A Christian, therefore, is a man who trusts in the one true and only God; who relies upon His mercy through His Son Christ, God of God; who models himself upon His example; who dies daily; who daily renounces self; who is intent upon this one thing, not to do anything that can offend his God. Such watchfulness demands so much diligence and zeal that anyone would need many a Theseus to defend his blamelessness, and yet would never come off victorious. The Christian life, then, is a battle, so sharp and full of danger that effort can nowhere be relaxed without loss; again, it is also a lasting victory, for he who fights it wins, if only he remains loyal to Christ the head. Thus has God willed that man be an amphibian among the creatures, dwelling sometimes on earth, sometimes in the heavens; and, again, while on the earth sometimes conquering, sometimes yielding; but we are by no means to ask the reasons for His acts. Since, then, God asks of us these things only, faith and blamelessness, no more baneful plague can be imagined than a varied worship of God, the invention of our own industry. This we (being given to magnifying everything of our own) embrace, instead of that true worship of God which consists of faith and blamelessness; and, according to the words of the prophet Jeremiah, 2:13, "We have committed two evils; we have forsaken God, the fountain of living waters, and hewed us out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Christian Life a Battle
The following is by Ulrich Zwingli, and is from the epilogue of his Commentary on True and False Religion.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Reflections on the Wise Thief
We are fast approaching the liturgical celebration of our Lord's Passion and Crucifixion, which will lead up to the Resurrection and the means of our salvation. I thought, therefore, it might be best to meditate on one of the most remarkable moments of Good Friday, on that fateful day on Calvary.
The Church Fathers teach us that the Wise Thief did mock Christ at first, but later repented. Why was this? Perhaps we might never be quite sure. It could be that the Wise Thief was won over at the utterance of our Lord's words, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do." Perhaps it was the sight of our Lord's compassion to His mother and beloved disciple John. Perhaps the thief recognized the words "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" and knew from where those words came (Psalm 22:1). It could have been all of the above, or it could have been none - it could have simply been a unilateral action of God's grace. In any case, we know that by God's grace the Wise Thief's heart was moved, and moved towards repentance.
So we come to Luke's account, halfway through the crucifixion. One of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus repeats the mockery of the crowd: "If you are the Christ, save yourself." To this command, however, he adds: "...and us!" It wasn't enough that Jesus had to step down from the cross to prove His Messianic status, but now He also had to save the two thieves! Why was this? Selfishness: man is always thinking of how to get out of a jam through his own means. He never wants to embrace what little he has; he only wants a way out of it. We want instant pleasure. So the ungrateful thief, despite having been found guilty of a crime we know he committed, wants a way out of his punishment.
One can identify much evil in his words, for he tells Jesus, "If you are the Christ." This is an echo of the words of the crowd, but they are also echoes of words found much earlier in Luke's gospel. As Christ was fasting and praying in the desert, the devil suddenly appeared and began his temptation with these words: "If you are the Son of God..." (Luke 4:3). The very first temptation mankind ever suffered was doubt, for the snake in Eden asked Eve, "Did God actually say..." (Gen 3:1), and so it is very fitting that the first real temptation of Christ would be similar. Now, just as the devil tempted Christ with doubt in the desert, he tempts Him here on the cross through influence on weak individuals. It is therefore certain to say that the concept of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ is a silly one, as Christ was tempted on the cross but rejected it. Christ would not remove Himself from the cross, but endure it to the end so that, as Luke later records, "repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations" (Luke 24:47).
Now pipes in the Wise Thief. In response to this blasphemy, the Thief does what no one has done during the entire narrative of the Passion of our Lord: he defends Jesus. "Do you not even fear God," he asks, "seeing you are under the same condemnation?" He asked this because he rightly identified that they had all been accused to die equally horrible deaths, although their crimes had been different. He explains this next when he states, "we indeed [are punished] justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." In this manner he identifies something the first thief did not: that they are sinners, criminals and scoundrels, and that they deserve the punishment they are given.
What had been Christ's crime? That they should love one another as He loves them. It was legally a menial crime at best, but in the eyes of a corrupt and sinful world a grave error that deserved death. Nonetheless, it is not a crime that should number you among thieves and robbers, as the Romans had done with Christ.
The Wise Thief is given his title because he was wise enough to discern this. He identified rightly what was going on, and he knew that there was more here than an execution. He recognized that before Him was not just any man, but the Son of Man, also the Son of God. The Wise Thief recognized that Christ did not have to be there, and yet He had allowed Himself to be numbered between them. In some ways, Christ was the odd man out, for he was the only innocent one on all three crosses - but in other ways, too, the thieves were the odd ones out, because it was not by their death and resurrection that mankind would be saved. They were not worthy to be in such presence, and yet Christ had come to be in their presence by His own accord.
So now, finished reprimanding his fellow transgressor, the Wise Thief turns his focus to our Lord. He does not ask for freedom, wealth, or a high position. He only makes one small request...
"Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."
We can rightfully consider this statement a prayer, and a wonderful prayer at that. It should be the only prayer on the lips of every Christian. The Wise Thief does, in a way, ask for Christ to save him from the cross, but not in the same manner as the other thief. The other thief was stuck in the world, and only thought of the world, and so when he sought freedom he sought it from the execution, so that he may enjoy worldly life just a little bit more. The Wise Thief instead seeks freedom from the world entirely. He seeks freedom from the cross not for freedom from the execution, but rather freedom from what the cross meant: death and eternal humiliation.
When Christ made the statement from the cross, "Father, forgive them..." He embodied the very meaning of the cross to the believer. This scene, in a similar manner, embodies the forgiveness and love shown to those who love Him. Both thieves had Divine Truth in their midst, and yet only one chose to embrace it. For this reason his sins were forgiven, and he was reconciled before God through the cross (Eph 2:16) "having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col 1:20). Out of repentance, like the prodigal son returning to his father, all sins the Wise Thief had committed were wiped clean, for they were left on the cross upon which he died (Col 2:14). The only thing taken with him to paradise was Christ's memory of him - the only thing he had asked for.
Truly, no moment in scripture brings tears to my eyes nearly as much as this one. The Wise Thief embodies every necessary trait for the believer: self-discernment, endurance of trials, confession, and repentance. Sometimes I recall this story in my mind, and I feel tears come from my heart. I feel tears come for the show of mercy our Lord has on sinners who come to Him. Then I realize that I am not as repentant as the Wise Thief, and tears come to my eyes as I ask our Lord to give me just a little of the humility that the Thief showed.
There is an ancient church hymn in which the angels at the gates of heaven ask the Thief, "How did you steal your way into paradise?" May this be the only theft any of us are guilty of.
Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” [Luke 23:39-43; NKJV]It is recorded among all four gospels that Jesus was crucified between two thieves also condemned to die that day. The crowd gathered there was gleefully mocking their God, and Matthew and Mark both record that, initially, the thieves joined in their mockery. Yet as Luke shows, something happened - one of the thieves switched gears.
The Church Fathers teach us that the Wise Thief did mock Christ at first, but later repented. Why was this? Perhaps we might never be quite sure. It could be that the Wise Thief was won over at the utterance of our Lord's words, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do." Perhaps it was the sight of our Lord's compassion to His mother and beloved disciple John. Perhaps the thief recognized the words "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" and knew from where those words came (Psalm 22:1). It could have been all of the above, or it could have been none - it could have simply been a unilateral action of God's grace. In any case, we know that by God's grace the Wise Thief's heart was moved, and moved towards repentance.
So we come to Luke's account, halfway through the crucifixion. One of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus repeats the mockery of the crowd: "If you are the Christ, save yourself." To this command, however, he adds: "...and us!" It wasn't enough that Jesus had to step down from the cross to prove His Messianic status, but now He also had to save the two thieves! Why was this? Selfishness: man is always thinking of how to get out of a jam through his own means. He never wants to embrace what little he has; he only wants a way out of it. We want instant pleasure. So the ungrateful thief, despite having been found guilty of a crime we know he committed, wants a way out of his punishment.
One can identify much evil in his words, for he tells Jesus, "If you are the Christ." This is an echo of the words of the crowd, but they are also echoes of words found much earlier in Luke's gospel. As Christ was fasting and praying in the desert, the devil suddenly appeared and began his temptation with these words: "If you are the Son of God..." (Luke 4:3). The very first temptation mankind ever suffered was doubt, for the snake in Eden asked Eve, "Did God actually say..." (Gen 3:1), and so it is very fitting that the first real temptation of Christ would be similar. Now, just as the devil tempted Christ with doubt in the desert, he tempts Him here on the cross through influence on weak individuals. It is therefore certain to say that the concept of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ is a silly one, as Christ was tempted on the cross but rejected it. Christ would not remove Himself from the cross, but endure it to the end so that, as Luke later records, "repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations" (Luke 24:47).
Now pipes in the Wise Thief. In response to this blasphemy, the Thief does what no one has done during the entire narrative of the Passion of our Lord: he defends Jesus. "Do you not even fear God," he asks, "seeing you are under the same condemnation?" He asked this because he rightly identified that they had all been accused to die equally horrible deaths, although their crimes had been different. He explains this next when he states, "we indeed [are punished] justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." In this manner he identifies something the first thief did not: that they are sinners, criminals and scoundrels, and that they deserve the punishment they are given.
What had been Christ's crime? That they should love one another as He loves them. It was legally a menial crime at best, but in the eyes of a corrupt and sinful world a grave error that deserved death. Nonetheless, it is not a crime that should number you among thieves and robbers, as the Romans had done with Christ.
The Wise Thief is given his title because he was wise enough to discern this. He identified rightly what was going on, and he knew that there was more here than an execution. He recognized that before Him was not just any man, but the Son of Man, also the Son of God. The Wise Thief recognized that Christ did not have to be there, and yet He had allowed Himself to be numbered between them. In some ways, Christ was the odd man out, for he was the only innocent one on all three crosses - but in other ways, too, the thieves were the odd ones out, because it was not by their death and resurrection that mankind would be saved. They were not worthy to be in such presence, and yet Christ had come to be in their presence by His own accord.
So now, finished reprimanding his fellow transgressor, the Wise Thief turns his focus to our Lord. He does not ask for freedom, wealth, or a high position. He only makes one small request...
"Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."
We can rightfully consider this statement a prayer, and a wonderful prayer at that. It should be the only prayer on the lips of every Christian. The Wise Thief does, in a way, ask for Christ to save him from the cross, but not in the same manner as the other thief. The other thief was stuck in the world, and only thought of the world, and so when he sought freedom he sought it from the execution, so that he may enjoy worldly life just a little bit more. The Wise Thief instead seeks freedom from the world entirely. He seeks freedom from the cross not for freedom from the execution, but rather freedom from what the cross meant: death and eternal humiliation.
When Christ made the statement from the cross, "Father, forgive them..." He embodied the very meaning of the cross to the believer. This scene, in a similar manner, embodies the forgiveness and love shown to those who love Him. Both thieves had Divine Truth in their midst, and yet only one chose to embrace it. For this reason his sins were forgiven, and he was reconciled before God through the cross (Eph 2:16) "having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col 1:20). Out of repentance, like the prodigal son returning to his father, all sins the Wise Thief had committed were wiped clean, for they were left on the cross upon which he died (Col 2:14). The only thing taken with him to paradise was Christ's memory of him - the only thing he had asked for.
Truly, no moment in scripture brings tears to my eyes nearly as much as this one. The Wise Thief embodies every necessary trait for the believer: self-discernment, endurance of trials, confession, and repentance. Sometimes I recall this story in my mind, and I feel tears come from my heart. I feel tears come for the show of mercy our Lord has on sinners who come to Him. Then I realize that I am not as repentant as the Wise Thief, and tears come to my eyes as I ask our Lord to give me just a little of the humility that the Thief showed.
There is an ancient church hymn in which the angels at the gates of heaven ask the Thief, "How did you steal your way into paradise?" May this be the only theft any of us are guilty of.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Mohammad and the Trinity
One of the greatest weaknesses in Islamic theology, especially in regards to Christianity and her understanding of it, is how Islam defines the Trinity. The language of the Trinity is distinct and important, and while I will admit that even some Christians are unable to fully understand it, it is still a fully understood concept within the greater realm of orthodox Christianity. One honest question should be: was there, at the time of Mohammad, a question of what the Trinity was? Would he have a right to misunderstand the Trinity? Was true understanding of the Trinity only a recent thing, or something Christians had to develop in the face of Islamic attacks? Such problems seem possible, except when we review the history of orthodox Christian thought from the time of Islam down.
A good start would be with John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century during the time of Islam's rise to power in the Middle East. He wrote regarding the Trinity:
Yet we can go even further back, to the fourth century some 300 years before the time of Mohammad, to Basil the Great, who also wrote on the Trinitarian God.
Still we can go further back to the time of the original apostles of Christ, and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his genuine epistles.
Therefore we know that up to the time of Mohammad there was a clear understanding of what the Trinity was: one Being of God revealed in three distinct but united Persons, who are united in their Essence. It is not three gods, yet those Persons are distinguished from one another - the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son, etc. Again, this is not three gods, nor are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit separate entirely from one another. These are not three Beings but Persons, and they are all one in Essence and act accordingly to their means.
With the doctrine of the Trinity properly define and discussed, let us now ask the question: did Mohammad fully understand this Christian belief? Let's begin with two samples from the Quran:
The Trinity is not three gods - that contradicts the very term trinity, which is a combination of the words "tri" (meaning three) and "unity" (which is self-explanatory) to form the concept of "unity in three." The Trinity, as we already defined earlier, is one Being of God revealed in three Divine Persons. Within the one Being of God coexists the coeternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are distinguished from one another both in scripture and within this very definition. Therefore, for one to argue that Christians believe God is one in three is simply incorrect.
It's interesting to note that while the Quran admits at times that Christians believe Christ is God, it does not seem to understand what this means. It seems to still believe that it is a pagan form of deity worship. To view those passages in context:
I have heard some Muslim objections to this argumentation, in an attempt to make the Quran seem orthodox in its Trinitarian understanding. It is argued that the Quran is not wrong, since Christians believe Christ is God, or "Allah," and that the "joining other gods" refers to the Persons in the Trinity - in other words, "Allah" refers to God the Father. The problem with this argument is that it is self defeating for three reasons: 1) the Persons in the Trinity are not "ascribing partners" or "joining other gods" because the individual Persons are not individual Beings, and therefore not gods - in fact, the Persons are all one in Essence with each another, and when one acts independently the other two act according to their individual means; 2) nowhere does the Quran say "Persons," nor does it distinguish terminology that could be applicable to the definition of "Person" as it is used in the Trinity; 3) if "Allah" refers to God the Father, then the Quran is still in error, because it therefore claims that Christians believe Jesus is the Father, which is completely incorrect - only the Father is the Father; Jesus is the Son. To suggest Jesus is the Father is to suggest Modalism, which would be a heresy even to Christians.
It would indeed seem that Mohammad still believed that the Trinity was three gods, and Jesus was merely one besides Allah.
There are also hadith sources that display this misunderstanding of the Trinity. One example:
One final note as I close my post: many Muslims, when this subject comes up, seem to present a kind of willful ignorance. They simply refuse to understand the Trinity as Christians have understood it. No matter how many times you may explain it in detail and as patiently as possible, they seem unable or unwilling to listen. Hence my use of the phraseology "willful ignorance": they have the explanation in front of them, but they seem unwilling to acknowledge it. I cannot be the judge of every Muslim's heart as only God is aware of the nature of their being, however I am certain this is sometimes out of stubbornness, if not many times out of a gross unwillingness to review their own beliefs.
I know many Muslims will object to my constant usage of "Mohammad's opinion" or "Mohammad said this" when I am quoting only the Quran. Muslims, after all, believe that the Quran is the product of God. However, if a book or revelation is given to you that grossly distorts the belief system of another belief...can you really call such a revelation to have come from God? One of the 99 names of Allah is Al Haqq or "The Truth," therefore why would something dishonest - intentional or unintentional - be in the words of God? If a book came along that claimed to be a revelation in line with Islam, yet it claimed that Muslims worshiped Mohammad when this is not the case, would Muslims not question the authenticity of that book and whether or not it came from God? One can continue to accuse Christians of paganism, but if you are being forced to ignore argumentation because of your religion, then isn't your religion forcing you to lie?
Therefore, one must ask themselves honestly and openly: if the Quran is wrong on the doctrine of another faith, is that the fault of that other faith...or is that the fault of the Quran? If the Quran is found at fault and yet is believed to have come from God, can that claim therefore be substantial, or can we assume that God is in error? Since we know God cannot be in error, does that mean the Quran is man-made or God-made? And if it is man-made, is Mohammad receiving his source from God...or something else? I would ask that the discerning mind ponder on this and all we have discussed.
A good start would be with John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century during the time of Islam's rise to power in the Middle East. He wrote regarding the Trinity:
We believe, then, in One God...one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration...John Damascene outlines several key realities of the Trinity: 1) Christians are monotheists who believe in one God who exists in a Trinity; 2) the Trinity is made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; 3) these three Persons are distinguished yet separate from one another, but are still equal in Essence.
The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone...the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father...Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal... [John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 8]
Yet we can go even further back, to the fourth century some 300 years before the time of Mohammad, to Basil the Great, who also wrote on the Trinitarian God.
They have abandoned what they professed when they entered God's household. What did they profess? Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...I swear to every man who confesses Christ but denies the Father: Christ will profit him nothing. If a man calls upon God, but rejects the Son, his faith is empty. If someone rejects the Spirit, his faith in the Father and the Son is made useless; it is impossible to believe in the Father and the Son without the presence of the Spirit. He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. [Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27]Basil was writing against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and speaks of the unity of the Persons within the Trinity. Those who deny the Son deny the Father, and those who deny the Spirit deny the Father and the Son, for all are equal and represent the fullness of God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not separate gods, but are Persons within the Trinitarian God, of whom there is only one.
Still we can go further back to the time of the original apostles of Christ, and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his genuine epistles.
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth... [Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4]Ignatius, disciple to the beloved apostle John and writing in the first century, does something important here: he identifies one Being of God, and then identifies the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within that Being of God.
Therefore we know that up to the time of Mohammad there was a clear understanding of what the Trinity was: one Being of God revealed in three distinct but united Persons, who are united in their Essence. It is not three gods, yet those Persons are distinguished from one another - the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son, etc. Again, this is not three gods, nor are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit separate entirely from one another. These are not three Beings but Persons, and they are all one in Essence and act accordingly to their means.
With the doctrine of the Trinity properly define and discussed, let us now ask the question: did Mohammad fully understand this Christian belief? Let's begin with two samples from the Quran:
...Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [S. 4:171; Yusuf Ali]Note the phraseology here: do not say "Allah is one of three in a Trinity...there is no god except One Allah." The assumption here seems to be that the Trinity is three gods, a common battle cry by many Muslims against Christians. Many times I've been on Christian forums where a Muslim signs on and asks the Christians, "Why do you worship three gods?", which results in their being laughed at. Why? They are laughed at because this is not what the Trinity is. It makes about as much sense as going to a Muslim forum and asking, "Why do you worship Mohammad as God?"
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. [S. 5:73; Yusuf Ali]
The Trinity is not three gods - that contradicts the very term trinity, which is a combination of the words "tri" (meaning three) and "unity" (which is self-explanatory) to form the concept of "unity in three." The Trinity, as we already defined earlier, is one Being of God revealed in three Divine Persons. Within the one Being of God coexists the coeternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are distinguished from one another both in scripture and within this very definition. Therefore, for one to argue that Christians believe God is one in three is simply incorrect.
It's interesting to note that while the Quran admits at times that Christians believe Christ is God, it does not seem to understand what this means. It seems to still believe that it is a pagan form of deity worship. To view those passages in context:
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." [S. 5:17; Yusuf Ali]These passages seem to suggest that Mohammad believed that Christ and God were one and the same, hence the phraseology "Allah is Christ," or at the very least that Christ was put on equal with God in a bitheism, hence the follow up warning against "whoever joins other gods with Allah."
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. [S. 5:72; Yusuf Ali]
I have heard some Muslim objections to this argumentation, in an attempt to make the Quran seem orthodox in its Trinitarian understanding. It is argued that the Quran is not wrong, since Christians believe Christ is God, or "Allah," and that the "joining other gods" refers to the Persons in the Trinity - in other words, "Allah" refers to God the Father. The problem with this argument is that it is self defeating for three reasons: 1) the Persons in the Trinity are not "ascribing partners" or "joining other gods" because the individual Persons are not individual Beings, and therefore not gods - in fact, the Persons are all one in Essence with each another, and when one acts independently the other two act according to their individual means; 2) nowhere does the Quran say "Persons," nor does it distinguish terminology that could be applicable to the definition of "Person" as it is used in the Trinity; 3) if "Allah" refers to God the Father, then the Quran is still in error, because it therefore claims that Christians believe Jesus is the Father, which is completely incorrect - only the Father is the Father; Jesus is the Son. To suggest Jesus is the Father is to suggest Modalism, which would be a heresy even to Christians.
It would indeed seem that Mohammad still believed that the Trinity was three gods, and Jesus was merely one besides Allah.
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden? [S. 5:116; M. Pickthall; emphasis mine]Jesus here tells God that He never told people to take Him or His mother as gods besides Allah. This has led some to claim that Mohammad believed the Trinity was God, Jesus and Mary, but I don't think there is substantial evidence besides this passage to prove that. In any case, the assumption here is two-fold: 1) Jesus is placed as another god besides Allah; 2) even the Virgin Mary is made a god besides Allah. As already stated, Christ is not another god placed alongside God. Furthermore, no one except extreme Marian sects worship the Virgin Mary as a separate deity, which goes into the issue of veneration versus worship which Islam seems incapable of discerning.
There are also hadith sources that display this misunderstanding of the Trinity. One example:
Narrated Nafi':Again, it is described that Christians are placing partners besides Allah. It is even stated that Muslim men cannot marry Christian women simply because of this. A pity that such a ban is placed on Christian women for something that Christian women do not even do!
Whenever Ibn 'Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves." [Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209]
One final note as I close my post: many Muslims, when this subject comes up, seem to present a kind of willful ignorance. They simply refuse to understand the Trinity as Christians have understood it. No matter how many times you may explain it in detail and as patiently as possible, they seem unable or unwilling to listen. Hence my use of the phraseology "willful ignorance": they have the explanation in front of them, but they seem unwilling to acknowledge it. I cannot be the judge of every Muslim's heart as only God is aware of the nature of their being, however I am certain this is sometimes out of stubbornness, if not many times out of a gross unwillingness to review their own beliefs.
I know many Muslims will object to my constant usage of "Mohammad's opinion" or "Mohammad said this" when I am quoting only the Quran. Muslims, after all, believe that the Quran is the product of God. However, if a book or revelation is given to you that grossly distorts the belief system of another belief...can you really call such a revelation to have come from God? One of the 99 names of Allah is Al Haqq or "The Truth," therefore why would something dishonest - intentional or unintentional - be in the words of God? If a book came along that claimed to be a revelation in line with Islam, yet it claimed that Muslims worshiped Mohammad when this is not the case, would Muslims not question the authenticity of that book and whether or not it came from God? One can continue to accuse Christians of paganism, but if you are being forced to ignore argumentation because of your religion, then isn't your religion forcing you to lie?
Therefore, one must ask themselves honestly and openly: if the Quran is wrong on the doctrine of another faith, is that the fault of that other faith...or is that the fault of the Quran? If the Quran is found at fault and yet is believed to have come from God, can that claim therefore be substantial, or can we assume that God is in error? Since we know God cannot be in error, does that mean the Quran is man-made or God-made? And if it is man-made, is Mohammad receiving his source from God...or something else? I would ask that the discerning mind ponder on this and all we have discussed.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Christ the Gate; Christ the Shepherd
Is it possible to take a belief too far? Every denomination, every church, and even every individual believer has their own beliefs about certain subjects. Most are based on some kind of sound biblical doctrine or teaching, or at the very least are supported by sound or tolerable exegesis. Is it possible, however, to take a belief too far, and go beyond what the text really means? We can certainly see that with various heresies that are out there, but I discovered one surprising example when I came across an article by Tim Staples. It attempted to find scriptural passages to confirm the supremacy of Peter, and it was here that I discovered this particular section, which simply shocked me:
In fairness to Staples, here is the prime "additional text" he was referring to, so that I can present the full gist of his argumentation:
Christ is the Gate for the Sheep; He is where the sheep enter to find salvation. Christ states: "If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture" (10:9), for "through Him we both have access by one spirit to the Father" (Eph 2:18), and "no one comes to the Father" except through Christ (John 14:6). It is only through this door that the sheep enter and leave, and it is only through this way that the Shepherd comes, for any who "climbs up some other way" is "a thief and a robber" (10:1).
Yet an interesting connection is made between the gate and shepherd, for Christ states "he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). Our Lord therefore identifies Himself both as the means of salvation, and the cause of salvation. In this manner, and more importantly, Christ is also the Shepherd of the Sheep. He is not a hired hand, who "sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees" (10:12), for as the good shepherd he "gives His life for the sheep" (10:11). This refers to the crucifixion, for Christ states, "As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep" (10:15), for the crucifixion is the will of God, and the authority to carry through the crucifixion has been granted by the Father (10:18).
Neither is Christ "a thief and a robber" (10:1) who comes only "to steal, and to kill, and to destroy" (10:10). Christ is the shepherd whom the sheep know and follow (10:14), and if they encounter any one different they recognize it is a stranger and flee (10:5). As for "the other sheep" which must be brought into the fold, Christ states plainly: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (10:16). Note the specific nature of this statement: "other sheep I have...them also I must bring...they will hear My voice." Later on, Christ will tell the disbelieving Jews, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (10:27-28). Therefore, the context of the shepherd is speaking of a direct relation between Christ and the sheep - not the sheep and anyone else.
Now, let's ask certain questions about Peter...
Staples asks, "Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass?" The answer is clearly there in the text: God uses the Lord as the shepherd. Again, Staples admits this, but he then twists the meaning to suggest there is another shepherd. That is eisegesis. The traits given to the shepherd (as well as the parallel title of "the gate") cannot apply to the pope, unless we expect to place the pope on equal with Christ.
I would like to, on the same note, briefly address the argumentation that Staples provides in an effort to connect John 10 with the redemption of Peter in John 21. I would concede that there are other uses of the word "shepherd," however what are they in relation to Christ? Peter himself answered that for us in his first epistle:
To attempt to state such an argument as the one made by Tim Staples is a destructive road to follow, as it leads to heresy and the degradation of Christ's status within scripture. The Good Shepherd and Gate of the Sheep is Christ and Christ alone, for the traits associated with this shepherd cannot be associated with Peter. The apostle was most definitely a shepherd, yes, but he is not the Shepherd, who lays His life down for the sheep to carry out the will of the Father and bring the sheep eternal life. To suggest he is (even unintentionally) is an exegetical error...and a very dangerous one at that.
5. John 10:16My jaw nearly dropped to the floor when I first read this. Was Staples sincerely suggesting that when Christ spoke of the shepherd, He meant someone other than Himself? I read it two or three times to make sure I hadn't misread it. Although he does profess that Christ is the good shepherd, he suggests it could be read another way. This is often a common strategy of Muslims, Mormons, and other heresies to try and fit their founders or prophets into biblical text when, in reality, they are merely distorting the original context.
Jesus prophesied: "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd." Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be "the good shepherd" (Gk. poimein, "shepherd" or "pastor") in John 10:14. Jesus is the Shepherd. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this "one flock" and "one shepherd," Jesus says he must gather "other sheep," referring to the Gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in two texts, which we’ll look at next. [source]
In fairness to Staples, here is the prime "additional text" he was referring to, so that I can present the full gist of his argumentation:
6. John 21:1-17Can we really consider Peter the shepherd of John 10:16? Let's look at the full context of what Christ is speaking about in John 10:
...In this context Jesus then asks Peter three times, "Do you love me?" When Peter responds in the affirmative the second time, Jesus responds by commanding Peter to "tend (Gk. poimaine, "shepherd") my sheep" (v. 16). Jesus the Shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God. [ibid]
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.Christ identifies Himself with two titles: the Gate of the Sheep, and the Shepherd of the Sheep. We'll deal with the former first.
Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” [John 10:1-18]
Christ is the Gate for the Sheep; He is where the sheep enter to find salvation. Christ states: "If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture" (10:9), for "through Him we both have access by one spirit to the Father" (Eph 2:18), and "no one comes to the Father" except through Christ (John 14:6). It is only through this door that the sheep enter and leave, and it is only through this way that the Shepherd comes, for any who "climbs up some other way" is "a thief and a robber" (10:1).
Yet an interesting connection is made between the gate and shepherd, for Christ states "he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). Our Lord therefore identifies Himself both as the means of salvation, and the cause of salvation. In this manner, and more importantly, Christ is also the Shepherd of the Sheep. He is not a hired hand, who "sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees" (10:12), for as the good shepherd he "gives His life for the sheep" (10:11). This refers to the crucifixion, for Christ states, "As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep" (10:15), for the crucifixion is the will of God, and the authority to carry through the crucifixion has been granted by the Father (10:18).
Neither is Christ "a thief and a robber" (10:1) who comes only "to steal, and to kill, and to destroy" (10:10). Christ is the shepherd whom the sheep know and follow (10:14), and if they encounter any one different they recognize it is a stranger and flee (10:5). As for "the other sheep" which must be brought into the fold, Christ states plainly: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (10:16). Note the specific nature of this statement: "other sheep I have...them also I must bring...they will hear My voice." Later on, Christ will tell the disbelieving Jews, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (10:27-28). Therefore, the context of the shepherd is speaking of a direct relation between Christ and the sheep - not the sheep and anyone else.
Now, let's ask certain questions about Peter...
- Is Peter the gate through which the sheep enter to find salvation?
- Does Peter have the power to lay down his life and take it back up again?
- Will it be his voice that Christians hear to find salvation?
- Will it be he who gives that salvific sacrifice for all the sheep, as commanded by the Father?
- Can Peter grant the sheep eternal life so that they will never perish?
Staples asks, "Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass?" The answer is clearly there in the text: God uses the Lord as the shepherd. Again, Staples admits this, but he then twists the meaning to suggest there is another shepherd. That is eisegesis. The traits given to the shepherd (as well as the parallel title of "the gate") cannot apply to the pope, unless we expect to place the pope on equal with Christ.
I would like to, on the same note, briefly address the argumentation that Staples provides in an effort to connect John 10 with the redemption of Peter in John 21. I would concede that there are other uses of the word "shepherd," however what are they in relation to Christ? Peter himself answered that for us in his first epistle:
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. [1 Peter 5:1-4]Peter speaks not as a high-ranking shepherd, but as a "fellow elder" (5:1), asking that the teachers in the church should "shepherd the flock of God" (5:2), not caring about wealth or fame because their "crown of glory" will come with the return of the "Chief Shepherd" (5:2-4). Christ is the Chief Shepherd, that which is described in John 10. The lesser shepherds - being those in the ministry - submit to Him, and tend to His flock granted to them. They are His flock and His flock alone, for the entire group of believers have been called "the flock of God." Therefore when Christ asks Peter to feed His sheep (John 21:16), He is not at all assigning Peter as Chief Shepherd nor is He associating Peter with the Shepherd of John 10, but merely granting Peter the ability to be a shepherd of God's flock in service to the Chief Shepherd.
To attempt to state such an argument as the one made by Tim Staples is a destructive road to follow, as it leads to heresy and the degradation of Christ's status within scripture. The Good Shepherd and Gate of the Sheep is Christ and Christ alone, for the traits associated with this shepherd cannot be associated with Peter. The apostle was most definitely a shepherd, yes, but he is not the Shepherd, who lays His life down for the sheep to carry out the will of the Father and bring the sheep eternal life. To suggest he is (even unintentionally) is an exegetical error...and a very dangerous one at that.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Extemporary Prayer
The following is from the journal of John Wesley.
A gentleman came to me full of good-will, to exhort me not to leave the Church; or (which was the same thing in his account) to use extemporary prayer, which, said he, “I will prove to a demonstration to be no prayer at all. For you cannot do two things at once. But thinking how to pray and praying are two things. Ergo, you cannot both think and pray at once.” Now, may it not be proved by the salf-same [sic] demonstration that praying by a form is no prayer at all? E.g. You cannot do two things at once. But reading and praying are two things. Ergo, you cannot both read and pray at once.” Q.E.D. [Entry on November 28, 1740]
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Public Witnessing Gone Bad
Now so no one misunderstands me, let me make it clear I am not implying disapproval of all forms of public proselytizing. There are many people who simply pass out tracts (there were some at the parade, and they were fine). There are other people who set up tables or engage in one-on-one witnessing inside the crowd. Public proselytizing can be a great thing, and I've heard of people being saved by these methods. Going out in public and attempting to save strangers is by itself not bad, and we certainly find examples of great Christian men throughout history doing it.
What is not edifying are these public, in-your-face tactics that amount to a group saying "Look at me! Look at me!" while pronouncing judgment on all present. Paul debated the pagan philosophers in the Areopagus, but he didn't go through the streets of Athens screaming and telling everyone they were going to hell. Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door of the castle church for all to see, but he didn't print each theses on a large sign and have 95 people walk through the streets screaming them out. John Wesley preached openly to large crowds and even talked about damnation and sin, however he did so in an organized fashion and often with the permission of whomever owned the land. They never had to resort to this...and they were all far more successful.
To see such a flagrant disregard for presentation and method, the words of the apostle Paul to the hypocritical Jewish Christians come to mind: "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24). The unbelieving people who simply don't know any better probably look at this and say, "Well that must be Christianity, and if that's Christianity, then I want no part of it." While this is not an implication that Christians have to be "seeker friendly," we should avoid orchestrating stereotypes that, again, bring disservice to the cause of Christ.
When I feel Muslims who put on a show, talk big to Christians, and blatantly lie and distort truth and do not seem bothered by it because their only goal is to preach to the Muslim choir, I feel bad for the more calm-minded Muslims out there. When I see things such as this, I feel sorry for the universal church. This can only be what Christ warned about when He spoke against parading your faith before others, and I can't help but think that this has not served the cause of Christ in any great way. When I seek to educate others or be of assistance in another person's understanding, I pray to God that I will be of service to His will and not the evil one. One can only imagine who's will these types of groups are performing.
Below is another example of what I am talking about. The video shows the "Street Screechers," who use similar tactics against Mormons. Lord have mercy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)