the Swiss Alps there are certain family names that indicate mountain families of that area. For example, in the area of the Alps where I live, Avanthey would be such a name. In my desperate situation, even though time would be running out, I would ask him what to me would be the sufficient questions, and when I became convinced by his answers, then I would hang and drop.

This is faith, but obviously it has no relationship to the first instance. As a matter of fact, if one of these is called faith, the other should not be designated by the same word symbol. The historic Christian faith is not a leap of faith in the post-Kierkegaardian sense because "he is not silent," and I am invited to ask the sufficeient questions in regard to details but also in regard to the existence of the universe and its complexity and in regard to the existence of man. I am invited to ask the sufficient questions and then believe him and bow before him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because he made man, and bow before him morally as needing his provision for me in the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ.[4]

One final point that I must make: I am a Reformed Christian. Being Reformed, I do not believe that people come to have faith in Christ as Lord and in the Bible as the Word of God because of superior intellectual arguments, clever philosophical syllogisms or historical proofs (although God can and certainly does move through these things). Because of the depravity that exists within every human heart, the only thing that can truly convince the unbeliever to believe is the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, since "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3), and "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6).

So, to the unbeliever who reads this, whether you are an Atheist, a Muslim, a Jew or whatnot, I pray that the Holy Spirit may move your heart to consider these things carefully, and press upon you the truthfulness of God's Word.

End Notes

Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by The Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1965. pp. 28-30.
Ibid, p. 46.
Westcott, B.F. The Gospel of the Resurrection. London: Macmillan, 1868. pp. 4-6.
Schaeffer, Francis August. He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1972. pp. 99-100.

Brief Dialogue With a King James Onlyist

2010-07-19T22:06:00.015-04:00

I don't want to deal with King James Onlyists. I really don't. I avoid that topic like wildfire because of how inane and close-minded many advocates of King James Onlyism are. Unfortunately, you do sometimes have to inevitably deal with them. Recently, I was debating the reliability of the bible with some Muslims, and one particular Christian chimed in and commented on one of my Muslim opponents' use of the NIV for his prooftexts. What she said was rather disturbing for me, as rather than correcting the Muslim's misuse of scripture, she instead chose to attack his choice of translation,

If you quote from the n.i.v which is a perversion of the bible not the bible thats not a fact. read the king james bible 1611 not some new age garbage book that calls it self a bible

the niv had homosexual translators on its committee like virginia molencott and was done by people who did not even trust God' is perfect it was also unnecessary since we already have an english bible I.E. the K.J.V

At this point, I had to chime in:

Stop dealing with tangents regarding English translations and stick to the main topic!

And she replied back to me,

it absolutely matters about the translation if one has no errors and the other does which one is the genuine article and which one is a counterfeit? If you use the counterfeit to prove an argument how can one debate when the whole premise is the bible is man made? if i made my own science book that was riddled with errors and then someone said science is wrong based on my error prone book who could argue?

Of course, the idea of a translation having "no errors" is patently absurd. Every English translation is imperfect, even the King James Version (although she would of course deny this). If there was a single English translation of the bible that was perfect, then studying the Greek and Hebrew text of the bible would be unnecessary. Thus I replied,

There's no perfect translation. There's a reason why studying Greek and Hebrew to determine the best way to translate any given passage is necessary, you know.

Of course, her only response to this was to malign the New International Version even further:

in the niv it says elkana killed goliath in the king james it says that elkana killed the brother of goliath david killed goliath so greek hebrew or not we have two storys one is fact one is not

At this point, we took the discussion to PM. I could not let her continue making her inane KJV-Only rant in public for fear that it would only give the Muslims even more ammunition to use in discrediting the bible. I thus PMed her:

Like I said, no translation is absolutely perfect. Some translations will get it right and others screw up. The fact that the KJV got it right in this case doesn't make up for the fact that the KJV gets it wrong elsewhere: For example, the ιησους in Hebrews 4:8 is obviously referring to Joshua, but the KJV translators goofed up and said it was Jesus. Well we know for a fact that Jesus gives us rest (cf. Matthew 11:28), so going with the KJV rendering would give us an unnecessary contradiction at this point.

There is an excellent book on this issue called "The King James Only Controversy: Can We Trust Modern Translations?" by Dr. James R. White. If you have time, do get it.

What follows is a rant about the brilliance of the KJV and its translators and an attack on the translators of modern bible versions. My rebuttal to her comments are included in between her statements:

your wrong all they did was transliterate the word joshua which in greek is jesus isoos=ιησους this is not an error the king james translators new it is joshua a transliteration is not an error look at the word jehovah and in the n.t saboath both transliterations

Of course we both know that Jesus and Joshua are the same name in Greek, which is ιησους. However, the reason why we translate it as two different names is precisely so that we can distinguish one person from another, and rendering Hebrews 4:2 as Jesus just invites misunderstanding for those who don't know the Greek text.

the kjv was translated by between 55 and 60 men all of which were more qualified than the modern day pseudo scholars which are all textual critics and none bible believers...

Umm... I don't know how to break this to you, but those men were working on a limited number of manuscripts dating to around the middle ages and later. I don't doubt that they were masters of the languages, but if you're using inferior manuscripts, then you'd basically be producing a high quality translation of a low quality text.

Also, I know many conservative bible believing Christians who were/are involved with modern day bible Translations as editors and consultants. D.A. Carson, Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee, James White, etc. I don't think you can accuse those people of not being bible believers (unless you already decided in advance that the KJV = The Word of God).

...as well they used a text called the wesscot and hort Greek text which was not one text but a picking and choosing of 5 or six text to form a completely new text. that never existed in history. wescott and hort deified themselves giving themselves authority to change what ever they "deemed" as correct. the men behind the kjv were believers who thought that they would be punished by God if they changed even one iota of scripture. some of those men had mastered up too 15 languages. i speak four languages but i'v mastered none. William Tyndale who spoke six languages so well no one could decipher which one was his mother tongue. It never ceases to amaze me how people can come along with some book written by one man and use it to correct the 55 to 60 of the greatest intellects of their time.

Uhh... Westcott and Hort started the production of what is now known as the critical text, but it didn't end there. What most bible translations use today is known as the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament, which is produced by taking all our earliest and best-attested manuscripts and deriving the original reading from those.

If you wish I can also show you where my old spanish bible agrees with the kjv 100% of the time yet the modern spanish disagrees in the exact same places. coincidence? I think not.

That'd be no surprise if your modern Spanish bible is relying on the same critical text I just mentioned whereas your older bible (Which I presume to be the 1919 [slight mistake here on my part, it's actually 1909] Reina Valera, correct me if I'm wrong) is based on the same late manuscripts that the KJV (and NKJV, by the way) was based upon.

By the way, I love reading from the King James Version. I love the poetic feel of all those thees and thous. I just wouldn't advise using it in an indepth bible study because of some of the archaisms and uncritical acceptance of later readings. For bible study, I would suggest a more up to date translation such as the New American Standard Bible or the English Standard Version (both of which are translated by godly, bible-believing men).

See this powerpoint presentation regarding all the textual issues pertaining to the King James Version and modern Bible translations.

Also see this article on the history of Erasmus of Rotterdam (whose publication of the Greek New Testament paved the way for what would eventually become the Textus receptus):

I hoped that maybe at this point we could enter into a reasonable discussion of the history of English translations of the bible, plus the vital textual critical issues involved. However, when King James Onlyism has poisoned your mind, you become immune to all forms of rational thought. What followed my rebuttal to her assertions was this rather lengthy and inane rant:

Inferior text according to you and textual critics. yes nestle aland and more eclectic manuscript. by what authority and with what manner did they choose good from bad under what basis was a choice made? the textus receptus or received text is a far superior as well as historical text. erasmus did not make the textus receptus he translated the old latin-vidus latina= into greek. thousands of t.r manuscripts were in existence apart from the Erasmus translation by the way the old latin; not the vulgate but the vidus latina agrees 100% WITH the t.r. and that was translated in the first century. never in the history of the churches did the hodge podge of nestle-aland exist so what you and the modern doubters are saying is that there was no valid text until wescot, aland and the other critics came along they base all their arguments on the so called original manuscripts which they have yet to show anyone. so they say if its older its better. how would they know its better what do they have to compare it to? the original meaning? who died and made them God? by the way just because people cant understand the kjv doesn't make it erroneous.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

the holy spirit is the only way to understand the bible not your intellect-- Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

as far as those men I would consider them liberals most fundamentalist wouldn't I'm a bible believer not a fundamentalist as far as that term is used.

http://www.empirebaptistministries.org/

I dont believe in a universal church or para church ministries so why would i go to those who have false doctrine to use as a valid source. I did not just read some book some guy wrote i read greek and hebrew i dont need some theologian to tell me what it means or what it meant I have the holy spirit And God manifest his word through preaching in his local churches not in Christendom. I am not referring to the 1909rv. the reina valera gomez 1909 and the 1543 enzinas which are exactly the same are the ones I have. if you study the byzantine empire you will find that thousands of manuscripts came out of there that had nothing to do with erasmus yet funny they did agree with his translation far more than the critical text which used manuscripts that were easier to find contradictions in than similarity. You have been misled

I never replied back to this person. I figured that there's simply no point in doing so. Besides, I have more important things to do...

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 6)

2010-07-18T21:55:00.015-04:00

(Continued from Part Five)

Unlike previous parts of the Clarifying Reformed Theology series, I am going to be responding to a different individual this time around. This time, it is Eric Giunta, the same Roman Catholic I previously debated over the nature of authority. I will continue dialoguing with Jamie after I answer this fellow's points regarding the Reformed position.

Predestinationism is foreign to the thought of St Augustine, as he himself had to clarify on more than one occasion.

I suppose that is the reason why Augustine of Hippo wrote an entire treatise on the subject, eh? I could quote to you Augustine's entire Treatise On the Predestination of the Saints, but let me just give you a few brief excerpts that sum up how we view divine Election:

I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.' I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, 'A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.' [Rom. 11.5.] Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given.
(Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. Ch. 7.)

Because a man, puffed up against another, might say, "My faith makes me to differ,'' or "My righteousness," or anything else of the kind. In reply to such notions, the good teacher says, "But what hast thou that thou hast not received?" And from whom but from Him who maketh thee to differ from another, on whom He bestowed not what He bestowed on thee? "Now if," says he, "thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?" Is he concerned, I ask, about anything else save that he who glorieth should glory in the Lord? But nothing is so opposed to this feeling as for any one to glory concerning his own merits in such a way as if he himself had made them for himself, and not the grace of God,—a grace, however, which makes the good to differ from the wicked, and is not common to the good and the wicked. Let the grace, therefore, whereby we are living and reasonable creatures, and are distinguished from cattle, be attributed to nature; let that grace also by which, among men themselves, the handsome are made to differ from the ill-formed, or the intelligent from the stupid, or anything of that kind, be ascribed to nature.
(Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. Ch. 10.)

It would be too tedious to argue about the several points. But you see without doubt, you see with what evidence of apostolic declaration this grace is defended, in opposition to which human merits are set up, as if man should first give something for it to be recompensed to him again. Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God's will towards himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace, according to His good-will, which He purposed in His beloved Son, in whom we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose, not ours, but His, who worketh all things to such an extent as that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory. [Phil. 2.13.] For this reason it is that we cry that no one should glory in man, and, thus, not in himself; but whoever glorieth let him glory in the Lord, that he may be for the praise of His glory. Because He Himself worketh according to His purpose that we may be to the praise of His glory, and, of course, holy and immaculate, for which purpose He called us, predestinating us before the foundation of the world. Out of this, His purpose, is that special calling of the elect for whom He co-worketh with all things for good, because they are called according to His purpose, and "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." [Rom. 11.29.]
(Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. Ch. 37.)

Well aren't these exactly the kinds of things we who are Reformed Protestants would say? To say that we are innovating anything is pretty absurd at this point, given that Augustine and other church fathers made the exact same points long before us.

This was an issue he grappled with, but even he didn't think to set his private interpretations and exegesis against the teaching of God's Church, as Calvin did.

In reply to this, I again quote the great saint:

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.
(Augustine. De Unitate Ecclesiae. Ch. 10.)

Also, what we contend is that these teachings that we proclaim are nothing new. What we espouse as the doctrines of grace were known even during the days of the early church. If you don't believe me, here is the proof.

And finally, we could get into an extended debate about what Augustine actually believed as Church teaching (Hint: He disagreed with quite a few things that Rome today regards as dogma), but that is to be the topic of another discussion. For now, our focus is on Divine Predestination.

The distinctions between God's active and His permissive wills also seems to elude you. God allowed the Romans to do as they did, He did not force them to.

Actually I spend a good deal of my discussions distinguishing between preceptive and decretive (those are the terms we prefer to use) wills, not to mention the role of secondary causes in bringing about what God has ordained to come to pass. It's too bad you didn't read my previous blog posts like I asked you to, because I dealt with these points at length when I was replying to my Wesleyan-Arminian friend, Jamie.

Now, I generally dislike repeating myself, but for the sake of understanding, let me repost some of the relevant passages that I wrote in previous parts of this series:

It must be said at the outset difference between ordaining something and causing something to take place. To illustrate this, just think of gravity. In order for a rock to move upward, I have to lift it up with my hand. In order for it to fall, however, I don't have to hurl the rock down towards the ground. I need only to let go of the rock and let gravity do its thing. The same can be said about sin. He does not cause anybody to sin or disbelieve in Him. Rather, He ordains these things in the sense that He makes use of our natural inclination to sin in order to bring about His own ends and purposes. In fact, it can be said that God by His grace actually restrains us from doing as much evil as we would otherwise do (the upshot of this is that whenever God hardens somebody's heart, He is actually loosening His grip of common grace upon that person so that their sin nature takes greater control). Look back at Joseph and his brothers. They were actually planning to kill their younger brother, yet God by His gracious providence worked in the heart of Reuben and made it so that they would just sell him into slavery instead (cf. Genesis 37:12ff).

Finally, regardless of God's sovereignty over all events, He still holds men accountable for what they will to do. This is why Judas can still be condemned as a “son of perdition” even though he did what he had to do in order for scripture to be fulfilled (cf. John 17:12). This is also why Jesus could say that the soldiers who crucified Him had sinned and needed to be forgiven even though their actions were a part of God’s foreordained plan (cf. Luke 23:34).
(From Clarifying Reformed Theology, Part 1)

Also, we never said God forces anybody to do anything. As I made abundantly clear, God makes use of men's own depravity (or as you Roman Catholics like to call it, concupiscence), to get them to willingly do what He has ordained for them to do. It's not like God is zapping the soldiers with the desire to sin or anything. Their natural sin nature (cf. Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 14:2-3, 51:5, 58:3, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-12, 8:5-8, etc.) takes care of that.

And He prevents nobody from coming to Him, but merely allows human nature to run its course when sinful men reject Him Calvin himself stated this when he said,

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief.
(Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts 2:14-21.)

He sets the door wide open for everybody who is willing to come to Christ. The only thing that prevents people from believing is their own sinful nature. Left to our own devices, we will choose to reject God. Every time. More than that, the very strawman that you accuse Calvinists of believing in was condemned by Calvin as a construct invented by unbelieving heathens:

...this fault they [the heathens] add... that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate.
(Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. I:4:4.)

Another obvious case study that I didn't bring up during my blog post series was Pharaoh. Scripture tells us first that God hardens his heart, and that Pharaoh hardens his own heart afterwards. How is this so? Well, God withdraws His common grace which is what enables Pharaoh to act good, and then Pharaoh's own sin nature takes over from there. Basically, God "lets Pharaoh be Pharaoh," as one good friend of mine put it. Why does God ordain this?

As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. Then the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen.
(Exodus 14:17-18, cf. Romans 9:17)

That is your answer. :-)

Also, the question I asked is one of logic. Scriptural exegesis is irrelevant. If the Scriptures ever did teach something illogical of God, they'd be exposed for literary straw.

Only a Roman Catholic would ever dare to say "scriptural exegesis is irrelevant." :-)

It's funny given that these same scriptures tell us:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom ofthe wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
(1 Corinthians 1:18-20, NIV, cf. Isaiah 29:14)

I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments... See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
(Colossians 2:4-8, NIV)

If you won't listen to the Word of God, however, then listen to what the early church fathers had to say:

Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone.
(Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Ch. 1.)

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves...
(Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata. XII:16.)

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.
(Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. 4:17.)

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.
(Hippolytus. Against Noetus. Ch. 9.)

So, if you want to debate this topic any further, let's debate it using scriptural exegesis. If you have any argument against the Reformed position which I have presented in these blog posts, present your arguments from the Word of God. :-)

Grace and Peace.

Fisher.

Footage of the Dearborn Arrests

2010-07-18T01:10:00.009-04:00

Recently, the footage of the Dearborn arrests had come out, and... what can I say? It's just utterly disgusting what the police did. Especially with Negeen. I don't know about the rest of you, but only an animal would act the way the police acted towards her (touching her when she pleaded not to, forcing her to strip down to her tank top and making crude sexual comments towards her). I'm just appalled, and I take this very seriously. Not only that, but they apparently also arrested her before arresting the other three so that she wouldn't be able to take photos of the others getting arrested.

Well, for those who want to see the videos, here they are:

May the Lord vindicate these four brave brothers and sister in Christ and bring those ruthless police officers (not to mention the lying, corrupt city mayor) to justice.

Further Reading

Briefly Explaining the Trinity

2010-07-16T00:27:00.009-04:00

During the early phase of writing and preparing my article on the deity of Christ, I had a dialogue with a Muslim regarding some of the passages I discussed in chapter one. When we came to John 1:1, he asked me a question that went somewhere along these lines: “If the word is with God and the word is God, then doesn’t that mean God is with God?” Unfortunately, this kind of misunderstanding leads to all sorts of strawman arguments against Trinitarian beliefs. They will quote, for example, the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 which goes, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

Many Christians will respond by saying that God is one, but He is three-in-one. Unfortunately, this just leads to even more confusion on the part of those who do not understand Trinitarian theology (and unfortunately, the Christian making this response probably does not understand it himself/herself either), especially since it is usually not explained in what sense God is three-in-one. Thus, it is necessary to give a brief explanation of what we actually believe regarding the Trinity.

Perhaps the most concise and accurate definition of the Trinity that I can think of is the one provided by Dr. James White in The Forgotten Trinity. It goes something like this: Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

There, we see what it means when Christians say that God is three-in-one. Actually, there are two Greek words that all Christians (and non-Christians who wish to understand what biblical Christianity teaches) need to know. The first word is ousia, and this is the word which we translate as being, essence or substance. This is the word that is used in the Nicene Creed when we say that Jesus Christ is “of one being [homoousion] with the Father.” The second Greek word is the word hypostasis, which is generally translated as person. Thus, when we say that the Word was with God and is God, what we mean to say is that within the one ousia of God, there are three hypostases that have eternally been together. So when we say that the Word was with God and was God. There are various places in the Old Testament wherein God is presented as being multi-personal, such as Genesis 19:24 and Zechariah 2:8-11. In these passages, Yahweh interacts with Yahweh (a strange thing to behold if He was Unitarian in nature). In addition, this doctrine is encapsulated in the Trinitarian formula that appears in these passages:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
(Matthew 28:19, ESV)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
(2 Corinthians 13:14, ESV)

...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood...
(1 Peter 1:2, ESV)

Please note that merely quoting these verses in and of itself does not prove the Trinity. Now, I believe that these passages do support Trinitarian theology, but that careful exegesis of these verses must be done first, which I do not have the space to do here. In any case, I already wrote a solid defense for an orthodox Trinitarian view of God in my previous posts. In summary, remember that there are three foundations of Trinitarian theology that must always be kept in mind, and that denial of any one of these three foundations results in a heretical viewpoint that is no longer biblical Christianity. These three foundations are:

1. Monotheism, that there is only one God (denial of this foundation leads to Polytheism).

2. There are three Divine persons (denial of this foundation leads to Modalism or Sabellianism).

3. The three Divine persons are coequal and coeternal (denial of this foundation leads to Subordinationism or Arianism).

Has the Tenakh Been Corrupted?

2010-07-14T21:40:00.000-04:00

A little something that I wrote for a friend's blog:

Grassfire Apologetics - Has the Tenakh Been Corrupted?

Machmadim in the Old Testament

2010-07-14T20:22:00.004-04:00

For future reference:

but about this time tomorrow I will send my servants to you, and they will search your house and the houses of your servants; and whatever is desirable[כָּל־מַחְמַ֣ד] in your eyes, they will take in their hand and carry away...
(1 Kings 20:6)

Then they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burned all its fortified buildings with fire and destroyed all its valuable[מַחֲמַדֶּ֖יהָ] articles.
(2 Chronicles 36:19)

His mouth is full of sweetness
And he is wholly desirable[מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים].
This is my beloved and this is my friend,
O daughters of Jerusalem.
(Song of Solomon 5:16)

Our holy and beautiful house,
Where our fathers praised You,
Has been burned by fire;
And all our precious[וְכָל־מַחֲמַדֵּ֖ינוּ] things have become a ruin.
(Isaiah 64:11)

UPDATE (August 8, 2010):

Upon calling out a certain Muslim on YouTube by the name of "BeholderGuard" for his misuse of Song of Solomon 5:16, he apparently didn't get the hint, and completely missed the point. See this example of sheer idiocy to see how flimsy the Muslim argument really is.

Four Objections Against the Deity of Christ

2010-07-11T00:50:00.008-04:00

(This is part of a much longer article that I wrote on the deity of Christ. For reference purposes, I have edited this section and am posting it on my blog.)

I know that even having given a solid scriptural and historical case for the deity of Christ in my past articles on Christology, there will still remain many objections laid out against orthodox Christian belief. Thus, I would like to address just four common objections that are often raised by Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other detractors of biblical Christianity. There will undoubtedly be more such objections that will be raised, but I will resist the urge to be exhaustive at this point.

Objection One: "Jesus never explicitly states that He is God."

It would be foolhardy to limit Jesus in this way by forcing Him to say in concise terms what He claims about Himself, especially in light of all the scriptural evidence (Isaiah 9:6-7, 10:21, Mark 14:62-65, John 1:1-18, 5:2-18, 8:58, 20:28, etc.). There are many things He did not explicitly say (such as being the Messiah), yet there is no doubt that He thought of Himself in these terms. Also, the fact that He accepts others who call Him God and worship Him (rather than rebuking them, which would be what He should have done if He is just a prophet or an angel) show that He definitely thought of Himself this way.

Objection Two: "How can a person be man and God at the same time?"

Muslims are particularly fond of raising this question. They claim that if Jesus sleeps, goes to the bathroom, gets hungry, etc., then He cannot be God. This misses a key aspect of Christian doctrine, and that is the hypostatic union: God the eternal Word became flesh. He is not a mere phantom as the early Docetists wrongly believed. He had a true human body, and He would speak and act in that body as a true human being would. But in doing so, He does not sacrifice His Divinity in the least bit. He has all the essential attributes of humanity, but at the same time He has all the essential attributes of divinity.

If God is infinite and omnipotent, it should be no problem at all for Him to enter into His own creation in the form of a human being. Also, in the incarnation, Jesus retains His full Divinity by retaining His omniscience (John 16:3), omnipresence (Matthew 28:20) omnipotence (Matthew 28:18), eternality (John 1:1) and immutability (Hebrews 13:8), among other attributes. It is true that He temporarily sheds His being unbound by time and space, but this is not an essential attribute of deity anyway. God can temporarily set this aside and still be God.

Objection Three: "When Jesus died on the cross, did God die? And if He did, who was running the world while He was dead?"

This one is another Islamic favourite. Unfortunately for those who raise it, this argument forgets two key things:

First of all, as I said before, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. When He died on the cross, this means that His Divine spirit was temporarily separated from His human body until the Resurrection. This does not mean He ceased to exist, however. This exposes an inconsistency on the part of those who raise this argument, since not even they would believe that death means nonexistence.

Second, this question assumes a form of Modalism, which makes Jesus the entirety of the Godhead. Remember that it was not the Father or the Holy Spirit that became incarnate, only the son. The Father had always been up in Heaven, keeping things in order. In any case, I shouldn't even have to bring this one up in light of the first problem that I pointed out.

Objection four: "There are verses in the bible that contradict the deity of Christ."

Of course, it is to be expected that those who reject the deity of Christ will put forward a number of bible passages in their attempt to undermine this biblical truth. The Jehovah's Witnesses are especially adept at this, and have fooled many an unprepared Christian with their clever arguments. However, their mishandling of scripture becomes all too apparent once one has taken the time to actually examine the texts being quoted in greater detail:

God is not man, that he should lie,or a son of man, that he should change his mind.Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
(Numbers 23:19, ESV)

Of course, the verse in context refers to the fact that Yahweh is immutable in His decrees, and is not fickle as mortal men are. Also, those quoting this passage miss the rather obvious fact that this verse was written long before the incarnation took place. In other words, Jesus did not have a human nature yet at this point in time!

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
(Mark 10:17-18, ESV)

Jesus is not, at this point, denying the man's description of Him as good. What He is doing, rather, is that He is trying to get the man to realize what he is just saying. In effect, He is telling the man, "Do you understand what you are calling Me? Or are you just calling me good to get closer to Me?" Jesus, of course affirms His goodness elsewhere. For example, when He is accused by the Jews, He asks them rhetorically in John 8:46, "Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" The fact that those who deny the deity of Christ appeal to this passage is somewhat humorous, given that many of them would contend that Jesus is indeed good!

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.
(John 5:19)

First of all, I would like to remind the reader that this passage comes right at the heels of John 5:20-24, which is a clear reference to Jesus having divine prerogatives:

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
(John 5:20-24)

Notice two things here: First of all, Jesus claims to be able to give life and pronounce judgment upon people (prerogatives that only God has). Second, Jesus says that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. We are not talking about a lesser kind of honour here. Instead, the kind of honour that Jesus expects to receive is exactly the kind of honour one would give to God the Father. This is another clear statement of their coequality. The fact that those who cite John 5:19 ignore the context of the entire passage (because doing so demolishes their whole argument) should already raise up red flags for more attentive readers.

Now, what about the verse itself? It should be pointed out at the outset that Jesus is not denying the fact that He is all-powerful. That is reading too much into the verse. What Jesus is denying here, however, is that He has any kind of separate agenda apart from the Father. To paraphrase Dr. White, He is not some rogue deity out doing His own thing. There is complete unity of purpose in the Godhead, so that the Godhead is of one will in accomplishing God's sovereign decrees.

You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
(John 14:28)

One must look at the verse in context. Jesus is pointing out how He will soon be ascending back to Heaven, and is rebuking His disciples for not rejoicing at this fact. The Father is positionally greater because He is up in Heaven, but this does not mean that He is ontologically greater, since the Father and the Son are one in essence and being. To give an analogy: In the army, a General is positionally greater than a Private, since a General is of higher rank than a Private. This does not mean, however, that the General is a greater person than the Private, as all men are equally created in the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:26).

What this demonstrates is an important rule in interpreting texts pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ: Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature. This is a common mistake made by those who assume Unitarianism. As Alan Kurschner (a contributor to Alpha and Omega Ministries) explains,

There is a built-in assumption for many that if Jesus has a lesser role than the Father, he must therefore have a lesser nature. This is an illogical inference. Those who oppose the deity of Christ point to Jesus' submissive remarks about doing the will of his Father. For example, Jesus says, "the Father is greater than I am." They infer from this that Jesus does not share the same nature with the Father (this ignores that the context is talking about their relational roles, not their nature, John 14). Jesus also calls the Father, "My God." Yet those who oppose the deity of Christ ignore that this is a humble acknowledgment of the Incarnate Jesus, modeling for us humility and submissiveness (John 20:17). This exalting affirmation is exactly what we would expect from the Son of God.

Similarly, since Jesus is the agent of the Father in many respects such as the Creation, therefore Jesus cannot be fully God. And regarding the Spirit, they will make the similar false assumption: Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot have the same divine nature as the Father. Again, they will look at these statements and make the fallacious leap that difference in function indicates inferiority of nature.

By doing so, they also deny the freedom of the Divine persons to choose their roles. Or to put it another way: they assume that to be truly God, the Son and the Spirit must have the exact same roles as the Father. Do not allow them to accept this assumption. Probe them to ensure they see this point.

(Kurschner, Alan. Two Quick Apologetic Tips on the Trinity.)

I will deal with just one more proof text:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
(John 17:3)

Well of course Jesus would say there is only one true God! We're monotheists! Unfortunately, those who quote this passage once again miss the entire point of the high priestly prayer (In the first place, what does it even mean for eternal life to know two persons? Can you imagine anybody saying that eternal life is to know Abraham, or Moses, or David?). It helps to read the next two verses that come afterward:

I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
(John 17:4-5)

Did you hear that? Before God could share His glory with anybody else (cf. John 17:22), Jesus already shared glory with the Father and was by His side (once again echoing John 1:1). Now how could this be, when the Old Testament states that God gives His glory to no other (cf. Isaiah 42:8, 48:11)? The only way this passage can be interpreted consistently is if we conclude that the Father and the Son are one in Being.

In any case, there are many similar proof texts being offered up by Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and others who deny the deity of Christ. Needless to say, the same rules apply to those texts as the ones that apply to the ones I just cited. Always make sure to pay close attention to the context of the passages being cited, as you will often find that the context demolishes their entire argument.

Further Reading

A Guide to Godly Disputation

2010-07-09T12:15:00.007-04:00

A GUIDE TO GODLY DISPUTATION

JOHN NEWTON (1725-1807)

A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows.

Dear Sir,

As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but also over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For methods sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads: respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake” (2 Samuel 18:5). The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts, and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! “He knows not what he does.” But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his. Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose as taught in 2 Timothy 2:25, “If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth.” If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions: First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are pre-engaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer’s spirit. They know that meekness, humility and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The Scriptural maxim, that “the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God” (James 1:20), is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; (2 Corinthians 10:4) arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm. There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God. I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind. I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who for want of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord. And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things that are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters that are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made? Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers that are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not” (1 Peter 2:23) This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, and “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called” (1 Peter 3:9). The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but also peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors. If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

David Wood - Open Message to Chief Haddad

2010-07-08T22:52:00.004-04:00

For the Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free.

(Deuteronomy 32:36, ESV)

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 5)

2010-07-04T23:33:00.007-04:00

(Continued from Part 4)

Because I was uber-busy lately, I didn’t finish answering part three of the blog post series critiquing Calvinism. Now that I have a bit of spare time, I will continue my response, but I will have to make it only as long as necessary.

Ok, to end this thing, I want to pose two questions to Calvinists that specifically concern the doctrine of election, and see if they can answer them. No one has answered them so far but please feel free to give it a shot.

Well, I don’t think I’ve ever heard these questions posed before. I’ll try to give the best response I can give, but lack of time will prevent me from going too in-depth, so I hope you take this humble attempt...

1) What is the criteria by which God chooses to save (elect) one human and not save another? Don’t give me the “mysterious ways” or “because of who He is” stuff either. I can’t find how God chooses His people in the Bible yet I’m told this doctrine is “Biblical.” If He’s going to purposefully send millions of those He created to Hell, couldn’t He at least hint as to the mechanism by which He selects those whom He spares?

There can be no denying that election is based on God’s mercy and purposes, since it is clear that He “has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (1 Timothy 1:9) and that it is “according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5).

Now, that doesn’t quite tell us what the exact purposes are, now does it? Of course, there are some very specific instances where God does tell us what His purposes are for electing or reprobating a specific person. For example, in the case of the Pharaoh, He states.

As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. Then the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen. (Exodus 3:17-18)

From these and other passages, it can be adduced that the ultimate end of it all is for God to make His glory and honour known. I try to stick to what the bible says, since that is the only safe option to take (doing otherwise would result in just sheer speculation). I am sorry if the bible doesn’t give any answer other than this, but we just have to accept the fact that God does not have to tell us everything. He only tells us as much as we need to know, and He obviously does not think we need to know why He does every single thing that He does. I mean, if you've ever read the book of Job, you can see that clearly in Job's questions and God's response to him. IJob could only say about God’s purposes that “these these things You have concealed in Your heart” (Job 10:13). After all, God is not accountable to man for every single action that He decrees. Otherwise, we would have traded places with God!

2) Why is it that God seems to “elect” Christians based on geography? Take a look at this map (click to enlarge):

I’m not posting the map on this blog (readers can see it in yours), but I would like to caution you against relying on maps such as these. The main reason for this is that there are millions of Christians around the world who are not officially registered or listed in censuses. China is an excellent example: I once heard it said that there may be up to 20,000 Chinese people converting to Christianity every day. Now, this statistic is probably a bit inflated, but it shows that there are millions more Christians in those places that are lightly-shaded than is commonly thought.

There are so few Asians, North Africans, and Middle Eastern Christians. If God is the one who decides who believes, not man’s faith in response to God’s corporate election, why isn’t there a more equitable distribution of the elect worldwide? See the glaring problem? Either God is not distributing His elections randomly (randomness would yield a more even distribution of Christians worldwide) or He is using some sort of election criteria which I asked about in question #1. Has God forgotten about that part of the world? By this map, God sure does like white people and Hispanics. Doesn’t seem very fair to me – possibly even racist.

Two problems with your question:

1) You are applying statistics from one particular point in time and forget that different parts of the world have been predominantly Christian at different time periods. Europe used to be the centre of what we refer to as “Christendom,” but we would know today that thanks to the rapid secularization and islamization (sp?) of Europe, this is no longer the case. Conversely, parts of the world such as Africa, South Asia, China, South Korea and South America that used to be darkened have seen an explosion of evangelism in recent decades. I suspect that in a few decades’ time, these regions shall replace Europe and North America as the centres of Christianity.

This being said, I suspect that by the time we get to heaven, we will end up seeing a pretty fair distribution of people of different ethnic backgrounds. They may not all have lived in the same time period, but He will certainly not fail to ensure that He will be able to ransom “people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, ESV).

2) I would argue that this question is a double-edged sword, as it can easily be used as an argument against Arminianism as well. After all, if God is in the business of trying to bring every single individual into salvation, and that He needs us to make free-will decisions for Him before we are able to do so, then why hasn’t He made it so that everybody everywhere around the world has an equal opportunity to “make a decision for Jesus” and be saved? Is God not powerful enough to create opportunities for them?

I hope you can appreciate the problem that this question poses for your own view, since it basically implies that God is trying to save people but is not powerful enough to work around these geographical barriers that you are pointing towards. Of course, in the Reformed view, God is totally free, and is therefore not obligated to act as an equal-opportunity employer (otherwise, what would be the complaint of Pharaoh, Judas and the Assyrian King, among other people?).

Wouldn’t it make more sense that He doesn’t elect salvation but that cultural, religious, and political barriers to the Gospel in these geographies are making people unable to respond to His corporate election?

The problem with this view is that it means God is impotent and cannot work past such worldly restraints. Besides, it is never a good idea to interpret scripture according to how things look in the external world (which would lead once again down that slippery slope to liberalism). Rather, we need to resolve this question using scripture as our final authority, and then applying our understanding of scripture to how we interpret the world around us. Once again—and I have stressed this several times already—the biblical question is, “who makes you differ from another” (1 Corinthians 4:7, NKJV)? If it is because of human will or temporal restraints, then we have basically said that God has His hands tied behind His back and that He is not totally free (contra what John 6:37, Romans 9:15-18 and other similar passages state).

Ultimately, that is the question that we both have to answer: Who makes the difference? Is salvation dependent upon man’s ability to respond to God and cooperate with His grace, or is He powerful enough to overcome all worldly obstacles (including, and especially, man’s natural tendency to rebel against his Maker) and free enough to accomplish His work of salvation according to His own purposes and for His own glory. Think about it.

Grace and peace.

Fisher.

I will put one or two more posts in this series, but because of all the things that I have to get done on top of this, it will take a while. Thanks for bearing with me, though.

Oh, and check out this recent sermon by John MacArthur to see if you get anything out of it.

(Continue to Part 6)

Muhammad is NOT in Deuteronomy 18:18

2010-07-04T17:09:00.003-04:00

Muslims are fond of quoting Deuteronomy 18:18 in support of their claim that Muhammad is in the bible, yet this claim has been debunked to death millions of times already. For brevity, I am listing some web links debunking this spurious claim:

How Many Bibles do I Have Now?

2010-07-02T23:12:00.003-04:00

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Debate: Tony Costa vs. Bassam Zawadi

2010-07-01T10:32:00.002-04:00

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 4)

2010-06-30T21:56:00.010-04:00

(Continued from Part 3)

We are now getting into the topic of Evangelism. This is going to be one place where some of the really major misconceptions tend to arise, and I shall Lord willing try to correct any misconceptions you may have. Please gently bear with me as I try to clarify some things in response to your criticisms:

I think its funny that Calvinists are part of the “evangelical” sect of the Christian faith. If God chooses who gets saved without any input from humans, why fight against His will by evangelizing?

I think you should not forget that it was Calvinists (along with Lutherans) who were the original “Evangelicals” back in the days of the Reformation. :-)

When God draws people into saving faith, He uses means. I think it’s fairly obvious that God doesn’t just “zap” faith into someone’s heart so they suddenly start believing. God certainly has the power to do that, but He has chosen not to work that way. Rather, He has chosen to make use of the preaching of the word as His instrument in bringing people into saving faith. To say that we who preach “convert” anybody is a major misnomer: God is the one in the business of converting hearts, and He uses human preachers as His instruments. I mean sure, there are those rare instances where God bypasses that and reaches out to somebody via dreams or theophanies (which is what has happened to a lot of ex-Muslims who’ve converted to Christianity after seeing Jesus in their dreams), but those are extraordinary means, and God usually utilizes preaching as His method of drawing His children in.

A good example of this is Acts 10:44, where the Word is preached first and the Holy Spirit falls upon those who would believe. Another example is Acts 13:48, where Paul preaches to the Gentiles in Pisidia, and, as it says there, “as many as had been appointed [τεταγμενοι] to eternal life believed.” The order is important, as they believe because they were ordained, not vice versa, and any reputable scholar of biblical Greek can attest to this.

Now, I know some of the more extreme hyper-calvinists have this view that you’re not supposed to evangelize (somehow, the elect are supposed to just show up at your church door one morning), but the mainstream Reformed belief is not that. This is the reason why historically, Calvinists have been the most avid evangelists and foreign missionaries way back in earlier centuries. Don’t believe me? Well, who were the most studious among the reformers to spread the Word of God throughout Europe? Were they not the ones who came out of Geneva? Who founded the first Baptist Missionary Society? Were they not Reformed Baptists such as William Carey? Who were the most instrumental preachers of the Great Awakening? Were they not Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, who were both staunch Calvinists? Who was the prince of preachers? Was it not Charles Spurgeon, who was also staunchly Calvinistic? And how about all the Presbyterian missions that have made inroads in South Korea and other parts of East Asia in the name of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I am pointing all of these things out to show that it is historically naive to suppose that Calvinism has had any detrimental effect on evangelism.

Do they lead unbelievers in a prayer and hope that God makes it “take” if He has already pre-determined that they should be saved?

First of all, I take strong exception to the idea that you evangelize somebody by getting them to “pray a prayer.” This "sinner's prayer" methodology has produced more false converts than any other method of evangelism.

Second, I already told you that God uses means to bring people into saving faith. Now how do you know if they are Elect or not? Easy: They come into genuine saving faith, and they will endure to the end. After all, “the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22, ESV).

Also, do you ever pray for the salvation of your lost loved ones? If so, I submit to you that doing so does not make sense from an Arminian perspective. The main reason for this is that to pray for God to save someone is to assume that God has the power to do something about that unbelief—something that contradicts the Arminian freewill position. Charles Spurgeon put it best in one of his sermons:

But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."

That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Do I hear one Christian man saying, "I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me"?
(Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Free Will—A Slave.)

Read the rest of the sermon as well. You might learn a bit from it. :-)

Of course, those of us who believe in free will see that the saving work of God must be performed by Jesus, preached by Christians, and accepted by sinners. Everyone has their role.

"And what hast thou that thou didst not receive" (1 Corinthians 4:7, KJV)?

In the Calvinist system, in order to give God glory, no one but God can do anything in the salvation process. So Jesus provided the redemptive work, He calls those whom He wants, and He forces sinners to repent.

He doesn’t "force" them. He changes their hearts and makes them willing (cf. Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Think of a woman who was so fantastically fat and ugly that you get repulsed every time you see her. Imagine then, that she had plastic surgery, lost all her extra weight and put on the finest perfume and make-up. Now she's the prettiest woman in the world. When you see her, you can't help but be attracted to her. This isn't the best analogy, but it helps illustrate what it's like for God to change a person's natural disposition.

So why is there so much in the Bible about sharing the Good News with the lost?

Because that is His ordained means of drawing sinners to the Saviour.

Also, God has not revealed to us who is elect and who is not. We don’t have special glasses that indicate to us who is elect and who is not, and we just preach to those who are elect. I don’t know why, but for some reason, a lot of Arminians I’ve met have this idea that Calvinism teaches that we must only preach to those who are elect, as if we had knowledge of God’s secret plans. Look at the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-8, Mark 4:1-8, Luke 8:5-8). I am sure you would not disagree with me that there are different types of soil in the world. Now, if you pay close attention to the parable, you will notice that the sower does not just look for the good soil and scatter the seed there. Rather, he scatters the seed indiscriminately to see where they bear fruit.

The application for us is that we do not know who is the good soil and who is not. So we spread the Word everywhere and see where God makes the seed bear fruit. After all, though we may plant and water the seeds, it is up to God to make the seeds grow (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:6-7).

Romans 10:14-17 (which oddly enough comes right after Romans 9) very clearly says that the Gospel must be heard and mixed with the faith of the individual to take effect.

The fact that Romans 10:14-17 comes right after Romans 9 makes perfect sense when you take into account what I just said: God chooses, and He uses the preaching of the Word as the means to bring about what He has ordained.

Of course the Calvinist says that our faith comes from God. Yes it does. He is the giver of our faith but He doesn’t exercise it for us. Think about it – if God exercises our faith for us, why did Jesus reprimand the disciples and say, “Oh, you of little faith” 4 times in the book of Matthew? He should’ve been scolding Himself! We must exercise our God-given faith ourselves.

I don’t disagree with a single portion of this, and I challenge you to show me any Calvinist who thinks God exercises faith for us. You won’t find one, and even if you somehow found one who did, I would be the first one to say that he is wrong.

So here is my question – if the Calvinist construct is true and God carries out every detail of the salvation process...

Look at the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30. God foreknows, God predestines, God calls, God justifies, God glorifies. At which point does man add anything of himself? Everything in there is something that God does. Simply put, you cannot break that golden chain.

...why are we commanded to spread the good news of redemption through Jesus? I actually saw where someone answered that question by saying that we should share the gospel out of sheer obedience because God tells us to, not because it does anything. How ridiculous!

I would agree that it would be ridiculous if that was the only reason why one should evangelize. Now, obedience is one good reason why we should do it, but it is just one of many different reasons. I gave you the rest of them earlier.

Calvinism...

...or rather, the strawman version of Calvinism that you derived from a single person who happened to have an inadequate answer and does not represent what the vast majority of Reformed Christians believe...

...turns evangelism from a love-based action of mercy where we get the pleasure of partnering in God’s will, into a meaningless “test” by an unreasonable god. Revelation 3:20 is so simple. He is knocking. You must hear His voice and open.

Now, talk about taking scripture out of context. Revelation 3:20 is talking about the church in Laodicea, and how believers there were becoming lukewarm in their faith. Contrary to what many Arminians think, Revelation 3:20 is addressed to those who already believe, not those who are still outside of the fold.

Besides, lack of a doorknob didn’t stop Jesus from calling Lazarus out of his tomb (cf. John 11:38-44).

Anyway, there is a lot more that I need to say, but due to lack of time, I will leave you with this. I will continue writing the rest of my response at a later time. I’ll try to continue tomorrow. If I’m not able to, though, I’ll try for Sunday.

Grace and Peace.

Fisher

PS: Since we're talking about evangelism here, I'm still doing some Gospel work involving Muslims. Perhaps you can include my work in witnessing to them in your prayers. Calvinist or Arminian, I think we can agree that this is something of utmost importance and supercedes our secondary differences.

(Continue to Part 5)

Prayer Requests...

2010-06-29T12:30:00.004-04:00

Please pray that the controversy and lawsuit over the whole Dearborn incident will come to a close soon. We cannot allow despotism to trump freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Please pray for the well-being and safety of the four brave brothers and sisters that got arrested over a week ago--David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi, Negeen Mayel and Paul Rezkalla--that the Lord may continue to abide with them and use them to bring many more Muslims to Christ.