I post so rarely anymore it almost seems inappropriate for me not to give some sort of explanation before offering some thoughts on anything other than my prolonged absence. (Though, I suppose ‘I’m engaged’ might work, what with wedding plans and marriage preparations…) Suffice it to say that I have missed my outlet here, and will steal away from time to time as I am able. Now, on to my thoughts.
I’ve had a few discussions lately about the nature of Christianity, and who its adherents are, and are not. By that, of course, I do not mean any particular persons, but instead particular ’systems’ of belief as defined by their sacred texts or official documents, positions, etc.
Islam. One such conversation dealt with whether or not Muslims worship the God of Abraham. I said ‘absolutely not,’ while my friend said ‘yes, of course they do.’ I agreed that they may say they worship the God of Abraham, but they in fact do not. My reasoning goes like this: there is content to the name, ‘The God of Abraham.’ It is not a word without meaning nor an empty container with no ‘filling.’ Words (and therefore, names,) are thought-containers, and Christians fill that thought-container with content revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Muslims, on the other hand, fill that thought-container with content described to them in their sacred text, the Qu’ran. Despite the identical thought-container, the thought-content is radically different. The God of Abraham, as understood by Christians, was, is, and shall forever be fundamentally Triune. He is the awesome One-in-Three, and Three-in-One. The ‘God of Abraham,’ as believed by Muslims, is not Triune. We believe in God the Father…God the Son, eternally begotten (yet not made) by God the Father, and in God the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is our content to the name, ‘The God of Abraham.’ Muslims decry this ‘content’, and proclaim (as is written around the inside of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,) “God does not beget, nor is he begotten!” That is their content to the name, ‘The God of Abraham.’ The God of Abraham is eternally Triune. Muslims worship a god who is most emphatically not Triune. Therefore, no matter what name they use, they do not worship the true God of Abraham. We find a similar situation in another religion getting much attention these days; Mormonism.
Mormonism. Another such conversation dealt with whether or not a Mormon is a Christian. (A better question would be, ‘Is Mormonism Christianity?’) Again, most assuredly, the answer is ‘no, they are not.’ They claim to worship ‘Jesus Christ,’ bu–again–their thought-container ‘Jesus Christ’ has much different, even contradictory, thought-content than does historic, orthodox Christianity. They fill their thought-container with things like ‘created being,’ ‘who appeared to the peoples of the Americas after his ascension,’ to name only a couple. Theirs is a polytheistic religion, whereas Christianity is a monotheistic religion; that is, we believe there is only one God, they believe there are many gods. These contradictory thought-contents for the thought-containers, ‘God’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ reveal that–again–no matter what name they use, they do not worship the true Jesus Christ. Thus, Mormonism isn’t Christianity.
Both of the above errors involve two mistakes: one is logical, the other theological. Logically, as I said above, using the same name does not mean we refer to the same person. Words (and therefore names) have content, and meaning. We do not mean by the name ‘The God of Abraham’ what Islam means by the same name, nor do we mean by the name ‘Jesus Christ’ what Mormonism means by the same name. We must compare the content behind the names, the realities behind the labels, not merely the names and labels used.
Theologically, both of these problems come from a flawed doctrine of God, and (therefore) a flawed doctrine of Christ. As stated above, God was, is, and shall forever be Triune [kudos to my fiancee for this point]. Though there is a three-ness to God, there is also a radical one-ness. The unity of God is such that one cannot worship the Father without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. The three persons are one God. Jesus teaches us that(1) ‘[He] and the Father are one. He who has seen [Christ], has seen the Father.’ Later in the epistles we are taught that ‘No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.’ Again, ‘Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.’ Once more, ‘Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.’ Because of God’s triune nature, there can be a distinction of persons. And, because of God’s unity, the three persons are radically one - that is, they are inseparable. My point here, particularly in the case of Islam, is simply this: one of the persons of the Trinity cannot be ‘broken off’ from the others and worshipped alone. God is indivisible. God is one.
A robust theology proper (doctrine of God), including a robust Christology (doctrine of Christ), will make defending Christianity against these two errors–and for going on the evangelistic offense in return–a much easier practice.
Just a thought.
gmail.com
11 responses so far ↓
1 Aron // Nov 21, 2007 at 1:42 pm
As an afterthought, and while we’re on the topic: like all names and words, scriptural texts have real content — real meaning. The phrases quoted above, despite diversionary tactics like charges of proof-texting, mean something. I trust that I’ve accurately presented what these phrases mean in their contexts–both historically and grammatically.
But, the bigger issue here is whether these words have real meaning for us. If we cannot find real meaning, real content–dare I say, real truth in the words of Scripture, where can we find it? Other written documents–other uninspired documents? Only the audible, spoken words of men? Or can we not really, truly, find authoritative truth anywhere–leaving us shut up to some kind of a leap of faith, an optimistic skepticism, hopes-without-certainty, best guesses, eternal gambles, etc.?
No–the absolute personal God has spoken truth to us clearly, in the words of Scripture. We can know truth because our Father has communicated it to us.
2 greg // Nov 25, 2007 at 10:51 pm
amen!
3 megan // Dec 10, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“We can know truth because our Father has communicated it to us.”
And we ONLY know it because of Him. To God be the all the glory and praise for opening our blind eyes.
4 Some call me....Tim // Dec 11, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Glad I came by the ‘ol Some Thoughts site to read this. I like what you wrote. And obviously true about the Trinity. Umm, however, this conversation was about the lineage, not theology. Same thing with the Jews. Your argument would boast that the Jews do not worship the God of Abraham as well.
Also, in your explanation you didn’t discuss the polemic problems you face using such an argument. A follower of Islam will not care what you quote from scripture.
You should post more, the engagement excuse isn’t acceptable.
5 Aron // Dec 13, 2007 at 1:49 am
Tim, good to see you back again (not that I’ve given you reason to come back, of course). Thanks for your kind words, too!
The conversation I had in mind is our recent, extended, email correspondence (subject: “Might be worth checking out”). I had alluded to statements such as the RCC’s claim that Muslims “together with [Christians]…adore the one, merciful God…” and a conversation ensued about whether Muslims and Christians truly do worship the same God, whom both peoples call “the God of Abraham.” Lineage came up a few emails in, but it did start with theology. Otherwise, it would have been a very short exchange: who could object that the “big three” faiths share a common ancestor? (”I agree that Christians and Muslims [and Jews] share Abraham, but we do not share Abraham’s God.” I also agreed that having Abraham in common could be a decent entry point for evangelistic conversations.) We had ‘agreed to disagree’ about the theology…until now, I suppose? [grin]
Regarding the obstacle that a follower of Islam won’t care what I quote from Scripture…well, no non-believer will care what I quote from Scripture, but that in no way nullifies evangelism. Evangelism is kept alive by unbelief, not defeated by it. So we can’t simply say nothing, right? We may need to do some prep-work and strategizing first about where to start the “evangelistic offensive” (Schaeffer suggests dismantling their worldview on its own terms) but we must eventually come to Scriptural truth. And Scripture can eventually “work” because God made all men and knows how to communicate to them effectively. We may or may not quote Scripture directly, but if the content of our conversation doesn’t eventually have Scripture as its source and Christ as its goal, then it simply isn’t evangelism.
But before we even have these conversations, we must know what the truth is—and that we can know it with certainty. Scripture may not be where we start our conversation, but it must be where we start our thinking. We must be clear at the outset that Muslims and Christians do not worship the “same merciful Creator” and that Mormons are not Christians, or we’ll fall prey to the same pluralistic agnostic wanderings that our culture has. We don’t need to shrug these questions (and their souls) off, and resign them to the last day when “God will judge.” He has already given us the verdict. The absolute and personal God has entered history and spoken to his creation in a language we can understand so that we may know his truth—truly—and then share it. “He is Not Silent,” and we shouldn’t be either: for if evangelism is our desire, then “…faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
Anyway, this post is (and my emails were) really about this starting point in our thinking: whether Muslims or Mormons truly worship the same God that Christians do. But I would certainly love to learn how to dismantle Islamic philosophy “on its own terms” as Schaeffer would say.
6 Some call me....Tim // Dec 19, 2007 at 9:38 am
If you figure that out, you will make millions as a world renowned speaker and author. Six or seven thousand years of tribal thinking makes me assume they are too stubborn to allow it. (dismantling Islamic philosophy “on its own terms) However, when these discussions come up re three of the big religions, I would just want to caution people to remain patient. After reading your last comment, I think you understand the point I was trying to make re scripture and Quran logic, or dare I say text proofing.
It would be fun to be able to once again discuss these things as we once did over a DD coffee at 3am after a One Life entmoot. I think the conversations would be even better now.
7 Aron // Dec 19, 2007 at 9:57 pm
The challenge of defeating Islam “on its own terms” is a tough one because there is so much similarity in their philosophy. They too are theistic; they, too, view their “holy Koran” as inspired and inerrant (of sorts); their ultimate presuppositions are based on Allah speaking truth to man in words he can understand clearly. They too believe their “Creator” deserves the worship of all men everywhere. They too believe in a theocracy (as we Christians look for the Kingdom to come geographically–which is a divine theocracy). In fact, their aspirations for total theocratic domination of the planet are nearly identical to Israel’s “jihadic” aspirations for all of Canaan under Joshua. As I’ve said before, if Allah were truly God, if this world was truly his temple, and if there was no “buffer age” before his kingdom was to be established geographically on this earth, then the Islamic Jihad would be the only faithful response: “drive the infidels from the temple of Allah!” The challenge here is great.
And, couching a philosophical attack in the rationalism-irrationalism see-saw that most other worldviews rest on wouldn’t work either. They too would reject subjectivism and relativism (which are nihilism applied). They would also reject the idea of intellectual and/or moral autonomy.
I don’t know, Tim…it seems that all that is left is a bold tete-a-tete (or, “text-a-text”?) with Koran vs. Scripture. The issue would have to be the claims of Christ in Scripture; and specifically his word-vindicating death and resurrection. All that said, I guess that–far from being the last resort–as regards evangelism, the claims of Christ in Scripture may indeed be our only resort…
…thoughts?
And I couldn’t agree more about the 3am DD. One day, pal…Chicago beckons.
8 Some call me....Tim // Dec 20, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Yes, the advantage to Christians and Christ in Scripture is tantamount.
9 Aron // Dec 20, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Could you help me understand what that means?
10 greg // Jan 3, 2008 at 11:48 am
This might be helpful, I thought it was:
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=CCNT1460
You might know this guy better than I do, this is really the first time I ever saw or heard anything about him, but apparently he is not unknown.
(The guy speaking, not the website owner)
I thought this was powerful and enlightening on how we ought to approach Muslim evangelism.
11 Aron // Jan 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Thanks, Greg — he hits the nail right on the head (a la C. S. Lewis). Great points about the similarities between Mormonism and Islam, too! I never saw that before. (And I’d never heard of Ergun Caner before this.)
His swagger was a bit much, but I have to say it: that is evangelism; that is the only faithful “inter-religious dialogue” to be had between Christians and Muslims: the claims of Christ in Scripture. The “way in” to that conversation which he provided (i.e., why was ~someone~ crucified? …for what indictment?) was very helpful in focusing the ultimate claim of Christ in Scripture: Deity.
Thanks again!
Leave a Comment