A necessidade da Aliança das Obras

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Tem um ditado entres os crentes sobre a doutrina da justificação, “a justificação e como se nunca tivesse pecado,” mas este ditado somente contém uma metade da verdade, a outra metade é a justiça imputada aos crentes por meio da obediência perfeita do Senhor Jesus Cristo.  Se não temos a sua justiça perfeita estivermos a pé perante Deus condenados igualmente como o profeta Isaías quando ele viu a santidade de Deus na sua visão (Isaías 6:1-5).

Esta doutrina da imputação da obediência perfeita do Jesus Cristo é negado por muitos que professam ser crentes principalmente devido à influência da teologia dispensationalista. O qual nega a aliança das obras porque a palavra aliança não acontece até o capítulo 6 do Gênesis o qual descreve a aliança com o Noé e por isso não há uma aliança das obras nem uma aliança com o Adão na Bíblia.

Por exemplo aqui é uma citação de dois teólogos Dispensationalistas que ensinam no Seminário teológico Dallas que fica em Texas. Eles dizem que Cristo somente pagou a maldição da lei em nosso lugar, mas não obteve justiça perfeita para nós por meio seu próprio obediência. Acordo com estos dois teólogos, o Darrel Block e o Craig Blaising, Jesus só foi obediente porque se tivesse pecado então não poderia morrer em nosso lugar pagando a maldição de Deus; mas eles não incluem a necessidade da justiça perfeita de Cristo imputado aos crentes.

Em Gálatas 3:10-13, Paulo explica como o morte de Cristo foi cumprido e por isso terminou a aliança Mosaico. “Cristo nos resgatou da maldição da lei, fazendo-se ele próprio maldição em nosso lugar (porque está escrito: Maldito todo aquele que for pendurado em madeiro),” (Bíblia Sagrada João Ferreira de Almeida Revista é Atualizada 1993, Gálatas 3:13). Cristo tomou a maldição da aliança Mosaico sobre ele próprio para satisfazer as exigências de Deus. Esto não tivesse acontecido, entretanto, se ele próprio fosse um pecador quem precisaria a expiação para os seus próprios pecados. Mas como o Paulo diz no 2 Coríntios 5:21, ” Aquele que não conheceu pecado, ele o fez pecado por nós; para que, nele fôssemos feitos justiça de Deus” (Bíblia Sagrada João Ferreira de Almeida Revista é Atualizada 1993). Esto é porque eles quem estão em Cristo são contados justos ( cf. Deuteronomio 6:25; 1 Corintios 1:30) e acham a maldição de Deus satisfeito por eles [1].

Esto não é suficiente só ter nossos pecados perdoados para entrar no céu porque Deus requer a justiça perfeita como Jesus disse no Sermão no Monte,

“Portanto, sede vós perfeitos como perfeito e o vosso Pai celeste” (Mateus 5:48, Bíblia Sagrada João Ferreira de Almeida Revista é Atualizada 1993)

O Paulo explica a importância da aliança das obras quando ele compara o Adão com o Cristo no Romanos 5:12-21, se o Adão não fosse nossa cabeça federal nem representativo, então acordo com o Paulo Cristo não fosse nossa cabeça federal também. Se o Adão caiu sem representar ninguém como um representante federal então Cristo somente morreu por ele próprio. O teólogo A.W. Pink explica a necessidade da aliança das obras para preservar o evangelho porque se alguém nega a aliança das obras então pode resultar na negação que o Adão fosse nossa cabeça federal.  O fato que o Adão foi nossa cabeça federal, o qual mesmo alguns crentes acreditam quem negam a aliança das obras, supõe que houvesse uma aliança das obras no jardim porque a palavra “federal” é sinônimo com “aliança”. O Adão precisou ter uma aliança com Deus para ser uma cabeça federal, estos dois fatos não podem ser separados.

A desobediência do primeiro Adão foi a fundação judicial por nossa condenação; a desobediência do último Adão é a nossa fundação judicial em qual Deus só pode justificar um pecador.  A substituição do Cristo no lugar do seu povo, a imputação dos seus pecados para ele e a sua justiça para eles, é o fato  essencial do evangelho.  Mas o princípio de ser salvo pela obra de outra fez só é possível na fundação que nós fomos perdidos por meio o que outro fez. Os dois se sustém juntos.  Se não houvesse uma aliança das obras então não teria acontecido a morte em Adão, não teria a vida em Cristo [2].

Em conclusão, nos vemos a importância da teologia da aliança para o evangelho. Esto não é somente uma sistema abstrato para os teólogos; ao contrário esto é muito prático para como estudamos a Bíblia e como entendemos o evangelho.

Ainda que este método da interpretação não é consistente para eles que negam a aliança das obras porque a aliança Davídica não usa a palavra “aliança” no 2 Samuel 7:8-17, mesmo que ninguém negue que há uma aliança Davídica porque os componentes de uma aliança acontecem se bem que a palavra explícito “aliança” não seja usado. Depois a Bíblia chama 2 Samuel 7:8-17 uma aliança em 2 Samuel 23:5 e Salmos 89:3-4. O mesmo princípio da interpretação é usado para a aliança das obras embora em Gênesis 2 a palavra “aliança” não suceda, mas depois no Antigo Testamento é chamado uma aliança em Oseais 6:7, Isaías 24:3-6, e também pelo Paulo no Novo Testamento em Romanos 5:12-21.  A Bíblia nos dá uma interpretação infalível de se mesmo e por isso quando a Bíblia se refere a outra passagem na Bíblia é sem erros ainda que aconteça em outra parte da Bíblia. Esto é porque a Bíblia não foi escrito só pelos homens mas também por Deus, Ele é o autor principal pelo meio do Espírito Santo de todos os livros da Bíblia.

Nós vamos confiar na inspirada é infalível interpretação do Apóstolo Paulo em Romanos 5 explicando a necessidade de Adão como o nossa cabeça federal para que Cristo pode ser a cabeça federal dos crentes ( o qual supõe a aliança das obras) ou vamos ler Gênesis 2 somente focalizando no autor humano sem ler Gênesis 2 no contexto de todo a Bíblia? A segunda opção focaliza no argumento que a palavra “aliança” não acontece lá ( no Gênesis 2 ) e por isso é impossível que houvesse uma aliança das obras, o qual dá a prioridade ao autor humano em vez de permitir a Bíblia interpretar se mesmo.  Quando a Bíblia interpreta a Bíblia é um comentário infalível o qual não deveríamos ignorar, porém deveríamos usar a sua interpretação infalível para melhorar o nosso entendimento da Bíblia.

Podemos observar todo deste material resumido e aplicado à proclamação do evangelho na confissão de Fé Batista de Londres 1689 capítulo 20.1 [3],

1. O Pacto das Obras foi quebrado pelo pecado, e tornou-se inútil para conduzir à vida, então, Deus Se agradou em desvelar a promessa de Cristo a semente da mulher, como o meio de chamar os eleitos, gerando neles a fé e o arrependimento[1]. Nesta promessa a essência do Evangelho foi revelada, e é feita eficaz para a conversão e salvação dos pecadores[2].

[1] Gênesis 3:15

[2] Apocalipse 13:8

 

Citações:

[1] Blaising, Craig and Bock, Darrel, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI.  Baker Books: 2003), 197-198

[2] Arthur Walkington Pink, The Divine Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 33

[3] http://oestandartedecristo.com/data/CFB1689CPCHSporEC.pdf

 

 

SCRBPC 2015 Panel Discussion on Divine Impassibility

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This video was recently uploaded on You-tube for the Panel Discussion on Divine Impassibility from the 2015 Southern California Reformed baptist Pastor’s Conference.  A profitable discussion on the crucial doctrine of Divine Impassibility.  Questions range from more technical questions to pastoral application of the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility:

 

This is the playlist for all of the Conference Sessions and additional interviews with Conference Speakers as well as some book interviews.  The Conference sessions are well worth listening if you want a thorough introduction to the doctrine of Divine Impassibility as Dr. Dolzeal traces the history leading up to contemporary positions on the Doctrine of God and faithfully exposits from Scripture the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility upholding a Classical Doctrine of God:

Um argumento Batista reformada para o bautismo dos crentes & e a natureza dicotômica da Aliança Abraâmica

Tags

, , ,

O seguinte é uma tradução das perguntas 72 e 73 do catecismo ortodoxo pelo Pastor Hércules Collins, um dos pastores batistas reformadas quem assinou a confessão Batista de fé de Londres 1689. Se Pode ver desde o seu argumento para o bautismo dos crentes e o seu argumento em contra do bautismo dos infantes que o seu argumento vem desde a sua teologia da aliança, especificamente a sua posição sobre a aliança Abraâmica e a aliança de graça:

Q. (Pergunta) 72 pode a semente infante dos crentes baixo o evangelho ser batizados assim como a semente infante de Abraão baixo a lei foi circuncidado?

A. (Resposta) Não.  Abraão teve um mandamento nesta hora de Deus para circuncidar-lhe a sua semente infante, mas crentes não tiveram ninguém mandamento para batizar a sua semente infante baixo o evangelho.
(a) Gênesis 17:9-12

Q. (Pergunta) 73 Porque alguns dizem que os infantes dos crentes estão na aliança de graça com os seus pães, porque não podem eles ser batizados baixo o evangelho, assim como a semente infante de Abraão foi circuncidado baixo a lei?

A. (Resposta) por afirmar que os infantes dos crentes estão na aliança de graça, eles devem querer dizer da aliança de graça absolutamente considerado, e se é assim, então não tem ninguém total nem final apostasia de qualquer semente infante dos crentes da aliança, mas então todos precisam ser salvos (a).
(a) Jeremias 2:38-40; João 10:28

Ou eles precisam significar condicionalmente, o que quando crescem até a maturidade, então por fé verdadeira, amor, e santidade de vida, segurando a aliança de graça de Deus, terão o seus benefícios. Se isso é o seu significado, então, Que benéfico espiritual tem a semente infante dos incrédulos, se eles vivem até anos da madurez, e por a fé verdadeira e a or seguram a aliança de Deus? Além disso, Não pertenceria o selo da aliança tanto como aos filhos dos incrédulos como aos filhos dos crentes? Sim, porque a semente infante do incrédulo a vezes chega a aceitar a aliança de Deus, e a semente infante do crente não o faz; tantas vezes como isso é visto para a tristeza de muitos pães devotos (b).
(b) Isaías 56:3-8; João 3:16; Atos 10:34-35

Suponha que toda a semente infante dos crentes estiveram absolutamente na aliança de graça; mas os crentes baixo o evangelho não deveriam batizar a sua semente infante mais que Ló circuncidou seu mesmo e a sua semente infante, se tivesse masculinos assim como fêmeas, embora Ele foi relacionado ao Abraão, um crente, e na aliança de graça, porque a circuncisão foi limitado ao Abraão e a sua família imediata.  Se a semente infante dos crentes estivesse  absolutamente na aliança de graça, nós traríamos infantes a Ceia do Senhor porque as mesmas qualificações são requeridas ao necessário desempenho  do batismo assumo como a Ceia do Senhor (c).
(c) Atos 2:41-42

A aliança Abraâmica teve dois partes:

Primeiro um componente espiritual, o qual consiste por Deus prometer ser um Deus ao Abraão e todo a sua semente espiritual numa maneira particular (d), se foram circuncidados ou não, quem creram como Abraão o pai da fé creu (e). E isso foi significado por Deus aceitar assim como a sua gente as quais não são da semente de Abraão, mas comprados pelo seu dinheiro esta promessa foi selado ao Abraão pela circuncisão, que por Jesus Cristo (quem Isaque tipificou) os gentios, os não circuncidados quem creram (f), deveriam ter a fé considerado pela justiça, como Abraão foi antes de ser circuncidado (g).
(d) Gênesis 17:19,21; 21:10; Gálatas 4:30
(e) Atos 2:39; Romanos 9:7-8
(f) Gálatas 3:16,28-29
(g) Romanos 4:9-14

Segundo, esta promessa foi composto de um componente temporal. Por isso, Deus prometeu que a semente de Abraão deveria desfrutar a terra de Canaã, e tiveram suficiente benções externas (h), assim que Ele selou esta promessa pela circuncisão (i).  A circuncisão também distingue os judios como o povo de Deus desde os gentios , qual até agora não foram a semente de Abraão.  Mas quando os gentios chegaram a crer e pela fé chegaram a ser o povo de assim como os judios, então a circuncisão, esta marca distintiva parou.  As marcas distintivas de ser os filhos de Deus agora são a fé em Cristo e a circuncisão da coração (j). Portanto qualquer pretexto poderá ser para batizar os infantes dos crentes não vale nada, seja seu ser na semente dos crentes, seu ser na aliança ou que a semente infante de Abraão , um crente, foi circuncidado. A circuncisão foi limitado também até o oitavo dia, e qualquer pretexto for feito, não fosse feito nem antes nem depois. Foi limitado aos masculinos, o qual se o batismo veio no lugar da circuncisão e é o selo da aliança baixo o evangelho, assim como a circuncisão foi baixo a lei, ninguém mas os masculinos precisam ser batizados. Ainda assim baixo a leia circuncisão teve regulados particulares, assim é baixo o evangelho com o batismo.  Estes regulados sobre o batismo dependem somente sobre a vontade do legislador, aquele Profeta a quem nós faríamos bem escutar-lhe (k). Ele determina sobre quem, quando, e como o batismo deveria ser administrado.
(h) Gênesis 12:6-7; 13:15-17; 15:16, 18.
(i) Gênesis 17:8-11.
(j) João 1:12, Romanos 2:28-29; Gálatas 3:26-28; Filipenses 3:3.
(k) Atos 3:22.

Se pode comparar a resposta de Hércules Collins com o argumento para batizar os infantes de acordo com o Catecismo Heidelburg no português, pergunta 74. Se pode ver para comparar os dois que as diferenças sobre a doutrina do batismo vêm das suas diferenças na sua teologia da aliança:

http://www.refo500.nl/content/files/Files/Catechism/hc-portugees.pdf

 

Un Argumento bautista reformada para el bautismo de creyentes & la naturaleza dicotómica del Pacto Abrahámico

Tags

, , , , ,

Lo siguiente es una traducción de preguntas 72 y 73 del Catecismo Ortodoxo escrito por Pastor Hercules Collins, uno de los pastores bautistas reformados quien firmó la confesión bautista de fe de Londres 1689.  Se puede ver desde su argumento para el bautismo de creyentes y su argumento en contra del bautismo de infantes que su argumento viene desde su teología del pacto, específicamente su posición sobre el pacto Abrahámico y el pacto de Gracia:

Q.(Pregunta) 72 ¿Puede la semilla infante de creyentes bajo el evangelio ser bautizados así como la semilla infante de Abraham bajo la ley fue circuncidado?

(Respuesta)  No.  Abraham tuvo un mandamiento a esa hora de Dios para circuncidarle a su semilla infante, pero creyentes no tienen ningún mandamiento para bautizar su semilla infante bajo el evangelio.

(a) Génesis 17:9-12

(Pregunta) 73 ¿Porqué algunos dicen que los infantes de creyentes están en el pacto de Gracia con sus padres, porque no pueden ellos ser bautizados bajo el evangelio, así como la semilla infante de Abraham fue circuncidado bajo la ley?

(Respuesta) Por afirmar que los infantes  de creyentes están en el pacto de Gracia, ellos deben querer decir del pacto de Gracia absolutamente considerado, y si es así, entonces no hay ningún total ni final apostasía de cualquier semilla infante de creyentes del pacto, pero entonces todos necesitan ser salvos (a).

 

(a) Jeremías 32:38-40; Juan 10:28

O, ellos necesitan significar condicionalmente, que cuando crecen a su edad de madurez, entonces por fe verdadera, amor, y santidad de vida, agarrando el pacto de Gracia de Dios, tendrán sus beneficios.  Si eso es su significado, entonces ¿Qué beneficio espiritual tiene la semilla infante  de los incrédulos, si ellos  viven hasta años de madurez, y por fe verdadera  y amor agarran  el pacto de Dios?  Además, ¿No pertenecería el sello del pacto  tanto como a los hijos de los incrédulos como los hijos de creyentes?  Sí, porque la semilla infante del incrédulos a veces llega a aceptar el pacto de Dios, y la semilla infante del creyente no lo hace; tantas veces como eso es visto para la tristeza de muchos padres piadosos (b).

(b) Isaías 56:3-8; Juan 3:16; Hechos 10:34-35

 

Suponga toda la semilla infante de creyentes  estuvieran absolutamente en el pacto de Gracia; pero creyentes bajo el evangelio no deberían bautizar su semilla infante más que Lot circuncidó  su mismo y su semilla infante, si tuviera varones así como hembras, aunque Él fue relacionado al Abraham, un creyente, y en el pacto de Gracia, porque la circuncisión fue limitado al Abraham y su familia inmediata.  Si la semilla infante de creyentes estuviera absolutamente en el pacto de Gracia, nosotros traeremos infantes a la Cena del Señor porque las mismas cualificaciones son requeridas al necesario desempeño del bautismo así como la Cena del Señor (c).

(c) Hechos 2:41-42

 

El pacto Abrahámico tuvo dos partes:

Primero, un componente espiritual, lo cual consiste por Dios prometer ser un Dios a Abraham y todo su semilla espiritual en una manera particular (d), si fueran circuncidados o no, quienes creyeron como Abraham el padre de la fe creyó (e).  Y eso fue significado por Dios aceptar así como su gente los cuales no son de la semilla de Abraham, sino comprados por su dinero, y esta promesa fue sellado a Abraham por la circuncisión, que por medio de Jesucristo (quien Isaac tipificó) los gentiles, los no circuncidados quienes creyeron (f), deberían tener la fe considerado por justicia, como Abraham fue antes de ser circuncidado (g).

(d)  Génesis 17:19,21; 21:10; Gálatas 4:30.

(e) Hechos 2:39; Romanos 9:7-8.

(f) Gálatas 3:16, 28-29

(g)  Romanos 4:9-14

Segundo, esta promesa fue compuesta de un componente temporal.  Por eso, Dios prometió que la semilla de Abraham debería disfrutar la tierra de Canaán, y tuvieron suficiente bendiciones externas (h), así que Él selló esta promesa por la circuncisión (i).  La circuncisión también distingue los judíos como el pueblo de Dios desde todas las naciones de los gentiles, cual hasta ahora no fueron la semilla de Abraham.  Pero cuando los gentiles llegaron a creer y por la fe llegaron a ser el pueblo de Dios así como los judíos, entonces la circuncisión, la marca de distintiva, paró.  Las marcas distintivas de ser los hijos de Dios ahora son la fe en Cristo y la circuncisión de la corazón (j).  Por lo tanto, cualquier pretexto podrá ser para bautizar los infantes de creyentes no vale nada, sea su ser en la semilla de creyentes, su ser en el pacto, o que la semilla infante de Abraham, un creyente, fue circuncidado.  La circuncisión fue limitada también hasta el octavo día, y cualquier pretexto podría ser hecho, no fue hecho ni antes ni después.  La fue limitado a los varones, quienes si el bautismo llego en lugar de la circuncisión y fue el sello del pacto de Gracia bajo el evangelio, como la circuncisión fue bajo la ley, nadie pero los varones deben ser bautizados.  Así como bajo la ley la circuncisión tuvo reglas particulares, también la fue bajo el evangelio con respecto al bautismo.  Estas regulaciones con respecto al bautismo depende solamente sobre la voluntad del legislador, aquel Profeta a quien nosotros haríamos bueno para escucharlo (k).  Él decide  sobre quien, cuando,  y como el bautismo debería ser administrado.

(h) Génesis 12:6-7; 13:15-17; 15:16, 18

(i) Génesis 17:8-11

(j) Juan 1:12; Romanos 2:28-29; Gálatas 3:26-28; Filipenses 3:3

(k) Hechos 3:22

 

Se puede comparar la respuesta de Hercules Collins con el argumento para bautizar los infantes según el Catecismo Heidelburg en español, pregunta 74.  Se puede ver por comparar los dos que las diferencias sobre la doctrina del bautismo vienen de sus diferencias en su teología del pacto:

http://www.refo500.nl/content/files/Files/Catechism/HC-spaans.pdf

 

Presuppositions and the Resurrection of Christ

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

During Easter there are many popular apologetics books promoted to persuade unbelievers of the veracity of the Resurrection of Christ such as Lee Strobel’s, The Case for Easter.  Unfortunately most of these books don’t even defend the Christian worldview since they abandon the authority of Scripture to seek neutral ground with the unbeliever and to use archaeological and non-biblical historical data to prove the Resurrection.  This is a vain attempt because even if sufficient evidence is provided that evidence is not interpreted in a vacuum, it is interpreted by everyone’s worldview, and without abandoning naturalism the naturalist will not accept the Resurrection as an act of God.  Neither will the Muslim accept the Resurrection based on extra-biblical historical proofs until he has denied the authority of the Qur’an which explicitly denies the Crucifixion of Christ in Surah An-Nisa: 157 (4:157) and only affirms that he ascended into heaven, so there was no need for the Crucifixion nor the resurrection according to the Islamic worldview.

The following quotes from Van Til explain the importance of evaluating one’s presuppositions and worldview when interpreting facts since there is no “neutral ground” on which everyone comes to the facts without prior assumptions and arrives at the same conclusion [bold and italics were added for emphasis, also parenthesis are given in the quotes with explanations for more technical terms].

“…We must show that the philosophy of fact as held to by Christian theism is the only philosophy that can account for the facts.  And these two things must be done in conjunction with one another.  Historical apologetics becomes genuinely fruitful only if it is conjoined with philosophical apologetics.  And the two together will have to begin with Scripture, and argue that unless what Scripture says about itself and all things else which it speaks is true, nothing is true.  Unless God as an absolutely self-conscious person exists, no facts have any meaning.  This holds not only for the resurrection of Christ, but for any other fact as well[1].

Van Til also points out the futility of trying to prove the Christian worldview one piece at a time, which places the unbeliever as the ultimate judge and authority over God’s Word, rather than God being the final authority.  So even if an unbelievers accepts the resurrection of Christ, but has not denied himself as the ultimate authority rather than accepting  God as the true final authority,then he has not truly believed in Christ’s atoning work for sinners, his perfect life unto death obedience, crucifixion, and resurrection, and the true person of Christ as fully God and fully man, and accepted the Christian worldview. The sinner still assumes he is the standard of truth, and has not been convicted by the Law of God to show him his need of Christ’s redeeming work, which is why a genuinely biblical apologetic cannot be separated from the proclamation of the Law and Gospel.  As we confront unbeliever’s suppression of the truth by confronting their worldview we are not treating the Gospel as an intellectual fact to believe, but are confronting them with the Law of God and their need of Christ, which provides a transition to further explain the law of God and the Gospel.

The Scriptures nowhere appeal to the unregenerate reason as to a qualified judge.  On the contrary, Scripture says over and over that the unregenerate reason is entirely unqualified to judge.  When Scripture says, “Come, let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18] it usually speaks to the people of God, and, if it does speak to others, it never regards them as equal with God or as really competent to judge.  The unregenerate man has knowledge of God, that is, of the revelation of God within him, the sense of deity, which he seeks to suppress [Romans 1:18-21].  Scripture does appeal to this sense of deity in man, but it does so and can do so only be denying that man, when acting on his adopted monistic assumption [the monistic assumption is the view that man is the interpreter of truth apart from God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture, that man is the ultimate authority rather than God], has any ability or right to judge of what is true or false, right or wrong[2].

“Historical apologetics is absolutely necessary and indispensable to point out that Christ rose from the grave, etc.  But as long as historical apologetics works on a supposedly neutral basis, it defeats its own purpose.  For in that case it virtually grants the validity of the metaphysical assumptions [views about reality e.g. whether only natural events occur or whether miracles are possible as in the Christian worldview] of the unbeliever.  So in this case a pragmatist may accept the resurrection of Christ as a fact without accepting the conclusion that Christ is the Son of God.  And on this assumption he is not illogical in doing so.  On the contrary, if his basic metaphysical assumption [views about reality] to the effect that all reality is subject to chance is right, he is only consistent if he refuses to conclude from the fact of Christ’s resurrection that he is divine in the orthodox sense of the term.  Now, though he is wrong in his metaphysical assumption, and though, rightly interpreted, the resurrection of Christ assuredly proves the divinity of Christ, we must attack the unbeliever in his philosophy of fact, as well as on the question of the actuality of the facts themselves.  For on his own metaphysical assumptions, the resurrection of Christ would not prove his divinity at all” [3].

[1] Cornelius, Van Til, edited by William, Edgar, An Introduction to Systematic Theology 2nd Edition: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God (Phillipsburg, NJ; P&R, 2007), 243

[2] Ibid, 69

[3] Ibid, 242

 

This video by the LutheranSatire provides a comical application of the points made in this blog post applied to the reasons for why Atheists, based on a naturalist worldview, deny the resurrection of Christ:

An Overview of Key Islamic Worldview Presuppositions

Tags

, , ,

This is an overview of the previous lessons listing the essential information in an outline format for easier reference.  Not all of the details from the previous lessons/posts on the Islamic Worldview are posted in this list, and I have included a few new citations and Muslim arguments, so that this outline isn’t only review for those who have read the previous posts on the Islamic Worldview.  I have included some important responses to the listed Muslims views in parenthesis directly after the position stated and in the footnotes.  Other responses can be found in the previous lessons which I didn’t repeat here in order to make this a brief overview.

https://1689reformedbaptist.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/an-introduction-to-the-islamic-worldview-muhammad-and-the-quran/

https://1689reformedbaptist.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/an-introduction-to-the-islamic-worldview-part-2-the-doctrine-of-god-christ-according-to-islam/

https://1689reformedbaptist.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/an-introduction-to-the-islamic-worldview-part-3-the-doctrine-of-salvation-in-islam/

https://1689reformedbaptist.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/an-introduction-to-the-islamic-worldview-part-4-the-reliability-of-the-old-and-new-testament-according-to-the-islamic-worldview/

It should be observed that it is inconsistent with both the Christian and Islamic Worldview to use double standards when addressing someone’s presuppositions (theological assumptions).  The list of presuppositions given provides a list of key Islamic presuppositions, so that Christians can directly respond to them in evangelism and be aware of them when we hear Islamic apologetic arguments against the Christian Worldview.

Proverbs 20:10, “Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are abominable to the LORD” (NASB).

Surah 17:35, “And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result”.

*All Quranic citations are from the Saheeh International Version

I. The Doctrine of God in the Islamic Worldview:

  1. Tawhid-the oneness of God
  2. Categories of Tawhid: Tawhid-ar-Rubbubiyah (God is one & unique in his Lordship), Tawhid al-Asma’ waṣ-ṣifat (God is one & unique in his name & attributes), and Tawhid al-‘Ibadah/Tawheed al-Uluhiyah (God is one & unique in his right to be worshipped)
  3. Man is born believing in Tawhid i.e. born a Muslim (a state of fitrah via God’s covenant w/Adam)
  4. Violation of Tawhid in any of the 3 categories is called shirk (associating partners with God, assumes Unitarian monotheism) resulting in polytheism & eternal damnation

 

II. The Doctrine of Christ in the Islamic Worldview:

  1. Christ is considered a prophet sent to the Jews with the revelation of the Gospel (Injeel)
  2. The virgin birth of Christ is affirmed in Islam (although he did additionally prophesy from the cradle, Surah 19:27-33)
  3. While the Ascension of Christ is affirmed by the Qur’an his crucifixion is explicitly denied, Surah 4:157, “And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain”.
  4. Muslim apologists will use heretical sects such as the Gnostic Ebionites to argue that Christians only believe in the humanity of Christ. Here is the argument as presented in the Muslim apologetic book Izhar-Ul-Haq (The Standard of Truth), “The Ebionites, a Christian sect of the first century, had the belief that Jesus was only a human being, born of his parents Joseph and Mary, like other human beings[1] (This is a double standard borrowing from other worldviews since the Ebionites were Gnostics they viewed all matter as evil, but that would also mean that Muhammad was evil.  Also since the Ebionites denied the virgin birth of Jesus, they would also be denying the Qur’an’s affirmation of the virgin birth of Jesus).
  5. The concept of Sonship is explicitly denied by the Qur’an; Surah Al-‘Ikhlas (112:1-4), “Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent”.
  6. The most common Muslim argument against the Deity of Christ stated by Ahmed Deedat and his followers is, “If Jesus was God, then why did he never say, “I am God, worship me!”

 

 III. Doctrine of the Trinity & the Incarnation in the Islamic Worldview:

  1. The Qur’an assumes the Trinity consists of Allah (God the Father), ’Isa (Jesus), and Mary (Surah 4:171-2)
  2. The Doctrine of the Trinity is assumed to be teaching Tritheism (since in Islam God is Unitarian), and it is viewed as illogical (This is based on the assumption that our creaturely understanding of God is equal to God’s understanding of Himself).
  3. The common argument that the Trinity is not taught in the Bible because the word Trinity isn’t used is a contradiction since Tawheed (Oneness of God) is affirmed by the Qur’an, although the word itself occurs in the Hadeeth (i.e. Saheeh Al-Bukhari), not the Qur’an
  4. Within the Creator-Creature Distinction, man is viewed as imperfect, so the Incarnation is viewed as a contradiction (there is no glorified state of man), “According to the Qur’an, human beings are a blending of clay (which is the source of their weakness) and the soul. As a result, human beings have always been imperfect[2].
  5. Muslims typically view the Incarnation of Christ as Jesus ceasing to be God and becoming human, rather than the hypostatic union which affirms Christ is both fully God and fully man
  6. Christ being fully God and fully man is viewed as a contradiction because the attributes of God and man are viewed as opposing one another i.e. omniscience vs. limited knowledge [For example Mark 13:32 is a common verse used by Muslim Apologists, “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (NASB)].
  7. Paul is viewed as an innovator & false teacher who taught the doctrine of the Trinity and Deity of Christ contradicting the teachings of Jesus according to Islam, “Christians, influenced by the teachings of Saul from Tarsus (later called Paul), deified Prophet Jesus and directed their prayer to him and his mother[3]”.

 

IV. The Qur’an & The Bible in the Islamic Worldview:

  1. The Qur’an claims only a single Divine author, it was dictated to Muhammad, so his (Muhammad’s) role was passive in the process of the Qur’an being revealed
  2. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic, but has eternally existed in the Arabic language, thus preceding Muhammad, so to truly read & understand the Qur’an (from a Muslim perspective) you need to read it in Arabic
  3. Modern Muslim Apologists assume the Old and New Testament have been corrupted (although this was not the majority position prior to Izhar-Ul-Haq in the 20th century)
  4. The Qur’an is assumed to be in continuity with previous revelation Old & New Testament (Tawrah & Injeel). The Qur’an commands the People of the Book (Ahl-al-Kitab) to judge the Qur’an by previous revelation (Surah 5:42-48, 65-68).
  5. The Old and New Testament teaches prophecies about Muhammad according to Islam, so they cannot be viewed as completely corrupt only partially corrupt ( 18:15-19, John  14:16-17,16:7-14, Song of Solomon 5:16)

 

Surah 5:42-48, “[43]But how is it that they come to you for judgment while they have the Torah, in which is the judgment of Allah ? Then they turn away, [even] after that; but those are not [in fact] believers. [44] Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers. [45]And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.  [46] And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. [47] And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient”.

 

Surah 5: 65-68, “[65]And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and feared Allah , We would have removed from them their misdeeds and admitted them to Gardens of Pleasure. [66] And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed [provision] from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them – evil is that which they do. [67] O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people. [68] Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people”.

[1] Rahmatullah Kairanvi, Maulana, Izhar-Ul-Haq (Truth Revealed): Proof of the Divine Origin of the Qur’an and the Authenticity of the Hadiths Part 3 (Jedda, Saudi Arabia; World of Knowledge for Publishing & Distribution, 1992), 100.

[2] Hamza Mustafa Njozi, The Sources of the Qur’an: A Critical Review of the Authorship Theories (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Islamic Publishing House, 2005), 78

[3] Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, The Fundamentals of Tawhid (Islamic Monotheism), (International Islamic Publishing house: Saudi Arabia, 2005), 38; this view of Paul is not held by some of the earliest Muslim Commentators such as Ibn Kathir commenting on Surah 36:13-16, where three messengers are sent to a city, and Ibn Kathir identifies the third messenger as Paul (Bulus in Arabic), “Ibn Kathir records a tradition (8:178-179; Al Suyuti does also), which he himself does not follow, that “The names of the first two Messengers were Sham’un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch…Qatad bin Di’amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch” cited by James White in What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an, 190.  Also if Paul was considered a false teacher and promoter of shirk, then the Qur’an should have explicitly condemned him as a false teacher.

Does the Old Testament Plagiarize from the Ancient Near East?

Tags

, , , , ,

 

Recent trends in ANE (Ancient Near Eastern Studies) have argued that the Old Testament has plagiarized from ANE religions, thereby attacking the Bible’s inspiration and infallibility.

Dr. John Currid is an Old Testament Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary and OPC Pastor:

http://www.rts.edu/Seminary/Faculty/bio.aspx?id=448

He gives a useful overview of the relationship between Ancient Near Esatern Literature and the Old Testament in a Seminar entitled, Crass Plagiarism?  These lectures are available for free download on iTunes U:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/crass-plagiarism/id378879778?mt=10

Dr. Currid has also written a book that expands upon the content in the lectures called, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament:

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Polemical-Theology-Testament/dp/1433531836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457632401&sr=1-1&keywords=against+the+gods%2C+John+Currid

I recommend both resources for understanding a consistent reformed response to the relationship between the ANE and the Old Testament.  ANE doesn’t undermine the reliability of the Old Testament, it actually strengthens the polemic nature of the Old Testament in response to the surrounding worldviews at the time of the Old Testament. Thereby demonstrating the supremacy of the true Triune God of Scripture in contrast to the false polytheistic worldviews of the ANE.

Un Resumen y Una Respuesta Bíblica a la Sistema Dispensacionalista

Tags

, , ,

Está predicación da un resumen y una respuesta bíblica a la sistema de teología popular entre muchas iglesias que se llama el Dispensacionalismo.  Esta predicación se trata del Dispensacionalismo Clásico, pero también tiene aplicación al Dispensacionalismo Progresivo lo cual tiene algunos aspectos en común con la sistema clásica como la distinción entre Israel y la Iglesia.

An Introduction to the Islamic Worldview Part 4: The Reliability of the Old and New Testament According to the Islamic Worldview

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Outline:

  1. A Historical Overview of Views of the Old and New Testament by Muslim Apologists
  2. The Qur’an’s statements about the Old and new Testament
  3. The Reliability of the Qur’an

 

  1. A Historical Overview of Views of the Old and New Testament by Muslim Apologists

Before examining the Qur’an’s understanding of the previous revelation in the Old and New Testament a brief overview of the views of contemporary Muslim apologists will be given.  These statements are frequently stated or paraphrased when talking to Muslims about their worldview.  The best summary of the contemporary Muslim view of the Old and New Testament (that they are corrupted) is presented in the famous Muslim apologetic reference written as a refutation to Christian missionaries in India, Izhar Ul-Haq (Truth Revealed),

“From all that has preceded it is quite clear that we can claim without the fear of being wrong that the original Pentateuch [books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy] and the original Evangel [Gospel] have disappeared and become extinct from the world.  The books we have today which go by these names are no more than historical accounts containing both true and false accounts of past ages.  We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the original Evangel existed at the time of the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and that they were not changed until later.  As far as the Epistles of Paul are concerned, even if we grant that they were really written by him, they are still not acceptable to us because it is well-founded opinion that Paul was a traitor and a liar who introduced a completely new concept of Christianity, absolutely different from what Jesus himself preached” [1].

This viewpoint is reiterated by all contemporary Muslim apologetic references in response to Christianity.

“It is an extreme position, held only by some Christian groups that the Bible – in its entirety – cover to cover, is the revealed word of God in every word.  But they do a clever thing when they mention this, or make this claim.  They will say that the Bible, in its entirety, is the word of God; inerrant (no mistakes) in the original writings.  So, if you go to the Bible and point out some mistakes that are in it, you are going to be told:  Those mistakes were not there in the original manuscript, they have crept in, so that we see them today.  They are running into problems by taking that position.  There is a verse in the Bible, Isaiah 40:8 which, in fact, is so well known that some Bibles printed it on the inside front cover as an introduction, and it says, “The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of our God endures for evermore.”  Here is a claim, in the Bible, that the word of God will stand forever, it will not be corrupted, and it will not be lost.  So, if today you find a mistake in the Bible, you have two choices.  Either that promise was false; that when God said my word won’t fade away, he was mistaken; or that the portion which has the mistake in it, was not part of the word of God in the first place.  For the promise was that it would be safeguarded, it would not be corrupted” [2].

“The “gospel” is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus.  The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel “according” to (St.) Jesus himself!  We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God.  That was the Injeel, the good news and guidance of God for the Children of Israel.  In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.  What passes off as the “GOSPELS” today are the works of anonymous hands!” [3]

There is a crucial flaw in the views presented by contemporary Muslims apologists because this view of the corruption of the Old and New Testament was not widely held by early Muslim apologists.  It is a novel and recent view in Islam starting in the 19th century, prior to this shift the majority view of Muslims viewed the OT & NT as corrupted in its meaning (tahrif al mana) rather than the actual texts being corrupted (tahrif al-nas),

 

“In the mid-19th century, the Muslim accusation of tahrif al-nass took a kind of quantum leap through the controversy between Indian Muslim scholars and European Christian missionaries in the India of the British Raj…Mawlana Rahmat Alllah Kayranawi (“al-Hini,” 1818-91) is credited with moving the textual corruption accusation forward through a famous public debate and through a widely published book.  Interestingly, the most influential Indian theologian of the modern period, Shah Wali Allah (1703-62), had previously declared that he did not believe in the corruption of the text of the Torah…Rahmat Allah seized upon a strategic plan for publicly confounding European Christian missionaries…For the first time in the history of Muslim polemic, the Indian theologian used works of historical criticism written in Europe to support the claim that Christians themselves knew of the corruption of the Bible.  The substance of Rahmat Allah’s polemic in the debate…appeared in print…in the Arabic Izhar ul-haq…20th century Arabic authors did not add substantially to Rahmat Allah’s polemic” [4].

 

2. The Qur’an’s statements about the Old and New Testament

A major problem with the Muslim argument that the Bible is corrupted is that the Quran commands the People of the book (Ahl-al-Kitab) to judges by their scriptures, but how can they judge by their scriptures (Old and New Testament) if they are already corrupted?  There are two different types of corruption: corruption of meaning (tahrif al-mana) and corruption of the text (tahrif al-nas/al-lafz).  In light of the context of Surah 5:42-48, 65-68 and other Quranic texts which explicitly deny that the words of God can be corrupted (Surah 6:114-115, 18:27), and other Surat stating that the People of the Book have concealed the truth (Surah 3:69-72).  Corruption of meaning (tahrif al-mana) provides the most consistent explanation without making the Quran contradict itself since Surah 5:42-48, 65-68, would be a useless command to the people of the book (Jews and Christians) if the Torah and Injil [Gospel] were already corrupted (tahrif al-nas/al-lafz) by the time of Muhammad[5].  In the context of Surah 5:43-47, the Jews come to Muhammad who is ruling in Medina and ask him about how to judge over a dispute they are having and Muhammad tells them to judge by what God has given them in the Torah, and he addresses the Christians and tells them to judge by what God has revealed to them as well,

Surah 5:43-47 (Surat Al-Mā’idah) “[43] But how is it that they come to you for judgment while they have the Torah, in which is the judgment of Allah ? Then they turn away, [even] after that; but those are not [in fact] believers. [44] Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers. [45] And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.  [46] And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. [47] And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

The argument continues a few verses (ayat) later, Muhammad commands the Christians to test the Quran by what has come before it, the Old and New Testament,

Surah 5:65-68 (Surat Al-Mā’idah) , “[65]And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and feared Allah , We would have removed from them their misdeeds and admitted them to Gardens of Pleasure. [66] And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed [provision] from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them – evil is that which they do. [67] O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people. [68] Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.”

This provides the route by which we directly challenge a Muslims’ affirmation of the authority of the Quran as well as the incorrect view that the Trinity consists of Allah, Mary, and Jesus.  Muslims are using a double standard when they cite Bart Erhman or other skeptics to attack the reliability of the Bible, when the Quran commands Christians to judge by what God has revealed in the Bible.  The same is true of Muslims citing Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Barnabas or Thomas, the Gnostic view of God is not the God of the Quran, Gnostics view all matter as evil, which would make all of the prophets of God, including Muhammad evil.  Likewise we must be cautious that we don’t use secular sources to attack the Qur’an from a secular worldview, thereby abandoning our Christian worldview in the process.

 

3. The Reliability of the Qur’an

This section will provide a brief overview of the transmission of the Qur’an and focus on the important historical event in Islam known as the Uthmanic Revision[6].  This section will not cover various early manuscripts of the Qur’an attesting to alternate variations of Qur’anic verses, for an overview of those details read chapters 10 & 11 of What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an by James White.  This overview of the history of the Qur’an of how it was collected and written down is attested by the most reliable Hadeeth, Sahih Al-Bukhari vol. 6:509-10, which is the earliest record of how the Qur’an was collected.

After Muhammad’s death there was no written Qur’an; it had been memorized by some of his followers, and portions had been written, but no complete written form was yet recorded.

Sahih Al-Bukhari 5:104, “Narrated by ’Abdullah bin ’Amr: Allah’s Apostle neither talked in an insulting manner nor did he ever speak evil intentionally.  He used to say, “The most beloved to me amongst you is the one who has the best character and manners.”  He added, “Learn the Qur’an from (any of these) four persons. ’Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Ubai bin Ka’b, and Mu’adh bin Jabal”.

Problems however arose as a result of this form of transmission when many of those who had memorized the Qur’an died in battle and there was still no manuscript of the entire Qur’an written yet.

“Narrated by Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed.  (I went to him) and found ’Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him.  Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an (i.e., those who knew the Qur’an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost” [7].

Sahih Al-Bukhari clearly testifies to the fact that Muhammad had not collected and made an official version of the Qur’an,

“Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.”  I said to ’Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” ’Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project.” ’Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ’Umar had realized” [8].

The key event in the transmission of the Qur’an occurred about 18 years later in AD 650, when Uthman called for a revision to make a finalized and authoritative version of the Qur’an due to differences amongst Muslims and different versions of Qur’ans.

“So ’Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.”  Hafsa sent it to ’Uthman.  ’Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, ’Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ’Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.  ’Uthman said to the three Qurashi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid ibn Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue” [9].

James White summarizes the key issues behind the Uthmanic revision and how it affects the reliability of the Qur’an,

“With revision and a controlled transmission, one would expect a much “cleaner”, more unanimous text.  Combine governmental propagation with the Qur’an being shorter than the New Testament and undergoing around six hundred years less time in pre-modern transcription, and the results should be obvious: a very stable text with few textual variants.  And by and large, this is what we find with the Qur’an.  Muslims see this as a great advantage, even an example of divine inspiration and preservation.  In reality, just the opposite is the case.                                                                                                                               When a text has a major interruption in transmission-as with Uthman, his committee, and the effort to suppress competing versions-one’s certainty of being able to obtain the original text becomes limited to the materials that escape the revisionist pen.  For the Muslim, Uthman had to get it right, because if he was wrong, there is little hope for undoing his work.  Yes, we have evidence, as we will see below, of other text types, but not enough to have a sound basis, at least at this point in history, of re-creating a pre-Uthmanic text.  So if Uthman was at all biased, at all influenced by the debates and struggles of his times, the resulting text could be altered forever.  And how would anyone know?” [10]

 

Conclusion:

In Conclusion we have observed how the Qur’an views the Old and New Testament and the reliability of the Qur’an.  This is an essential issue since the Qur’an is an important source of authority in the Islamic worldview.  However we have observed that the Qur’an undermines its own authorities for 2 reasons.  First, the Quran commands Christians to judge the teachings of the Qur’an according to the Bible (which assumes it is a valid revelation from God and hasn’t been corrupted).  Second, the Uthmanic Revision undermined the reliability of the Qur’an which was revised by Utham with any competing versions of the Qur’an being burned.  These contrasts provide an important means for Christians to witness to Muslims since we are not stuck in a stale mate position of the Bible vs. the Qur’an being co-equal authorities due to these two facts.  The first observation provides a useful means to undercut any Muslim apologetic arguments about the Bible’s corruption and allows Christians to go directly to Scripture to demonstrate to Muslims man’s depravity and the true person and work of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.  Who is our only hope for eternal life, not our own merits.

[1] Maulana M. Rahmatullah Kairanvi, Izhar-Ul-Haq (Truth revealed): Distortion and Abrogation in the Bible and the Trinity Refuted Part 2, 2nd Edition (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Word of Knowledge for Publishing & Distribution, 1992), 30

[2] Hamza Mustafa Njozi, The Sources of the Qur’an: A Critical Review of the Authorship Theories 2nd edition (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: International Islamic Publishing House, 2005), 114-5

[3] Ahmed Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? (Chicago, IL: Kazi Publications, 1981), 5-6

[4] Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Quran (Leiden: Brill, 2011): 24-25; cited in James White’s book, What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an (Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House Publishers, 2013), 190

[5] For further discussion on this topic see chapter 8, Did the “People of the Book” Corrupt the Gospel? In James White’s book, What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an, 165-192

[6] This section is a summary of the content on pg. 254-263 of What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an.

[7] Cited by James White, What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an, 255

[8] Cited in Ibid, 256

[9] Cited in Ibid, 260

[10] Ibid, 262-3

Worldview Apologetics: Islam

Tags

, , , ,

This is the video I taught about a year ago for the Masters College Evangelism Society when I was President of the society before I graduated in May 2015.  This lesson gives an overview of Islam with video clips from Muslim scholars and Apologists which I respond to in order to provide a presuppositional approach for witnessing to Muslims.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers