Jesus as the Son of God: clarification

This post is especially for Damilola, who asked a good question over on Nashida's Facebook page. I will add to this post (clearly delineating where additions have been made) as I gather more information or better explanations. On Jesus' deity, see this page.

The question:

I think where many Christians go wrong is by taking Paul's view of Christianity! A pity! Where did all this talk of Jesus being the Son of God come from? Have you heard of the Council of Nicea and what happened there? Are you aware that a majority of the early Christians did not believe Jesus was the 'Son' of God but just a prophet?

Many people, especially Muslims, have asked these questions before. Many Christians do not know very well how to answer them, however. An extremely good resource on what exactly "Son of God" means can be found here. The gist of that article's explanation is that the meaning of the phrase is quite different than the concept of a biological son, which is of course heresy. Rather, Jesus Christ, being one and the same with the Father (again, not biological), is of the closest possible relationship to God the Father.

This is a very confusing topic, I admit. But to lessen confusion, it is important to remember the concept of the Trinity - a tri-unity - to which an analogy may be in order. Think of a candle burning. You see its light, taking up the entirety of the flame. It is not one-third light, but all light. In addition, you see its form, taking up the entirety. 100% form. Thirdly, you feel its heat, emanating from 100% of the flame. In the same way, each Person of the Trinity is fully God, and God is fully the Trinity.

Luther and the Word, part 6

Here is the final part of the paper, followed by Works Cited.

Luther had a disagreement concerning the Lord’s Supper with Zwingli and his followers. Zwingli believed that the body and blood were not truly present, but that the bread and the wine were mere symbols of the body and blood. Zwingli believed that when Jesus said, “This is my body,” he meant it in a figurative way. Luther firmly disagreed. He argued that there was no reason given inside the text itself or the rest of Scripture to believe that “is” was not literal. When Zwingli tried to show Luther other passages that are symbolic, Luther responded, “There is no proof of symbolism in the additional passages they quote. For instance, when Christ says: ‘I am the true Vine’ (John 15:1), He is speaking of the true spiritual vine. He really was this and did not merely symbolize it.”[45] Besides, verses such as these, Luther pointed out, did not concern the Lord’s Supper, and so could not be used as proof against the Real Presence. Zwingli again tried to argue against Luther by claiming that if Christ ascended into heaven then He could not also be physically present in the bread and wine. However, Luther had no problem believing that Jesus was both in heaven and in the bread and wine. If Jesus is God then He is able to be bodily in multiple places if He chooses. To say Jesus is not bodily present in the Lord’s Supper was for Luther doubting God’s Word, replacing it with reason, and doubting Christ’s omnipotence.

Luther believed the Lord’s body and blood, just like Baptism and the spoken Word, were present regardless of whether or not the pastor or layperson had faith in it or not. The faith, while it received the benefits, did not make it the Sacrament. What made it the Sacrament was the Word. This led Luther to some startling conclusions:

“It does not rest on man’s belief or unbelief but on the Word and ordinance of God – unless they first change God’s Word and ordinance and misinterpret them, as the enemies of the sacraments do at the present time. They, indeed, have only bread and wine, for they do not also have the words and instituted ordinance of God but have perverted and changed it according to their own imagination.”[46]

What Luther meant was that, even if the churches of Zwingli used bread and wine and kept the Words of Institution, it was no Sacrament, for they had no Word of God. While they had the outer Words of Institution, because they changed the meaning of the words, they did not have God’s Word, for God’s Word is not merely a voice, but the thoughts in one’s heart and the meaning behind the words. Luther’s understanding of the word “Logos” led him to believe that Zwingli only had worthless bread and wine and no Sacrament. Such was the importance of the Word. There simply was no Sacrament without it. However, those who had the Word received exactly what the Word promised them: the body and blood of Christ, as well as “forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation,” to those who put their faith in Christ’s promise.[47]

The Word was a major part of Martin Luther’s theology. He saw the Word as being God’s way of revealing Himself to mankind. God did “not choose to do it through his unveiled, brilliant, and glorious majesty, out of consideration for us poor, weak, and timid mortals and for our comfort, for who could bear such majesty for an instant in this poor and sinful flesh?”[48] Instead, God sends His Word, who veils Himself in very plain, ordinary elements: human flesh, words on a page, and the comforting voice of a Christian, water, bread, and wine. By becoming man Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, revealed the love and mercy of His Father. Holy Scripture, the written Word, is the source of all the Church’s teachings, and all of these teachings center on and contain the Incarnate Word. When a pastor preaches and teaches the teachings of Scripture, or when a Christian comforts his neighbor with the Gospel, Christ is truly present. Through the spoken Word the Gospel is proclaimed and Holy Spirit creates faith. Through the visible Word, Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Christ Himself assures us of our salvation so that none may doubt His promises. It is no wonder that Martin Luther believed the Word to be of such great importance. It is no wonder that Luther said that “the withdrawal of God’s Word from men [is] the greatest plague and manifestation of God’s wrath,” and that “there is no greater manifestation of grace than the sending of His Word.”[49]

Works Cited:

• Klug, E. F. From Luther to Chemnitz: On Scripture and the Word. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.
• Kostlin, Julius. The Theology of Luther in its Historical Development and Inner Harmony. Trans. Charles E. Hay. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1897.
• Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, (abridged): The Little Liddell. Simon Wallenberg Press, 2007.
• Lueker, Erwin L., ed. Lutheran Cyclopedia. Rev. ed. St. Louis/London: Concordia Publishing House, 1975.
• Luther, Martin. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. Ed. Timothy F. Lull. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. pp. 197-201, 239-258, 317-336, 337-361.
• Luther, Martin. What Luther Says: An Anthology. Compiled by Ewald M. Plass. Vol. 3. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.
• Luther, Martin. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 1-4. Ed. Jaroslav Pelikan. Trans. Martin H. Bertram. Luther’s Works. Vol. 22. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957.
• Luther, Martin. Word and Sacrament ???. Ed. Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther’s Works. Vol. 37. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.
• Luther, Martin. Church and Ministry ???. Ed. Helmut T. Lehmann. Trans. Eric W. Gritsch. Luther’s Works. Vol. 41. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966.
• Luther, Martin. Sermons ??. Ed. Helmut T. Lehmann. Trans. John G. Kunstmann and S. P. Hebart. Luther’s Works. Vol. 52. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1974.
• Maschke, Timothy. “The Purified Word: A Point of Issue and Response.” Concordia Journal. 3, no 2 (1977) pp. 70-73. EBSCOhosts. [online.]
• Saarnivaara, Uuraas. “Written and Spoken Word.” Lutheran Quarterly. 2, no 2 (1950) pp. 166-179. EBSCOhosts. [online.]
• Watson, Philip S. Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther. Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press, 1950.
• Wood, A. Skevington. Captive to the Word. Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.

Luther and the Word, part 5

Enjoy.

The purpose of the Word is to bring men certainty of salvation. When Martin Luther heard God’s very Word tell him that God loves him and has won for him salvation, this brought him comfort and certainty. However, God knows how sinful human beings fall into doubt and even despair. God, in His mercy, gave to mankind external signs so that Christians would be assured of God’s love, and “more certainly believe that God is favourable and merciful.”[38] These signs, Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are called Sacraments and are the visible Word. Each Sacrament has a plain, earthly element that man can see and touch. In Baptism the element is water, and in the Lord’s Supper the elements are bread and wine. Attached to that visible element is the Word of God, along with all His promises. According to Luther, “the Word of God is the chief thing in the Sacrament.”[39] In Baptism, though the water itself is merely plain water, the Word attached to Baptism promises to wash away man’s sins, give him life and salvation. Luther believed that in Baptism, because of the almighty power of God’s Word, man is covered with Christ and shares all of His righteousness. In the Lord’s Supper, Luther believed that the Word made the bread and the wine Christ’s true body and blood, which gave to those Christians who ate and drank assurance of salvation.

Christ, the Word of God, is present in both Sacraments giving to Christians all of His gifts. In Luther’s theology, everything depended on the Word. “Where the Word is proclaimed, Christ is present; where it is not, He is not.”[40] Luther said, “So the Lord’s Supper is nothing if the divine Word is not present; just so Baptism.”[41] This understanding of the Word and its presence in the Sacraments caused division among his followers and other Protestants and sects that were developing at that time.

The Anabaptists were teaching that children must not be baptized. If one was baptized as a child they must be re-baptized as an adult. Some concluded that this was so on the basis that the child may not have had faith at the time they were baptized. Luther saw this as sheer foolishness and a lack of faith in the power of God’s Word. Luther knew that the Word is greater than faith, for the Word is eternal, but faith can and does change. He knew that faith was built on God’s Word, not God’s Word on faith. He asked, “Is it fairer to assume that the Word of God would change faith, if a right one were lacking than that faith would change the Word of God?”[42] Such an assumption would be correct, he concluded. If this were so, even if the infant had no faith one ought to baptize that child, for the Word present in Baptism may create faith inside the child, and that faith may continue to be built on said Word. That Word given in Baptism is eternal, and so Luther concluded, no one should ever be re-baptized. Luther argued:

“The unchanging Word of God, once spoken in the first baptism, ever remains standing, so that afterwards they can come to faith in it, if they will, and the water with which they were baptized they can afterwards receive in faith, if they will. Even if they contradict the Word a hundred times, it still remains the Word spoken in the first baptism. Its power does not derive from the fact that it is repeated many times or is spoken anew, but from the fact that it was commanded once to be spoken.”[43]

Without faith of course the grace given in Baptism could not be received. However, faith could receive it at any time, because the Word given in Baptism is eternal and it is “through the Word the water in Baptism has the power to wash away sins.”[44]

Questions? Comments?

Luther and the Word, part 4

Part four.

However, is there any difference between the Incarnate Word and the spoken Word? Luther was once asked such a question, and as reported by Klug, he answered:

“By all means. . . The former is the incarnate Word, who was true God from the beginning and the latter is the Word that is proclaimed. The former Word is in substance God, the latter Word is in its effect the power of God, but isn’t God in substance, for it has a man’s nature, whether it’s spoken by Christ or the minister.”[29]

Klug further explains this difference, saying, “The difference is one of essence, or nature.”[30] The words of a pastor or a Christian are not the Word of God in their own essence, that is, in and of themselves. In other words, it isn’t the Word because a certain individual said it or they made the right sounds come from their mouth, but because these words reveal God’s love and plan of salvation. If Christ crucified for sinners is the center of the spoken message, then it is the Word of God. It is also the Word of God only in so far that it agrees with Scripture. If it does not agree with the written Word it is not the spoken Word. However, if the same truth is proclaimed that is in Scripture, then their words “have their source in the written word of God and must take place according to it.”[31] Their words are in fact the very Word of God for they are “inseparably connected with the Scriptures.”[32] In other words, it is the content behind the words of the preaching pastor or the message that the Christian is proclaiming that matter and makes it the Word of God. What does not matter is the person speaking. As long as the content of their message agrees with Holy Scriptures, then Luther believed that it would remain God’s Word and retain all its power, “even when proclaimed by ungodly men.”[33] This brought Luther certainty, for he realized that he can be sure it is the Word of God he hears, no matter how evil the preacher secretly is. Luther said:

“This is also the real difference between godly faith and human faith: human faith clings to a person; it believes, trusts and honors the word on account of him who speaks it. But godly faith clings to the word, which is God Himself; it believes, trusts and honors the word not on account of him who has spoken it, but feels that here is such a certainty of truth that nobody can ever tear it away from it, even if the very same preacher should try it.”[34]

This spoken Word of God was given to men for the chief purpose of salvation. While Holy Scripture teaches men, for Luther it was the spoken Word that brought to men the forgiveness of sins and created in them the faith to receive it. Christians are saved when they hear the promise of the Gospel preached to them and believe the promise is for them. Luther speaks of this in his Christmas Day sermon written in 1530. The Christian hears the Word and says, “This child who is born of the virgin is not only his mother’s son. I have more than the mother’s estate; he is more mine than Mary’s, for he was born for me, for the angel said, ‘To you’ is born the Savior. (Emphasis mine)”[35] The spoken Word promises and gives to those who hear it the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. The Holy Spirit comes through the Word and creates faith which clings to and trusts in that Word, that promise of grace. Luther believed that if there is no spoken Word then there can be no faith. This is as Luther said, “For it is the nature and essence of faith that it builds and relies on the word of God, and where there is no word of God there can and shall be no faith.”[36] Faith needs an object in which it may believe, something it can trust. This object was for Luther the Word, for “what could or would God’s people believe, if there were no word of God?”[37]

Questions? Comments?

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?

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.

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.

A few questions

Just to start out with, here are a few of my pressing questions for you (the rest of the blog will be about this too, but why not have a unique post about it?):

• Why is the Quran organized by sura length and not in chronological order? It seems to me that it would be much easier to understand if what was revealed first was written down first. After all, is Allah a god of order, or not?
• Since the Quran says, "O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, God will forgive those: for God is oft-forgiving, most Merciful.. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Sura 5:101-102), should I even be asking questions about Islam? If truth really does stand out clear from error, shouldn't questions strengthen one's faith? (I am not saying I am a Muslim. I am just asking the question.)
• Since the New Testament (by this I mean the four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, the books on the early history of the Church, and the canonical epistles) came after the Old Testament (the Torah and the Prophets), we ought to judge it by what came before. In this way, Christians find out whether their God is being consistent and faithful or not. By similar logic (time alone), we should judge the Quran, revealed after the Old and New Testaments, by what came before. Indeed, the Quran itself exhorts us to do so. Indeed, even in fields like biology and geology, the past ought to be the key to the present. So, my question is, why is one supposed to judge the Bible by the Quran?