Luther and the Word, part 3

Here is the third portion of the paper.

Luther also refused to acknowledge that reason or philosophy could replace Scripture’s authority. Many Protestants could not believe in various teachings of Holy Scriptures concerning the Sacraments because it did not agree with their philosophies or did not make sense to their human reason. Luther once said, “It is most scandalous for us to attempt to defend God’s Word with our reason, whereas we are to defend ourselves against all enemies with the Word of God.”25 Ultimately, it was Luther’s firm conviction that Scripture alone could determine what the Church could and could not teach that separated his theology from the theology of Rome, the enthusiasts, and most Protestants.

In Martin Luther’s theology the content of Holy Scriptures was divided into Law and Gospel. The Gospel was for Luther the center and purpose of the Word. This Gospel was the good news that Jesus died for the sins of the world and the promise that those who believe in Him will have eternal life. Luther said:

“And the gospel should really not be something written, but a spoken word, which brought forth the Scriptures, as Christ and the apostles have done . . . He (Jesus) called his teaching not Scripture but gospel, meaning good news or a proclamation that is spread not by pen but by word and mouth.”[26]

The Gospel is best called the spoken Word. Whenever the Gospel is preached or proclaimed, that which is spoken is the Word. Therefore, when a pastor gives a sermon or speaks the words of Absolution, the words that come from the pastor’s lips are the Word of God. When a Christian forgives another of their sin and proclaims the good news of God’s love to them, they speak God’s Word. For Luther, “wherever there is a manifestation or utterance of the Divine will of love, there is the living Word of God.”[27] God’s spoken Word was God’s own living presence. Luther made this quite clear when he said, “Remember that God has said: I am in your mouth, and I pass with the Word through your ears into your heart. So, then, we have a sure sign and know that when the Gospel is preached, God is present and would have Himself found there.”[28] So, when a person hears a Christian proclaim the Gospel, they hear the Word; in fact, they hear Christ Himself speak to them.

How does your philosophy intersect with this Word of God?

Luther and the Word, part 2

Here is the second portion.

Martin Luther placed an extremely strong emphasis on the authority of what Uuraas Saarnivaara calls the written Word of God.[12] The written Word is the Holy Scriptures, which are those books and letters written by the prophets and the apostles being moved by the Holy Spirit. Luther believed strongly in divine inspiration, that is, while the Holy Scriptures were written by men, these men were merely instruments being led by the Holy Spirit. These Holy Scriptures were then copied and translated by faithful men so that the written Word could be given to all people as far as the four corners of the earth. Luther believed that the Holy Scriptures are the Word just as Christ is, for, “they contain Him (Christ), speak of Him, and testify of Him.”[13] Holy Scripture reveals God’s thoughts and intentions, especially His love and plan for salvation, just like the Incarnate Word did. “The fact of the matter was simply that Christ and the Word of God were inseparable companions or concomitants, the Incarnate Word being sum and substance of the preached or written Word.”[14]

Since Luther saw the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God containing Christ Himself, he logically concluded that it had to be the source and norm of all Christian teachings. As the Word of God it held authority. The Roman church did believe the Holy Scriptures held authority, but they believed that authority was to be shared by the church fathers, their traditions, and the pope. Luther’s response to Rome was quiet clear, “People are not to believe me, the church, the fathers, the apostles, or even an angel if we teach anything contrary to the Word of God.”[15] Rome’s dependence on human teaching caused Luther to write, “For the papal asses are such stupid asses that they cannot and will not distinguish between God’s Word and human doctrine, but hold them both as one.”[16] Luther concluded that no word of man was equal to or greater in its authority than God’s written Word. “By it (Scripture) everything was to be judged but nothing might judge it.”[17] According to Saarnivaara, Luther believed, “All human doctrines, which are not in harmony with the Scriptures, must be rejected.”[18] Luther based his entire theology on what Scripture said. If any doctrine taught contrary to Holy Scripture Luther rejected it. If it did not agree with Scripture it could not be God’s Word. Luther, as quoted by Saarnivaara, explained it as such:

“We censure the doctrines of men, not because they are spoken by men, but because they are lies and blasphemies against the Scriptures. And the Scriptures, although they also were written by men, are not of men nor from men, but from God. Now since Scriptures and the doctrines of men are contrary the one to the other, on must lie and the other be true.”[19]

The authorities of the Roman Church were not the only ones seeking their doctrines in places other than the Scriptures. There were many called Enthusiasts who claimed that they were being given revelations directly from God, even though these revelations taught things contrary to the Holy Scriptures. They claimed that Holy Scripture was a “dead word,” and that they were being directed by an “internal word.”[20] This angered Luther because he recognized this inner word to be the work of the devil, because “God does not reveal Himself in the heart except through the external Word.”[21] Satan’s goal, Luther thought, was to lead humans away from God’s external Word and make them trust in their own inner word and spirituality. Satan had been doing this since the very beginning, when he “turned Adam and Eve into enthusiasts.”[22] Holy Scripture was for Luther the objective and absolute truth. The opinions and fantasies of other men mattered little to him for they went against the clear testimony of God’s Word. In fact, Luther believed that the Gospel’s preservation relied on “the objectivity of the inspired Word, the Holy Spirit’s book.”[23] Luther fervently fought against those men who despised Scripture and relied on private revelations. Luther said of such people:

“Nowadays such spirits are found swarming everywhere, deranged by the devil, regarding Scripture a dead letter, extolling nothing but the spirit and yet keeping neither the Word nor the spirit. But there you hear St. Paul adducing Scripture as his strongest witness and pointing out that there is nothing stable to support our doctrine and faith except the material or written Word, put down in letters and preached verbally by him and others: for it is clearly stated here: ‘Scripture, Scripture’.”[24]

Being a Lutheran myself, I rely upon this written, living Word. What about you?

Luther and the Word, part 1

From a good friend, L, here is the first portion of a paper subtitled "A Study of How Martin Luther Understood the Word and How It Shaped His Theology." Sources will be listed with the final part.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”[1] For Dr. Martin Luther nothing was greater or more important than the Word. He believed that the Word was absolutely necessary for the salvation of mankind. Luther’s will was captive by the Word of God: he could not go against it, and on this Word alone could he stand. Luther’s beliefs concerning the Word, or in the original Greek the “Logos,” shaped and defined every aspect of Luther’s theology. He saw anything contrary to God’s Word to be from the devil. However, understanding what Luther meant by “the Word” can be paradoxical, for when he speaks of the Word, it seems to refer to different things at different times. This is because Luther recognized that there is one Word that comes to mankind in many various ways. This shaped his theology and faith his entire life.

The intent of this research paper is to investigate how Luther always came to the conclusion that the Word is Jesus Christ Himself and how this shaped his theology. In order to articulate Luther’s theology concerning the Word, this paper will present the three ways in which the Word comes to the Church: the written Word, the spoken Word, and the visible Word.

Martin Luther always returned to the conclusion that the Word was nothing less than the Second Person of the Trinity, the Christ. “Christ and the Word are virtually interchangeable terms for Luther.”[2] This is best seen in the multiple sermons Luther preached on the first chapter of St. John’s Gospel where Jesus Christ is called the Word. However, why is Christ called the Word and why was this important for Luther’s theology? This researcher believes that Luther probably developed his understanding of Christ as the Word by reading John’s Gospel in its original Greek and studying the Greek word for “Word,” which is Logos. The Greek word Logos appears to have a far deeper meaning than mere ink on a page or sounds coming from one’s mouth. Logos is, “the word by which the inward thought is expressed.”[3] According to the Lutheran Cyclopedia, “When one speaks a word, it comes from within and reveals his thoughts.”[4] Christ is called the Word “because He is the Son of God, begotten of the Father from eternity,” in other words He comes from within the Father Himself, and “He reveals thoughts of God about us, e.g., His love and gracious plan of salvation.”[5] Luther comes to these same conclusions in his sermons on St. John’s Gospel. Luther said:

“When, for example, we think about something and diligently investigate it, we have words; we carry on a conversation with ourselves. Its content is unknown to all but our selves until such words of the heart are translated into oral words and speech . . . Not until then is our word heard and understood by others.”[6]

For Luther, the Word is the thought and intention of God concerning mankind, for “a word is not merely the utterance of the mouth; rather it is the thought of the heart.”[7] Jesus is the Word, because He is within the Father’s heart and bosom. The Father and the Word are one and the Son knows every thought and intention of the Father.[8] So intimate is the relationship between the Father and the Son that Jesus can say, “No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”[9] The purpose of any word is to reveal the unknown thoughts of a person. Jesus is the Incarnate Word because in becoming man, dying on the cross, and rising from the dead, He revealed the thoughts and intentions of the Father to mankind. This is what St. John meant when he said in his Gospel, “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”[10] The unknown God and His love for all men were made known in Jesus, the Incarnate Word. However, Christ is no longer visibly present. This ought to make one wonder: does man still have the Word? According to Luther, the answer is yes, for the Lord has given His Word to His Church, though in other forms than flesh and bones. “The Word of God embraces every way that God has revealed Himself, His will, and His grace to man.”[11]

What are your thoughts? How does this relate to the general Christian understanding of the Word, or Jesus Christ? How about the Islamic understanding of the word(s) of God?

Getting religion

Go read this terrific book review about why the MSM tends not to get things right when covering religious topics. At the risk of putting too much in nutshells, the media would still do well to remember these two points:

1. Islam, despite meaning "peace" and having many peaceful adherents, has a decided propensity for violence. Against non-Muslims.
2. Christianity, despite being vilified and having the occasional militant adherent, has a decided propensity for loving fellow humans.

Cross-posted at The Renaissance Biologist.

Wow.

This article was the most interesting thing I have read about Islam in a very long time. Go read it.

Cross posted at The Renaissance Biologist.

Shahada

I was talking to a Christian friend about mutual topics of interest. One of them is the definition of "Muslim" and its relationship to saying the Shahada. This friend brought up an interesting point: a Muslim is literally "one who submits to God." Likewise, a translation of the Shahada says: "There is no god but Allah ["the God"], and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." This friend noted that a Christian, who believes that there is only one God, can say that he or she is a Muslim - one who submits oneself to God. In a similar, but fundamentally opposite, way, a Christian can say that "there is no god [lower-case G - an imitator] but Allah [meaning the Muslim deity], and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

Lest Muslim or Christian readers find this blasphemous or take offense, let me only say that I have given this much thought as well. I respect this friend very much and would like your opinions and help on this topic. Tell me what you think - if what or whom a person believes in is all-important, can a Christian legitimately say the Shahada and be a Muslim (in the literal sense) without committing blasphemy?

Everyone remembers September 11...

...but what about the 12th? What were your reactions the day after? A Google Blogs search turned up some articles - let them get your mind going:

• From Collecting Tokens.
• From Democratic Central.
• From Bangladesh Open Source Intelligence Monitors.
• From ReclaimedHome.com.
• From Faithful Democrats.
  

Another irony

How is it that, whenever one quotes "peaceful" ayahs from the Quran such as this one*:

And do not take life--Which Allah has made holy--Except for just (and true) cause. And if anyone is killed wrongfully, We have given his heir the right (to demand justice within due limits or to forgive): But let him not exceed the limits in the matter of taking life; Verily, he (too) is helped (by Islamic law).

it is never "out of context," and yet when one quotes something like this**:

But when the forbidden (four) months are over then fight and kill the (distrusted) pagans wherever you find them, and catch them, attack them, and stay waiting for them in every stage (of war); But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then make it easy for them: Verily, Allah is Often Forgiving, Most Merciful."

it is always "out of context"? Especially when it is paired with this one***:

Let there be no force (or compulsion) in religion: Surely--Truth stands out clear from error: Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has held the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing.

If Islam is truth, does it stand out clear from error? If so, how?



*17.33, trans. Syed Vickar Ahamed
**9.5. "Pagans" is often rendered simply "unbelievers," i.e. non-Muslims.
***2.256.

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 7 - the last one!

Here are the final paragraphs. The paper itself runs around 4.5 pages single-spaced, excluding works cited.

Finally, let us examine the fourth, final Qur’anic requirement for godhood: the claimant must be absolutely unique. This is the strictest in the eyes of Muslims, who have claimed that, since Jesus Christ was a man, He could not possibly have been God too, since God does not look like anything or anybody a person can imagine or see. However, this allegation becomes somewhat shallower upon closer examination. Following, but by no means complete, is a short series of attributes of the Christian God that, when taken individually, may not be unique; however, when taken together, they make the total triune God absolutely unique.

· The Christian God is love and loves everyone unconditionally (e.g. John 3:16; 1 John 4:8).

· The Christian God chose to manifest Himself as a man (e.g. Isaiah 9:6; Matt. 3:17).

· The Christian God is at the same time three Persons and yet one Godhead (e.g. Matt. 28:19).

· The Christian God commands believers to actively love their enemies as Jesus Christ demonstrated, not only to turn the other cheek (e.g. Matt. 5:44-47; John 3:16; 1 John 3:16, 23; 4:19).

· The Christian God sent Jesus Christ to sacrifice Himself in the place of all people because of His sinless life (e.g. Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14-18; Qur’an 3:35-36; 19:13, 19).

Although this list only scratches the surface of Christianity, it is clear that the Christian God is like no other, for no other, man-created deity has all of these attributes. Thus, surveying the results of the examinations of the other three conditions for godhood as described in Sura 112 of the Qur’an, one sees that the God of Christianity meets all of the given requirements. If this is true, then it leads to several other possible conclusions: (1) that Allah and the Christian God are the same; or (2) that, if the Qur’an is false on this point, then the Bible is also false; or (3) that either Allah or the Christian God is the true one if they are not the same; or (4) that the Qur’an testifies about Christianity here, not about Islam. Each of these possibilities is controversial and has serious implications; all of them cannot be simultaneously true. Since numerous sources demonstrate that conclusion (1) is false (e.g. M.; “Adam”) and Rhodes, not to mention many other scholars, casts doubt on conclusion (2) (“Inspiration”; “Manuscript”), that leaves only conclusion (3) true and (4) as having a good possibility of being true.

Continuing with this logic, the crux is to demonstrate that, since the Bible has been reliably transmitted (Rhodes), then conclusions (3) and (4) are both true. If they are both true, then the religion of Islam is proved false. If conclusion (4) is false, however, then logic and the Bible count for nothing. Since logic does not count for nothing but rather works in a great variety of circumstances, it follows that conclusion (4) is likely true. This may startle many; however, it is as Jesus Himself said: “…[S]earch the Scriptures…which testify of Me” (John 5:39). Even if the Qur’an is not wholly deserving of being classed with the other texts of the “People of the Book” (i.e. Jews, Christians, and Muslims), it may here unwittingly testify of Jesus Christ, the unique Son of God.

What do you think? None of you have ventured to comment on the paper so far.

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 6

The following paragraph, as usual.

The third criterion, that God (or Allah) has neither parents nor children, is a very thorny issue, especially since the Qur’an insists that the Jesus of Christianity is the physical or literal son of God. However, this stems mainly from a misunderstanding of Jesus Christ’s conception (especially the Greek for “begotten”), primary title (“the Son of God”), and frequent references to “the Father” (e.g. John 8:18), not to mention the confusion about Mariolatry, as mentioned earlier. The perpetually inadequate (at least in English) translation of the Greek word for “begotten” in such verses as John 3:16 may be ameliorated by noting that the word, monogenes, connotes “unique” or a metaphorical meaning, not necessarily a physical birth (“Does the Bible”). Also, as is clear from a contextual reading of the passages foretelling and narrating Christ’s conception and birth, He has no genetic relation to Joseph (e.g. Luke 1:35), but rather proceeds from His Father (again, a metaphorical, not physical, relationship; see John 8:42). To summarize, the Qur’an looks at the Father-Son relationship of the Christian God as physical and therefore idolatrous, while a Biblical reading supports a more metaphorical relationship, thus fulfilling the third standard.

I think the author handled this issue quite well. There is indeed much confusion about "begotten" when one does not consider the Greek. Do any readers have arguments against this concise treatment of ayah number three?

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 5

Here is the next paragraph:

Having finished (though by no means exhausted) dealing with the first criterion for godhood, we move on to the second: that God (or Allah) is eternal and omnipotent. Again, both the Bible and the Qur’an claim in numerous instances that their respective deities have these attributes. Several Qur’anic references include 2:255; 3:2; 16:70; 20:111; 35:44; 42:29; and, of course, 112:2. Likewise, there is overwhelming support in the Bible for the Triune God to meet this criterion. Each Person of the Trinity is ascribed each of these attributes. God the Father is eternal and omnipotent by such passages as Ps. 90:2; 93:2; 115:3; and Matt. 19:26. Similarly, Jesus (God the Son), much to Muslims’ chagrin, has these attributes: Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1; 17:5, 24; Phil 3:20ff; Col 1:17; Heb 7:3; and Rev 1:8; 3:7, to name a few. Finally, God the Holy Spirit has both characteristics by such verses as Heb. 9:14 and Luke 1:35. Will Muslims claim that every single one of these Biblical texts has been corrupted? Or will they accept compelling historical evidence that the Bible has been as well preserved as the Qur’an – for instance, the fact that “if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [quotations of the early church fathers] would be sufficient alone in reconstructing practically the entire New Testament” (Bruce Metzger, qtd. in Butt)?

This appears to be a fairly simple criterion, nicely explained. It appears to be based on merely the scriptures of Christianity and Islam, and so might be argued by some to consist of only subjective evidence. Then again, however, one could throw in the wrench (for some) of the Bible's historicity and survival of more than a few millennia.

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 4

Part 1 is here, part 2 here, part 3 here.

The first claim, that the Christian Trinity is really God the Father, Jesus, and Mary, is wholly unsupported by Scripture but claimed to be true by the Qur’an (5:116; 4:171). This allegation likely originated from “ignorant ‘Christians’ in Muhammad’s time” who committed what is termed Mariolatry, or asking Mary to “intercede with her Son” (“Islam”). Muhammad, seeing this, reasoned as any human would and put one and one and one together, so to speak. Ahmed and Saifullah deduce from these misunderstandings that “whether the ‘Holy’ Trinity composed [sic] of the Father, Jesus^(P), and the Mary^(P) or the Father, Jesus^(P) and the Holy Spirit are equally condemned in the Qur’an,” effectively dismissing the entire doctrine as some silly Christian notion.

The second major accusation is that Christians made up the doctrine out of thin air, and that there is no clear Biblical support. Granted, the word ‘Trinity’ is mentioned nowhere in the text of the Bible. But, one can counter, neither is the word ‘Tawhid’ (Arabic for the concept of God’s oneness) in the actual Qur’anic text. If one accepts that a concept can be strongly present even if it is not mentioned by its exact name, then demonstrating the Trinity from both the Old and New Testaments becomes much easier. Ediger logically demonstrates this humanly incomprehensible doctrine thus: There is one God (Deut. 4:35; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; and 1 Tim. 2:5). The Father is God, from John 17:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:1; Phil. 2:11; Col. 1:3; and 1 Peter 1:2, to name a few. A notion abhorrent to Muslims, the Son is also God (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-18; 5:18; 8:58; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col., 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8-12; and 2 Peter 1:1). Finally, the Holy Spirit is also God, explicitly stated in Acts 5:3-4 and 2 Cor. 3:17-18; implied in Mark 3:29; John 15:26; 1 Cor. 6:19-20; and Heb. 9:14.

Leading on from this, Ediger gives passages in both Testaments strongly implying that God is three in one: Gen. 1:1-3; 12:7; 48:15-16; Ex. 31:3; Isaiah 48:12-16; and many other Old Testament passages. New Testament references include Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19 (singular ‘name’ with three persons); Luke 1:35; John 3:6-16; 15:26; Acts 2:32-33; 5:29-32; Rom. 8:16-17, 26ff; Eph. 1:1-14; 2:17-22; 1 Thess. 1:2-5; Heb. 9:14; 1 John 3:21-24; and Jude 20-21, naming only a few. In addition, there are allusions in Isaiah 63:7-11, 6:3 and Rev. 4:8, especially in the triple “Holy.” The above references demonstrate that the God of the Bible is beyond human logic – since, as Muslims contend and Christians partially agree, God cannot be known, why should they expect Him to fit inside the mind of a human?

This is, I think, a fairly good treatment of the first issue. In the very last sentence the author raises a good point. I would complain about the source imbalance; however, the author is not concerned with proving that Allah (of Islam) fulfills the criteria, since it is unstated that he does. The author is rather concentrating on God (of Christianity) and proving that case, which I have not seen addressed. We are getting into weighty material here; I hope you look forward to the upcoming posts in this series.

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 3

Part 1 is here, part 2 here.

The first condition that a claimant to godhood must meet, according to the Qur’an, is to be the only god in existence, or the only true God. Shakir’s translation perhaps conveys the singular nature of Allah best; this closely corresponds to the Great Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD [is] one!” (Deut. 6:4). An alternate rendering of this verse says, “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone” (that is, the only one). In another place, God says, “I, [even] I, [am] the LORD, / And besides Me [there is] no savior” (Isaiah 43:11). The Bible makes indelibly clear that God is singular; it condemns any form of taking any god besides the true God, whether that other god is on par or of lesser power. Likewise, the Qur’an in numerous places condemns shirk, or associating “partners” with Allah. Muslims also emphasize that Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 in Mark 12:29-30.

Muslims do agree that the God of the Bible is singular. However, they do this by denying the deity of Jesus Christ, claiming that Christians have made up that concept and that any verse showing His godhood has been corrupted from the original text. In addition, they promote several misunderstandings about the doctrine of the Trinity, the main ones being that (1) it consists of God the Father, Jesus, and Mary; (2) there is no Biblical support for the doctrine, or that the support is ambiguous; and (3) God cannot be three in one, and that the Trinity is really three. This paper will briefly deal with each of these.

The next paragraphs deal with those misconceptions. That part is key to the paper. Muslim claims of corruption are likewise a weighty issue; the author plans to address those in a major future paper.

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 2

Here are the next two paragraphs of the paper (part 1 is here):

First, the text of Sura 112 in three translations:

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; / Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; / He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; / And there is none like unto Him.” (Yusuf Ali)

“Say: He is Allah, the One! / Allah, the eternally Besought of all! / He begetteth not nor was begotten. / And there is none comparable unto Him.” (Pickthal)

“Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. / He begets not, nor is He begotten. / And none is like Him.” (Shakir)

Each of these translations agrees in essential parts of the translations; from these we can garner that the Allah of Islam is (1) singular and exclusive[1], (2) eternal and omnipotent, (3) having neither parents nor children, and (4) unique. Muslims claim that only Allah satisfies all four of these criteria and that the God of Christianity fails the test. However, this reveals an inaccurate understanding of the teachings of Christianity about God. This paper will explore each criterion of the sura and demonstrate from the Old and New Testaments that the God of Christianity meets all four of the requirements.

---

[1] An interesting topic for a further paper would be to discuss whether the Arabic grammar supports this. The word for “one” in the first ayah, or verse, is ahad(un) in Arabic, literally meaning “one of” (e.g. Shamoun). This deserves an in-depth treatment.

A good start, I think. As may be seen from the footnote, the author has several bones to pick with Quranic doctrines. I hope we will see more papers from this person in the future.

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 1

A friend just sent me a research paper that she had done on her own time, exploring the relationship of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to Sura 112 (The Purity of Faith). I will be reproducing and analyzing the claims of this paper in this and upcoming posts (it is fairly long), and I invite you readers to join in the dialog. Sources cited in each paragraph are linked here. Here is the introduction.

"Is Allah the Only God? How the Triune God of Christianity Satisfies Sura 112"

The title of this paper makes a drastic claim indeed. Muslims pride themselves on having a unique god, Allah, and his final revelation, the Qur'an, in preserved form. They contend that all other religions, including Christianity and Judaism, have been annulled and all other scriptures corrupted. Several scholars, not to mention countless Christians, have disputed these claims. One especially telling fact is that the third caliph, Othman, assembled one version of the Qur'an that he deemed best and burned all other existing variants around A.D. 650 ("Preserving"; Warraq). However, the question of preservation is not the focus here; rather, this paper will explain Sura (chapter) 112, The Purity of Faith, in the Qur'an and demonstrate that Christianity's triune God meets the four criteria.

It certainly promises to be an exciting paper. However, the author appears to be engaged in a little bait-and-switch. We will see if this affects the rest of the content. Seeing as this paper was written by a non-Muslim with thorough knowledge of the Bible and a moderate knowledge about the Quran, I wonder how Muslims would respond to this.

Describing sin

One interesting assertion I have heard several Muslims make is that the Bible is "vulgar" because it describes sin graphically, whereas the Quran does so in "noble" or flowery language. All right. Here is my question: If sin is what separates us from God (the worst thing that can happen), why does it enjoy the exalted status of being described in "noble" language in the Quran? IMO, the Bible does better justice to it, describing it like it is.

Corruption of scriptures

I have asked this question of many Muslims and have yet to get a logically consistent answer: Does the Quran say, or does it not, that the Bible has been corrupted? If so, in which verses is this found? A typical answer I have received when I ask is that "Allah only promised to protect the Quran. He never said he would guard the Bible too."

Yes. And?

If it is really true that no one can change the words of Allah, and that He sent down the Tawrat and Injil beforehand, uncorrupted, then how can Muslims contend that the Quran is the only perfectly preserved scripture just because it's the final one? Why would Allah fail to guard the previous scriptures if the Quran merely confirmed them? Or is it that the Quran does not confirm the earlier scriptures at all but instead contradicts them?

I can already hear a Muslim's answer to the last few questions: DO NOT QUESTION ALLAH.

Here you may find an argument that I have yet to see refuted. The gist:
Claims (verbatim):

The Quran is preserved.

God’s Revelations which preceded the Quran include the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel.
These Books make up a large portion of the Holy Bible.

The Quran, the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are all the Word of Allah.

God's Word does not change.

The revelations that came before the Quran have become corrupted.

Although Muslims should believe that these previous Books are the genuine Revelations from God, they have to trust only the Quran as the final revelation and the only one that is preserved.

Those claims result in these premises, a dilemma for Muslims (verbatim):

1. The Quran, the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel are all Allah’s Word.
2. The current Torah, Psalms and Gospel are corrupted.
3. The final word of Allah, the Quran is preserved.

1st Conclusion: Some of Allah’s Words are corrupted
2nd Conclusion: Some of Allah’s Words are preserved.

Read the rest for yourself, then comment and answer the questions I originally asked.

Limits: a comparison

From page 202 of the NKJV Study Bible, the Word Focus box, on "transgressions":

(Heb. pesha')...Strong's #6588: This Hebrew word is derived from the verb pasha', which can mean "to revolt" (2 Kings 8:20), "to offend" (Prov. 18:19), or "to transgress" in the sense of crossing a boundary (Jer. 3:13). It refers to violations of God's law as revealed to Moses--in other words, someone crossing the limits that God had established...Like ancient Israel, we are in rebellion against God. In fact, it was "our transgressions" that wounded Jesus (Is. 53:5, 8; 1 Pet. 2:24).

Compare this with the Quranic concept of limits as described in such verses as 2:173, 187, 190, 230; 9:112; 58:4; 65:1; and 78:22. This concept of "limits" was actually one of the very first things I noticed as I read the Quran for the first time.

Hadith

‘Hadith Malik 511:1588 The last statement that Muhammad made was: "O Lord, perish the Jews and Christians. They made churches of the graves of their prophets. There shall be no two faiths in Arabia.’

Comment on this, please