Some examples of Trinitarian analogies people shouldn't use, presented in a humorous way.
Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Friday, August 16, 2013
Friday, April 20, 2012
Does Genesis 18 Teach the Trinity?
At times this argument is made far too plainly. I recall once watching a YouTube video where a young man boldly stated nothing more than, "See, there's three here. That's the Trinity!" A more careful and educated approach comes from an examination of the following verses:
And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, "O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant." [Genesis 18:1-3]The idea is this: three men appear before Abraham (v. 2), yet he addresses them in the singular ("Lord," v. 3), and it is said that "the Lord," in a singular sense, appeared to Abraham (v. 1). This does, at surface level, seem to be a fine example of the Trinity, which is three Persons unified within the one Being of God. To give an example of such a mindset in regards to Genesis 18:
...these three men have never been viewed by the Church as a "pre-Incarnation" of the Holy Trinity but rather as an appearance of the Holy Trinity in the guise of three Angels, a temporary appearance manifested in order that God might speak with the holy patriarch. [Timothy Copple and Patrick Barnes, Presumptuous Propositions; source]And again:
The first verse of this chapter says that ‘the Lord appeared’ unto Abraham, and then proceeds to tell that ‘three men stood over against him,’ thus indicating that these were, collectively, the manifestation of Jehovah. [Alexander McClaren, from his commentaries; source]And again:
...the three Persons in the Trinity, in the shape of three men, appear to Abraham and dine with him, and eat the first flesh mentioned eaten in all the Scripture. [John Lightfoot, quoted from John Gill; source]The problem with this interpretation, however, is what happens after the conversation between Abraham, Sarah and the Lord:
So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. [Genesis 18:22]It is said that "the men" turned from there and go towards Sodom, but the Lord stayed before Abraham, and enters into dialogue with him following this verse (the Lord doesn't leave until verse 33). In the very next chapter, the men arrive at Sodom, and are not only numbered at two, but are identified as angels (Gen 19:1). The first man, whom Abraham had addressed at the start of chapter eighteen, is referred to later explicitly as the Lord, but is never referred to as an angel like the other two were. Reading scripture plainly, we have to come to a different conclusion than those who stop at the first few verses of Genesis 18: the three men were not the three Persons in the Trinity, but the Lord accompanied by two angels.
Genesis 18, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity. The only connection between this appearance of three men and the Trinity is the fact that both involve the number three. What can be argued, perhaps, is that this is an example of the pre-incarnate Son in the Trinity appearing to believers. It might be interesting to note here (as discussed in the book The Rublev Trinity by Gabriel Bunge) that, before Rublev, many iconographic depictions of the Genesis account depict three angels, with one bearing the cross on his halo and sometimes the familiar markings of "IC/XC" (Jesus Christ in Greek abbreviation). This would be a far closer depiction of what is actually unfolding in the Genesis account.
Keep in mind I'm not declaring anyone who argues Genesis 18 teaches the Trinity is a heretic. However, I would humbly ask them to review this section of scripture and come to a conclusion that is loyal to what it says regarding these three men.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Random Meditations on the Trinity
The following is just a collection of meditations on the Trinity that I've had for most of the week, especially after some interesting conversations.
Do you need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?
This is a rather tricky question that must be first rightly phrased before it can be rightly answered. Emergents, liberals and other false teachers often attack orthodoxy by accusing Christians of teaching that you need to hold a specific set of beliefs in order to be truly saved. We recognize, however, that it is not the mere mental assent towards a deity is synonymous with salvation, for the Lord speaks of those who will call him "Lord! Lord!" on the day of judgment and yet be rejected (Matt 7:21-23), and the apostle James likewise writes: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (Jam 2:19) To say that a mere belief or adherence to a certain type of teaching will grant one salvation is at best easy believism and at worst cultism. Therefore, it is not merely an empty belief or understanding in the Trinity which gives a person salvation.
With this realized, let's transition to the more appropriate understanding of the relationship between belief and salvation. Faith, in regards to its salvific purpose, is dependent not upon the person who professes it, but upon the God who enables that person to confess it. Our blessed Lord spoke, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), and the apostle Paul wrote (in an often misquoted passage), "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phi 2:12-13). God enables a person to believe, and through that faith in Christ they are saved. B.B. Warfield put it perfectly when he wrote, discussing the topic of sola fide, that it is not faith in Christ which saves, but Christ who saves through faith.
Now let us turn this understanding towards our question of the Trinity and salvation. We know that mere assent to the belief in the Trinity saves no one - however, we also know that it is God's doing in the work of transforming a man's heart to believe fully in Him. If, therefore, someone denies the Trinity, then their very status of salvation is in question. Why is this? If God quickens a person, common sense begs us to understand that He quickens a person to believe towards Him and no other entity, for all other religions are the worship of demons (Deu 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20). If we recognize that God quickens a person, and we also recognize that God would quicken a person towards Him and no other entity, then common sense will now beg us to recognize that a person quickened by God to worship Him as He is in His very state of being and in no other way. That is, a person quickened towards God will not burn incense to Hindu gods, or pray towards Mecca in allegiance to Allah and the teachings of his so-called prophet Mohammad. A person quickened towards God will recognize who God is and what His "divine make up" is. I might compare this to an orphan who meets his natural mother and father and finds out their identity; he will not give respect owed to parents to the first random person on the street, but to those whom he has discovered are his true parents.
Therefore, recognizing that if it is God who quickens a person, and that person should now submit to God alone, and that person must submit to God with an understanding of what, and not just who, God is, then a person who denies the Trinity denies what God is, and how His state of being exists, and therefore must have their salvation questioned. That is, a person who claims to be called of God and yet worships another god who is not Trinitarian in nature cannot truly have been saved, for he is directing his worship towards someone other than the true God of scripture.
Do we need to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible in order for it to be true?
A common attack by some against the Trinity is the fact that either the exact word "Trinity" is not mentioned, or that no New Testament writer ever spends time elaborating upon the Trinity in detail. Is this a fair argument? On the other hand, this argument forgets two main points:
1) This is reading backwards into history. That no one used the word "Trinity" in the New Testament is because the word came at least a century or two later, long after the time of the apostolic church and her writers. Furthermore, the word was not created to invent a doctrine, but to identify it. Note very carefully: I am not arguing for a kind of "progressive revelation" akin to the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinity (rather, God's Trinitarian Being) was always present even though the term itself had not been conceived. The point we are trying to make is that we should not expect any one to use terms and phrases that did not exist at their time.
A historical example: Pliny the Younger, describing the explosion of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, did not use any scientific terms, and yet his description of the explosions are so great that vulcanologists, reading it more than a millennium later, were able to identify exactly what he was describing (in fact, he described it so well they named the type of eruption after him). That Pliny did not know what to call the type of eruption does not suggest his description of it was invalid, nor that the 79 AD eruption didn't happen at all. It would be absurd to read backwards into history and demand Pliny use terminology and phrases that did not exist until long after his death.
2) The absence of a term does not imply that the definition cannot be discovered or seen. To explain this point, I often use an example from the movie The Battle of Algiers: in the movie, reporters ask the fictional Colonel Matthieu if he is torturing Algerian prisoners, to which Matthieu replies, "The word 'torture' is not written on any of our orders." Unfortunately, the truth of the matter was they were torturing prisoners. That the word "torture" was not written in the orders did not mean that torture was not happening.
The reason the word "Trinity" came into being at a later point in history was not because the doctrine in toto was being created along with the term, but rather to identify and name the doctrine that had already been known, in the same manner that the volcanic eruption was named to identify and name that which Pliny the Younger had seen.
Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?
Now that we've established a word does not need to be present in order for its definition or what it describes to be seen, and that a historical label does not need to be forced backward upon a person describing said label, let us ask the basic question: does the Trinity exist in scripture? Or is the Trinity a later teaching not only in word but in definition and understanding? It is common for many people today to say that you can't prove the Trinity with scripture...and yet, this is completely and utterly false. The following are some verses I have personally discovered in my own studies (and not by running to Google, I assure you) regarding an identification of the Trinity and what roles the Trinitarian Persons play. I'll quote them and provide a brief explanation for each.
A person who denies this teaches the Trinity must therefore come to either one of two conclusions: Tritheism (three gods), which would contradict the monotheism of the rest of scripture; Modalism (three titles for the same god), which can be easily contradicted by other scriptures in which these persons are spoken of as distinct individuals (cf. Acts 2:26).
This is just a sampling of verses wherein the Persons of the Trinity are identified, most of which also go into discussion regarding the roles of those Persons. Again, the idea that the Trinity cannot be taught or seen in scripture is simply untrue.
Should we be concerned if no one previous to the New Testament writers believed in the Trinity?
Did Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah and other Old Testament personalities believe in the Trinity? Of course, men like David never wrote on the Trinity, and it's probably safe to assume that Abraham and Moses were not in full knowledge of God's true design of Being during their lifetime. Is this enough to dismiss the Trinity, however?
Obviously, we recognize that those in the Old Testament and New Testament alike worshiped the same God, and that the God of the New Testament is the same God as the Old Testament. Trinitarianism is still monotheism, and the Trinitarian nature of God does not contradict or usurp the monotheistic teachings of the Old Testament. Therefore, the God whom Abraham prayed to and the God whom Paul prayed to are one and the same God. In this regard, there is no conflict.
What we must consider, however, is that through the Old Testament there was a progression of revelation towards the Messiah and the atonement of the Messiah's people. We see this throughout the Old Testament itself. Abraham did not know anything of the Temple or its sacrifices, though Ezekiel and Jeremiah certainly did. Deborah knew of the sacrifices for atonement, but nothing of the Temple, though John the Baptist and the apostles certainly knew of both. All that God revealed, bit by bit, pointed towards Christ. They were a "shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1) until "the fullness of time" wherein God would send His Son (Gal 4:4).
Part of this revelation would be the full understanding of God's Being as being Trinitarian in function. For certain there are moments wherein the existence of coequal Persons within the Trinity are hinted at, such as the account of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, where it is said that "the LORD rained...sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven" (Gen 19:24), or the psalm of David where he writes "the LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand...'" (Psa 110:1). However, the truest revelation of God's Trinitarian Being would be in the time New Testament period, with the incarnation of the Son and the gifting of the Holy Spirit to the church. Everything from Genesis to Revelation is about the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of God's glory in His death and resurrection.
Therefore, it should not surprise us that no one previous to the New Testament spoke on the Trinity any more than it should surprise us that Abraham knew nothing of the Temple and its sacrifices. This does not, however, denote that the Trinity is created. God revealed forward, and the apex of this revelation was in the Trinitarian revelation of the New Testament, where the Father would send the Son to willingly give His life in the cross that, with the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, we may have forgiveness of sins and become fellow heirs with the Son to the inheritance of the Father.
Do you need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?
This is a rather tricky question that must be first rightly phrased before it can be rightly answered. Emergents, liberals and other false teachers often attack orthodoxy by accusing Christians of teaching that you need to hold a specific set of beliefs in order to be truly saved. We recognize, however, that it is not the mere mental assent towards a deity is synonymous with salvation, for the Lord speaks of those who will call him "Lord! Lord!" on the day of judgment and yet be rejected (Matt 7:21-23), and the apostle James likewise writes: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (Jam 2:19) To say that a mere belief or adherence to a certain type of teaching will grant one salvation is at best easy believism and at worst cultism. Therefore, it is not merely an empty belief or understanding in the Trinity which gives a person salvation.
With this realized, let's transition to the more appropriate understanding of the relationship between belief and salvation. Faith, in regards to its salvific purpose, is dependent not upon the person who professes it, but upon the God who enables that person to confess it. Our blessed Lord spoke, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), and the apostle Paul wrote (in an often misquoted passage), "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phi 2:12-13). God enables a person to believe, and through that faith in Christ they are saved. B.B. Warfield put it perfectly when he wrote, discussing the topic of sola fide, that it is not faith in Christ which saves, but Christ who saves through faith.
Now let us turn this understanding towards our question of the Trinity and salvation. We know that mere assent to the belief in the Trinity saves no one - however, we also know that it is God's doing in the work of transforming a man's heart to believe fully in Him. If, therefore, someone denies the Trinity, then their very status of salvation is in question. Why is this? If God quickens a person, common sense begs us to understand that He quickens a person to believe towards Him and no other entity, for all other religions are the worship of demons (Deu 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20). If we recognize that God quickens a person, and we also recognize that God would quicken a person towards Him and no other entity, then common sense will now beg us to recognize that a person quickened by God to worship Him as He is in His very state of being and in no other way. That is, a person quickened towards God will not burn incense to Hindu gods, or pray towards Mecca in allegiance to Allah and the teachings of his so-called prophet Mohammad. A person quickened towards God will recognize who God is and what His "divine make up" is. I might compare this to an orphan who meets his natural mother and father and finds out their identity; he will not give respect owed to parents to the first random person on the street, but to those whom he has discovered are his true parents.
Therefore, recognizing that if it is God who quickens a person, and that person should now submit to God alone, and that person must submit to God with an understanding of what, and not just who, God is, then a person who denies the Trinity denies what God is, and how His state of being exists, and therefore must have their salvation questioned. That is, a person who claims to be called of God and yet worships another god who is not Trinitarian in nature cannot truly have been saved, for he is directing his worship towards someone other than the true God of scripture.
Do we need to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible in order for it to be true?
A common attack by some against the Trinity is the fact that either the exact word "Trinity" is not mentioned, or that no New Testament writer ever spends time elaborating upon the Trinity in detail. Is this a fair argument? On the other hand, this argument forgets two main points:
1) This is reading backwards into history. That no one used the word "Trinity" in the New Testament is because the word came at least a century or two later, long after the time of the apostolic church and her writers. Furthermore, the word was not created to invent a doctrine, but to identify it. Note very carefully: I am not arguing for a kind of "progressive revelation" akin to the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinity (rather, God's Trinitarian Being) was always present even though the term itself had not been conceived. The point we are trying to make is that we should not expect any one to use terms and phrases that did not exist at their time.
A historical example: Pliny the Younger, describing the explosion of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, did not use any scientific terms, and yet his description of the explosions are so great that vulcanologists, reading it more than a millennium later, were able to identify exactly what he was describing (in fact, he described it so well they named the type of eruption after him). That Pliny did not know what to call the type of eruption does not suggest his description of it was invalid, nor that the 79 AD eruption didn't happen at all. It would be absurd to read backwards into history and demand Pliny use terminology and phrases that did not exist until long after his death.
2) The absence of a term does not imply that the definition cannot be discovered or seen. To explain this point, I often use an example from the movie The Battle of Algiers: in the movie, reporters ask the fictional Colonel Matthieu if he is torturing Algerian prisoners, to which Matthieu replies, "The word 'torture' is not written on any of our orders." Unfortunately, the truth of the matter was they were torturing prisoners. That the word "torture" was not written in the orders did not mean that torture was not happening.
The reason the word "Trinity" came into being at a later point in history was not because the doctrine in toto was being created along with the term, but rather to identify and name the doctrine that had already been known, in the same manner that the volcanic eruption was named to identify and name that which Pliny the Younger had seen.
Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?
Now that we've established a word does not need to be present in order for its definition or what it describes to be seen, and that a historical label does not need to be forced backward upon a person describing said label, let us ask the basic question: does the Trinity exist in scripture? Or is the Trinity a later teaching not only in word but in definition and understanding? It is common for many people today to say that you can't prove the Trinity with scripture...and yet, this is completely and utterly false. The following are some verses I have personally discovered in my own studies (and not by running to Google, I assure you) regarding an identification of the Trinity and what roles the Trinitarian Persons play. I'll quote them and provide a brief explanation for each.
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [Matthew 3:16-17]Here we see all three Persons of the Trinity make an appearance: the Son is baptized, the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven. There is a level of individuality seen in all of them: the Holy Spirit takes on the form of a dove, the Son is there in the flesh, and the Father is speaking as an eyewitness to the Sonship of Christ.
"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]Here, in the midst of the Great Commission, we have the command for Trinitarian baptism. Baptism, in Judaism, was always in the name of God, and indeed one would imagine that baptism should be in no other name except that of God. Yet here Christ commands the apostles to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (each Person, in the original Greek, has the definite article preceding their name, emphasizing the distinction).
A person who denies this teaches the Trinity must therefore come to either one of two conclusions: Tritheism (three gods), which would contradict the monotheism of the rest of scripture; Modalism (three titles for the same god), which can be easily contradicted by other scriptures in which these persons are spoken of as distinct individuals (cf. Acts 2:26).
"Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, [the Son] has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing." [Acts 2:33]Here the apostle Peter, speaking to the Jews at Pentecost, explains the goings on and the source of all the wonders happening. After a lengthy discussion on the Person of Christ, Peter states that the Son has been exalted at the right hand of God, the Father, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the Son has bestowed the Holy Spirit upon the believers. Here we have an example of the "monarchical procession" of the Trinity that ancient theologians often wrote on. That is, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son upon believers. This signifies the various roles that the Trinity played at Pentecost, as well as how the Persons relate to one another: the Father bestows, the Son receives and sends, and the Holy Spirit is sent out.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [Romans 8:3-4]Here, during Paul's great exposition on salvation, the apostle identifies the actions of the Trinitarian Person within said salvation: God the Father sent God the Son in the likeness of flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to God the Holy Spirit, who is our guide in this.
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:16-17]Continuing his exposition on salvation, Paul states that the Holy Spirit bears witness (which is a personal action, suggesting the Holy Spirit is a Person and not a mere impersonal force) with our own spirit that we are children of God. If this is the case, Paul says, then we are heirs of God the Father, as we are fellow heirs with Christ, the Son. Thus all three Persons within the Trinity act to verify our salvation: the Holy Spirit is our witness that we are heirs with the Son, and as we are heirs with the Son, we are heirs to the Father.
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. [1 Corinthians 12:4-6]The apostle Paul begins a discussion on the unity of believers within the church despite the numerous gifts and talents. At the very beginning, Paul makes a sign of unity by turning to the Trinity itself: there are variety of gifts, but the same Spirit (who bestows those gifts); there are a variety of service, but the same Lord (who grants the ability to serve); there are a variety of activities, but the same God (that is, the Father, and who empowers those activities in believers). The roles of the Persons within the Trinity are made distinct from one another, and yet they are likewise put on the same level with one another, and unity is maintained.
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]At the conclusion of his epistle, the apostle Paul writes out a blessing to the Corinthians by naming all three Trinitarian Persons. He wishes for the Corinthian church: 1) grace from the Son; 2) love from the Father; 3) fellowship from the Holy Spirit. As with the first epistle, all three Persons are mentioned in the same train of thought.
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. [Ephesians 1:13-14]Similar to Romans 8:16-17, the apostle Paul goes into brief detail regarding the roles of the Trinitarian Persons within a believer's salvation. In Christ, the Son, believers were sealed with the promise of the Holy Spirit, who serves as our guarantee of the inheritance of the Father.
For through [the Son] we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [Ephesians 2:18]In a very blunt verse, Paul states that in the Son we have access to the Father by the Holy Spirit. The Son, of course, is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), and it is in the Holy Spirit that Christians have fellowship with one another (2 Cor 13:14).
How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. [Hebrews 2:3-4]Writing to Jewish Christians, the writer of Hebrews (whether the reader believes it was Paul or not) asks how one can neglect so great a salvation, and then discusses how this salvation was revealed to the Jews. First, it was declared by the Lord - that is, the Son - through the ministry of Christ, which was heard by the apostles and other eyewitnesses. Second, the witness of the Father's favor in the Son was seen through the signs, wonders and miracles. Third, it was seen by the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles and early Christians as a sign to the Jews of that time. In just two verses, the writer explains how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit worked together in the exposition of salvation to early believers.
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. [Hebrews 9:14]In the great discussion of our salvation by Christ's atonement, the same writer of Hebrews goes into a discussion on how all three Persons work in this salvation. That is, the Son (Christ), offered Himself, through the Holy Spirit, without blemish to God the Father, in order that believers may be purified and made holy to serve God.
This is just a sampling of verses wherein the Persons of the Trinity are identified, most of which also go into discussion regarding the roles of those Persons. Again, the idea that the Trinity cannot be taught or seen in scripture is simply untrue.
Should we be concerned if no one previous to the New Testament writers believed in the Trinity?
Did Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah and other Old Testament personalities believe in the Trinity? Of course, men like David never wrote on the Trinity, and it's probably safe to assume that Abraham and Moses were not in full knowledge of God's true design of Being during their lifetime. Is this enough to dismiss the Trinity, however?
Obviously, we recognize that those in the Old Testament and New Testament alike worshiped the same God, and that the God of the New Testament is the same God as the Old Testament. Trinitarianism is still monotheism, and the Trinitarian nature of God does not contradict or usurp the monotheistic teachings of the Old Testament. Therefore, the God whom Abraham prayed to and the God whom Paul prayed to are one and the same God. In this regard, there is no conflict.
What we must consider, however, is that through the Old Testament there was a progression of revelation towards the Messiah and the atonement of the Messiah's people. We see this throughout the Old Testament itself. Abraham did not know anything of the Temple or its sacrifices, though Ezekiel and Jeremiah certainly did. Deborah knew of the sacrifices for atonement, but nothing of the Temple, though John the Baptist and the apostles certainly knew of both. All that God revealed, bit by bit, pointed towards Christ. They were a "shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1) until "the fullness of time" wherein God would send His Son (Gal 4:4).
Part of this revelation would be the full understanding of God's Being as being Trinitarian in function. For certain there are moments wherein the existence of coequal Persons within the Trinity are hinted at, such as the account of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, where it is said that "the LORD rained...sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven" (Gen 19:24), or the psalm of David where he writes "the LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand...'" (Psa 110:1). However, the truest revelation of God's Trinitarian Being would be in the time New Testament period, with the incarnation of the Son and the gifting of the Holy Spirit to the church. Everything from Genesis to Revelation is about the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of God's glory in His death and resurrection.
Therefore, it should not surprise us that no one previous to the New Testament spoke on the Trinity any more than it should surprise us that Abraham knew nothing of the Temple and its sacrifices. This does not, however, denote that the Trinity is created. God revealed forward, and the apex of this revelation was in the Trinitarian revelation of the New Testament, where the Father would send the Son to willingly give His life in the cross that, with the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, we may have forgiveness of sins and become fellow heirs with the Son to the inheritance of the Father.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Denying Individual Trinitarian Personhood
Many people who argue universalism like to present the vague idea of "God" as being the Father, and try to teach that, despite not believing in Jesus or the Holy Spirit, a person is still saved for their faith in the Father. This is especially true among "hopeful universalists" who try to argue that Jews and Muslims will still go to heaven because of their belief in "God," despite their denial of the divinity and individual Personhood of the Son and Holy Spirit.
My usual argument against this boils down to a metaphor: the Trinity is not a buffet. That is, a person cannot decide that they want the Father - but not the Son and Holy Spirit. The individual Persons represent the fullness of the deity, and to deny one is to deny them all. This is both theologically, confessionally, and - most importantly - scripturally sound. In this regard, I went and dug up this quote by late fourth century Church Father Basil the Great, taken from his work On the Holy Spirit.
My usual argument against this boils down to a metaphor: the Trinity is not a buffet. That is, a person cannot decide that they want the Father - but not the Son and Holy Spirit. The individual Persons represent the fullness of the deity, and to deny one is to deny them all. This is both theologically, confessionally, and - most importantly - scripturally sound. In this regard, I went and dug up this quote by late fourth century Church Father Basil the Great, taken from his work On the Holy Spirit.
Who has woe? Who are afflicted? Who are headed for agony, darkness, eternal damnation? The transgressors; those who deny the faith. What is the proof of their denial? 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. They uttered these saving words when they renounced the devil and his angels. How can the children of light describe such men? They are transgressors, since they have broken the saving covenant. What else can denying God, denying Christ, be called, but transgressing? How do you wish me to label those who deny the Spirit? They must be described in the same way, for they have broken their covenant with God. Professing faith in Him wins the blessings of true religion, but damnation will be the wages of the godless who have denied Him. To forsake the profession of faith is a fearful thing, and they have abandoned it not through fear of fire, or sword, or cross, or flogging, or the wheel, or the rack, but only because they have been led astray by the deceitful sophistries of the Spirit-deniers. 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. "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit" [1 Cor 2:3], and "no one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has make Him known" [John 1:18]. Such a person has no part in true worship. It is impossible to worship the Son except in the Holy Spirit; it is impossible to call upon the Father except in the Spirit of adoption. [27]
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Trinitarian Analogies Christians SHOULD NOT Use
The Trinity: one Being of God revealed through three co-eternal and co-existent Persons united by one Essence. This has been historic Christian doctrine for 2000 years, and entire ecumenical councils were held to debate the issue and refine the definition. As such, how does the layman understand the Trinity? How does Joe Shmoe churchgoer understand the Trinity? More importantly, how does he explain it to others?
One of the most popular things to do is explain the Trinity with an analogy or metaphor. Over the years I've heard some really bad metaphors used, with the utmost seriousness, in defining the Trinity. Some people believe these metaphors help clear up confusions, when in reality they only cause more confusion and lead to erroneous thinking. I'd like to take a moment and review a few Trinitarian analogies that Christians definitely should not use.
A popular one...and unfortunately so. This belief is Modalism through and through. Just to clarify, Modalism was an early heresy which taught that the Persons in the Trinity were "modes" of the One God. In other words, the Father became the Son, and the Son became the Holy Spirit. What we are essentially saying in this analogy is that the one Being of God goes through three different states - which is precisely what Modalists argued.
Water's stages cannot co-exist like the Persons in the Trinity. Water cannot be ice, liquid and steam all at the same time. It can be between two stages, but this is not co-existing so much as transforming from one stage to another.
Another popular analogy, but it's even more wrong than the last. What we have here essentially is one person going by three titles. That's close to Oneness Pentecostalism (which claims "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" are simply titles) as well as Modalism. The one man is still one man - he is not co-existing with a Father, Son and Uncle. This is also similar to Unitarianism.
This analogy leads to tritheism. Although we identify something that represents the Being of God (the carriage) and the three distinct Persons within that Being (the three people), it still forgets that the people are not part of the carriage, and therefore are in themselves completely distinct from it, and therefore one another. There is no united Essence as found within the Trinity. The people are not part of the carriage and vice versa.
While this is one of the better ones, it still presents a problem. Namely, the shell and two yokes are not united in any way other than they exist within the thing called an egg. Nothing unites them as the Essence of God unites the Persons of the Trinity. Likewise, it presents problems in regards to identification of the parts: if the egg itself is God, then isn't the shell simply part of God? What then are the two yokes? Do we simply have the Father and the Son, but no Holy Spirit? If the shell is the Holy Spirit, does that mean the Father and the Son are encased in the Holy Spirit? Isn't the Father supposed to release the Holy Spirit and not vice versa?
Ugh, so many problems here. When you cut a piece of bread into three bits, you're left with three individual bits. It almost leads to the suggestion that there was one God and then He split three different ways! As a result, it leads to tritheism.
Sure, they look unified when they're held together, but then what happens when they separate? Bam! Three gods. Tritheism. Besides, these fingers are not co-existing together - existing together, yes, but co-existing they are not, certainly not like the Persons in the Trinity. There is nothing holding them together except the fact they belong to the same hand...but then what is the hand? An extension? Is it something else? Is it another God? Or another Person? Again, more issues with the analogy's logical nature.
So, what is a good analogy for the Trinity? The answer is...none.
There really is no good analogy for the Trinity. There are some that admittedly come close, but they do not capture the true definition of the Trinity. When we try to take a divine thing and put it into a human box, we have to make sacrifices, often at the expense of the co-eternal nature of the Persons or the Essence that unites them all. We saw that with the carriage analogy.
Oftentimes people try to use metaphors against non-Christians, which, quite frankly, is a bad idea. Muslims, atheists and the like will rationalize and show faults in the concept of saying there's a unified God to be found in three pieces of bread, and no one will be edified. How, then do you explain the Trinity? The easiest answer is to strike at the heart of the matter, which is that most people have no idea what the Trinity truly is. Therefore, we must educate them on the proper definition so that they can have a better understanding. Likewise, we must turn to scripture, and show the scriptural proofs for the Trinity as found in the Baptism, Transfiguration, and Great Commission. We must know and understand how the Trinity works before explaining it to other people.
Lessee...was there another bad analogy of the Trinity that I forgot?
Oh yeah!
One of the most popular things to do is explain the Trinity with an analogy or metaphor. Over the years I've heard some really bad metaphors used, with the utmost seriousness, in defining the Trinity. Some people believe these metaphors help clear up confusions, when in reality they only cause more confusion and lead to erroneous thinking. I'd like to take a moment and review a few Trinitarian analogies that Christians definitely should not use.
The Trinity is like how water can be ice, liquid and steam.
A popular one...and unfortunately so. This belief is Modalism through and through. Just to clarify, Modalism was an early heresy which taught that the Persons in the Trinity were "modes" of the One God. In other words, the Father became the Son, and the Son became the Holy Spirit. What we are essentially saying in this analogy is that the one Being of God goes through three different states - which is precisely what Modalists argued.
Water's stages cannot co-exist like the Persons in the Trinity. Water cannot be ice, liquid and steam all at the same time. It can be between two stages, but this is not co-existing so much as transforming from one stage to another.
The Trinity is like a man who can be a father as well as a son and uncle.
Another popular analogy, but it's even more wrong than the last. What we have here essentially is one person going by three titles. That's close to Oneness Pentecostalism (which claims "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" are simply titles) as well as Modalism. The one man is still one man - he is not co-existing with a Father, Son and Uncle. This is also similar to Unitarianism.
The Trinity is like three people in a carriage.
This analogy leads to tritheism. Although we identify something that represents the Being of God (the carriage) and the three distinct Persons within that Being (the three people), it still forgets that the people are not part of the carriage, and therefore are in themselves completely distinct from it, and therefore one another. There is no united Essence as found within the Trinity. The people are not part of the carriage and vice versa.
The Trinity is like an egg: yellow yoke, white yoke, and shell.
While this is one of the better ones, it still presents a problem. Namely, the shell and two yokes are not united in any way other than they exist within the thing called an egg. Nothing unites them as the Essence of God unites the Persons of the Trinity. Likewise, it presents problems in regards to identification of the parts: if the egg itself is God, then isn't the shell simply part of God? What then are the two yokes? Do we simply have the Father and the Son, but no Holy Spirit? If the shell is the Holy Spirit, does that mean the Father and the Son are encased in the Holy Spirit? Isn't the Father supposed to release the Holy Spirit and not vice versa?
The Trinity is like a piece of bread cut into three bits.
Ugh, so many problems here. When you cut a piece of bread into three bits, you're left with three individual bits. It almost leads to the suggestion that there was one God and then He split three different ways! As a result, it leads to tritheism.
The Trinity is like three fingers held together.
Sure, they look unified when they're held together, but then what happens when they separate? Bam! Three gods. Tritheism. Besides, these fingers are not co-existing together - existing together, yes, but co-existing they are not, certainly not like the Persons in the Trinity. There is nothing holding them together except the fact they belong to the same hand...but then what is the hand? An extension? Is it something else? Is it another God? Or another Person? Again, more issues with the analogy's logical nature.
So...
So, what is a good analogy for the Trinity? The answer is...none.
There really is no good analogy for the Trinity. There are some that admittedly come close, but they do not capture the true definition of the Trinity. When we try to take a divine thing and put it into a human box, we have to make sacrifices, often at the expense of the co-eternal nature of the Persons or the Essence that unites them all. We saw that with the carriage analogy.
Oftentimes people try to use metaphors against non-Christians, which, quite frankly, is a bad idea. Muslims, atheists and the like will rationalize and show faults in the concept of saying there's a unified God to be found in three pieces of bread, and no one will be edified. How, then do you explain the Trinity? The easiest answer is to strike at the heart of the matter, which is that most people have no idea what the Trinity truly is. Therefore, we must educate them on the proper definition so that they can have a better understanding. Likewise, we must turn to scripture, and show the scriptural proofs for the Trinity as found in the Baptism, Transfiguration, and Great Commission. We must know and understand how the Trinity works before explaining it to other people.
Lessee...was there another bad analogy of the Trinity that I forgot?
Oh yeah!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)