Leçon 12: le mormonisme

Jusqu'à présent, nous avons regardé plusieurs mouvements et les philosophies qui sont très hostiles à l'endroit le christianisme biblique. Malheureusement, certains mouvements existent qui prétendent être chrétiens, mais sont vraiment anti-chrétienne. Ces groupes sont souvent appelés «sectes». L'un des plus brillants et influents des cultes pseudo-chrétiens est le mormonisme.

Contexte historique: Joseph Smith, le père du mormonisme, est né en 1805 dans le Vermont. En 1820, Smith aurait reçu une merveilleuse vision dans laquelle Dieu le Père et Dieu le Fils lui apparut et lui a annoncé que le rétablissement du vrai christianisme était nécessaire, et que Smith avait été choisi comme chef de file de cette nouvelle dispensation. Il a été dit que toutes les autres églises ont eu tort et que leurs credo étaient une abomination. Quelques années plus tard, l'ange Moroni prétendument révélé que des plaques d'or avait été enterré dans le quartier de Smith près de Palmyra, New York, de retour en l'an 421. Smith aurait trouvé des plaques en utilisant des pierres "peep", roches magiques qu'il a mis dans un chapeau. Les caractères sur les plaques ont été soi-disant écrit dans «égyptien réformé» hiéroglyphes. Smith a affirmé qu'il traduit les plaques à l'aide de «Urim et Thummim," un ensemble de verres miraculeuses. Les plaques d'or prétendument disparu peu de temps après. Ce livre a été publié en 1830, et est connu comme le Livre de Mormon.

L'Eglise de Jésus-Christ des Saints des Derniers Jours (LDS) a été organisée en 1830 avec six membres. Le groupe s'est déplacé dans l'Ohio, puis le Missouri, l'Illinois, puis, où ils fondèrent la ville de Nauvoo. En 1844, Smith a été emprisonné après avoir ordonné à ses disciples de brûler la presse journal local. Une foule fait irruption dans la prison et l'a tué. Ensuite, l'église a éclaté en plusieurs factions, dont la plus grande suivie Brigham Young, qui a dirigé les Mormons sur le trek de l'Utah, qui était alors le territoire mexicain. Ils se sont installés à Salt Lake City, le siège actuel de l'Église de Jésus-Christ des Saints des Derniers Jours. Les bâtiments du temple et de nombreux administratives sont là. Toute cette région du pays est fortement Mormon.

Le Livre de Mormon: Le Livre de Mormon contient l'histoire de deux migrations vers l'Amérique, l'un en 2250 avant J.-C. et l'autre en 600 avant JC Le premier groupe a voyagé de la tour de Babel à l'Amérique centrale, mais plus tard, tous péri. Le deuxième groupe, y compris Lehi (un prophète juif) et de sa famille, ont migré vers l'Amérique du Sud et a prospéré. Néphi et Laman, étaient deux des fils de Léhi. Parce que les Lamanites sont rebellés contre Dieu, ils ont été maudits à la peau foncée. Ce sont les ancêtres des Indiens d'Amérique. Les Néphites obéi à Dieu. Les Lamanites tué tous les Néphites, à l'exception Moroni, en l'an 421. Père de Moroni, Mormon, était l'auteur des plaques d'or.

Mormons prétendent que le Livre de Mormon est «un autre témoin" aux vérités de l'Évangile chrétien. Après enquête, on trouvera que le Livre de Mormon est un grand mythe. C'est plein de plagiat, les anachronismes et les fausses prophéties. Tous les éléments de preuve à la conclusion inévitable que le Livre de Mormon est vraiment un morceau du XIXe siècle de fiction. Peu importe ce que c'est, il ne peut pas être la révélation divine.

Smith a également écrit deux autres livres, La Perle de Grand Prix et les doctrines et les Pactes. Les principaux points de la doctrine mormone enseigne dans ces livres sont pas, ou est contredite par, à la fois la Bible et le Livre de Mormon. En outre, depuis mormons croient en la révélation continue, de nouveaux livres approuvés par le Président ne peut être publié par ou pour l'église et être considéré comme faisant autorité.

Les Mormons, non seulement la prétention d'être chrétiens, mais pour être les seuls vrais chrétiens. Selon eux, l'Église chrétienne primitive a traversé une apostasie, a perdu le véritable enseignement de Dieu, et est construit sur une Bible qui, disent-ils, est traduit de manière incorrecte et manquant de nombreux livres. Fait intéressant, alors président de l'église LDS Gordon Hinckley a assuré à la presse que'' [t] il du Nouveau Testament est une écriture fondamental pour nous,'' at-il manqué de souligner les Mormons "préjugés contre la Bible. L'article 8 des statuts de la foi mormone dit, "Nous croyons que la Bible est la Parole de Dieu dans la mesure où il a été traduit correctement." Cette approche permet d'ignorer les Mormons clés passages de la Bible qui réfutent les doctrines mormones. Versets de la Bible utilisés pour contrer les enseignements mormons sont brossé en faveur des passages du Livre de Mormon et d'autres écritures Mormon (ainsi que la révélation continue et qui peut changer précédente LDS Eglise enseignements).

L'Église mormone a publié sa propre version de la Bible King James, incorporant les notes de Joseph Smith "version inspirée" de la Bible. Cette version modifie et corrige soi-disant le texte King James. Toutefois, en dépit de leurs efforts à du révisionnisme, les mormons n'ont pas été en mesure de soutenir leurs revendications quant à l'authenticité du Livre de Mormon. Histoire et archéologie réfuter les allégations concernant les mormons de la Bible et le cours de la chrétienté. Loin de nous montrer que l'on appelle «restauré la vérité," le Livre de Mormon est rempli d'anachronismes, et les noms des villes et des pièces qui n'ont jamais été trouvés à avoir existé.

Particularités pratiques mormons: le baptême pour les morts; des sous-vêtements sainte; la polygamie (Smith avait environ 50 femmes; Young avait 27); mariage éternel, la capacité de l'homme à devenir des dieux; la Trinité comme trois dieux séparés; déesses-mères (mères célestes); mariage au temple comme une exigence pour l'exaltation de recevoir la vie éternelle, et le salut dans le monde des esprits après la mort. Ils décrivent un mode de vie propre-vie, la famille d'orientation, et la politique conservatrice. Ils s'abstiennent de boissons caféinées. Beaucoup collège-âge Mormons aller sur un deux années de prosélytisme «mission».

Organisation: L'Église mormone est dirigée par ses Autorités générales. Au sommet se trouve la Première Présidence assistée par un avocat de douze «apôtres», le premier collège des soixante-dix des groupes, et d'autres administratives. Le mormonisme reconnaît deux sacerdoces, le Aaron (moins) et celui de Melchisédek (plus élevé). Tout mâle Mormon de 12 ans et plus appartenant à l'un des sacerdoces. Eglise d'administration est divisé en territoires constitués de «pupilles» et «enjeux». Chaque quartier est présidée par un évêque et deux conseillers. L'Église mormone est un très grand, bien organisé, l'organisation riches. Ils vont généralement dans une communauté, construire un très bel immeuble, et démarrer les services. Congrégations mormones sont souvent composées d'anciens membres des églises protestantes.

Mormon Doctrine Faux: Les Mormons veulent vous faire croire qu'ils sont très semblables à la canalisation principale les groupes chrétiens. Ils vont utiliser des mots familiers et vous assurer qu'ils sont chrétiens. Toutefois, le mormonisme a peu en commun avec le christianisme authentique. Il s'agit d'une secte dangereuse qui mène des millions de personnes sur le chemin de l'enfer.

1. Il ya beaucoup de dieux. Les dieux ont nommé un être Dieu sur la terre. Il a un corps physique. Un dicton populaire Mormon est «Comme l'homme est, Dieu était une fois. Comme Dieu est, l'homme peut devenir. "Le dieu de la terre progressivement atteint la divinité en vivant une vie parfaitement juste. Chaque dieu a un père et un grand-père, etc

2. Jésus est le premier de beaucoup d'enfants de Dieu. Jésus est le fils physique de Dieu. Il est également le frère esprit de Lucifer. Il n'ya rien dans la vie de Jésus plus que ce qui est réalisable par quelqu'un d'autre.

3. Avant la naissance physique, tout le monde avait une existence dans le ciel comme un esprit-enfant. Chaque esprit est alors né physiquement dans une famille sur la terre et est empêché de se souvenir de leur ancienne existence.

4. Le salut est par la foi et des œuvres. Général le salut est offert à tous les hommes par le Christ par la grâce seule si elles croient en Dieu ou non, et comprend la résurrection. Le salut individuel pour recevoir la vie éternelle n'est atteint que par la foi, avec des œuvres.

5. Tout le monde sera ressuscité et passer l'éternité dans l'un des trois royaumes ou cieux, la Céleste (plus-que pour les Mormons dévote), le (terrestre (moyenne pour les non-chrétiens Mormon et «bon» les gens en général), ou le Téleste pour des gens malhonnêtes et immoraux). Ils croient qu'il ya un enfer réservé à Satan et les «fils de perdition», c'est à dire ceux qui ont commis le péché impardonnable (principalement identifiés comme ceux qui quittent l'Église mormone). Mormons dévote peut progresser à devenir des dieux eux-mêmes et régner sur la planète et remplir un peu comme notre Père céleste ne sur la terre.

Réfutation de Mormon Doctrine: Ces idées sont si manifestement contraire à la Bible qu'ils sont facilement réfutés.

1. Il n'y a qu'un seul Dieu, pas beaucoup (Isa 43:10-11, 45:21-22).

2. Dieu est un Esprit éternel (Jean 4:24). Il n'a jamais été un homme et ne change pas.

3. Jésus est l'éternel, pas le physique, le Fils de Dieu (Col 1:15-18). Il n'est pas le frère esprit de Lucifer, mais plutôt l'a créé.

4. L'homme n'a pas d'existence avant la conception.

5. Le salut est par la grâce par la foi, non par les œuvres (Ep 2:8-9).

6. Ceux qui ont confiance dans le Christ pour le salut va passer l'éternité avec Dieu dans le ciel. Ceux qui rejettent l'Evangile aux tourments éternels de l'enfer (Matt 25:46; Ap 20:15). Il n'ya qu'un seul ciel, non pas trois.

Conclusion: La force de l'église mormone est dans l'engagement de ses adhérents, dans l'image positive projetée par ses dévoués missionnaires jeunes et dans la vie de famille saine affichée par la communauté mormone. Toutefois, les personnes qui prennent la Bible comme leur seule autorité en matière de foi et la pratique peut aisément conclure que le mormonisme est une secte dangereuse qui contredit le véritable christianisme de bien des façons importantes.

Discussion:

1. Qui était le fondateur du mormonisme? Joseph Smith

2. Qui a conduit les Mormons de l'Utah? Brigham Young

3. Quel est le livre qui détaille les conditions de vie des Néphites et les Lamanites? Le livre de Mormon

4. Ce qui rend le mormonisme attractif? La famille d'orientation, la politique conservatrice, de bonne administration, dans l'ensemble bonne réputation, les beaux bâtiments, des activités ludiques, etc

5. Quelle distance se trouve le mormonisme à une véritable christianisme? Pas trop près. Il contredit la doctrine chrétienne historique sur la plupart des points. Le mormonisme est hostile au christianisme.

Le texte du Nouveau Testament fiable?

La personne moyenne dans le banc n'a probablement pas passer de temps à réfléchir aux textes qui sous-tendent la Bible dans ses mains. Il peut avoir aucune idée de quels événements historiques a conduit à la publication de sa traduction. Il sait seulement que sa Bible est fiable et faisant autorité, et pour la plupart des gens, cela suffit. Les détracteurs de la demande Bible que la Bible est défectueux et peu fiables. Ils peuvent charger que sans formation, des scribes négligents insérée ou supprimée de certaines sections du texte dans la mesure où nous ne pouvons plus être certain de ce que les écrits originaux dit. Si cela était vrai, ce serait certainement un défi important pour la foi chrétienne. Toutefois, un examen attentif des faits révèle que le texte du Nouveau Testament (NT) est fiable.

1. Les faits historiques concernant le texte de la NT

   1. La plupart des gens reconnaissent que la Bible qu'ils utilisent ne sont pas tombés tout droit sorti du ciel dans la même forme que nous l'avons aujourd'hui. Un processus historique est responsable de nous donner la Bible dans sa forme actuelle. La Bible n'a pas été écrit à l'origine dans les langues modernes comme l'anglais, l'allemand ou l'espagnol. Bibles dans ces langues sont des traductions des langues d'origine. Nos Bibles modernes sont le résultat d'une longue tradition de préservation et de propagation.

   2. Le NT a été initialement écrit en langue grecque. ¹ Alexandre le Grand et de ses héritiers avec succès hellénisé les terres saintes de telle sorte que par le moment où le NT a été écrit, le grec était couramment parlées dans cette région. Les érudits bibliques habitude de penser que le dialecte grec du NT était une sorte de spécial, «céleste» langue, mais les découvertes archéologiques ont prouvé que le grec du Nouveau Testament est la langue commune du marché,. Pratiquement toute personne instruite vivant dans l'Empire romain à cette époque pouvaient parler ou au moins comprendre les deux langues grecque et latine, et probablement d'autres aussi.

   3. Une fois que les auteurs du NT ont écrit leurs œuvres, des copies de ces livres a lentement commencé filtrage à travers l'Empire romain et a finalement trouvé leur chemin dans le monde entier. Comment est-ce arrivé? Rappelez-vous que la presse n'a pas été inventé jusqu'à ce que le 1400, donc toute copie faite avant qui a été fait à la main. Une copie manuscrite de la NT est appelé un «manuscrit» (MS).

   4. Comme vous pouvez l'imaginer, que les églises ont commencé à proliférer, ils voulaient tous des copies du Nouveau Testament pour eux-mêmes. Éventuellement, tous les livres autorisés NT ont été assemblés en un seul travail. Le procès de canonisation est responsable de nous donner la Bible dans la forme que nous avons aujourd'hui. Le mot "canon", une liste autorisée, et le processus par lequel les divers livres ont été ajoutés au canon est appelé "canonisation". Il a fallu un certain temps pour l'église primitive de reconnaître et d'affirmer tous les livres du Nouveau Testament.

   5. Les quatre Evangiles, les Actes, les épîtres de Paul treize, la première épître de Jean, et la première épître de Pierre, ont été universellement reconnus comme canoniques par 175 AD, tandis que l'Épître aux Hébreux, les deuxième et troisième épîtres de Jean, le seconde épître de Pierre, l'Epître de Jacques, et l'épître de Jude étaient contestée par beaucoup quant à leur origine apostolique, et le livre de l'Apocalypse a été mis en doute en raison de son contenu. Mais en 367 AD Athanase a écrit une lettre largement diffusée contenant la liste exacte des livres NT vingt-sept que nous avons aujourd'hui. Les églises dans la partie orientale du monde méditerranéen a accepté cette liste de livres à cette époque. Trente ans plus tard, le troisième concile de Carthage (397 AD), qui représentait la partie occidentale du monde méditerranéen, a reconnu la même liste de livres comme inspirés et faisant autorité. ²

   6. Parce que toutes les copies fait avant l'invention de l'imprimerie a été fait à la main, les différences (ou des variantes) est venu dans le MSS assez tôt. La seule MSS exempt d'erreurs étaient les originaux, les «autographes». Une fois le processus de copie main a commencé, de légères erreurs ont été introduites dans le texte. En fait, il n'y a pas deux copies qui sont exactement les mêmes dans les moindres détails. Comme vous pouvez l'imaginer, il serait pratiquement impossible de la main-copie d'un livre de la Bible, et encore moins l'ensemble NT, sans faire quelques erreurs. La plupart des ces erreurs étaient de petite taille et de peu de conséquence. Des exemples de variations typiques que les erreurs des copistes introduites dans le texte:

      1. L'orthographe et l'ordre des mots

      2. En substituant les mots synonymes

      3. Le décrochage mots

      4. L'ajout de mots

      5. La transposition de répéter des mots ou

   7. Comment peut-on aller sur la correction de ces erreurs? Le plus simple est de comparer plusieurs exemplaires. La lecture qui se reflète dans la majorité des MSS, ou celui qui vient de la copie la plus haute qualité, est probablement la bonne. Il est peu probable que les scribes différents à différents endroits et à différents moments serait commettre la même erreur au même endroit. Donc, en comparant les valeurs, nous pouvons généralement trouver celle qui était d'origine, ou du moins la règle à ceux qui sont probablement erronés. Le processus de tri à travers les différentes lectures et de choisir celle qui est d'origine la plus probable est appelé la critique textuelle.

   8. Aujourd'hui, plus de 5600 manuscrits grecs existent. La plupart d'entre eux sont des fragments de la NT, certains pas plus grand qu'une carte de crédit. Autre MSS comprennent l'ensemble de la NT. La plus ancienne MSS sont écrits sur du papyrus et vélin (peaux d'animaux). Papyrus est un matériau assez fragile, et peu de MSS écrit à ce sujet ont survécu jusqu'à aujourd'hui. Vélin, d'autre part, est un matériau relativement robuste, et la plupart MSS disponibles aujourd'hui ont été écrites à ce sujet.

   9. Le plus ancien manuscrit grec connu, une petite portion de l'Evangile de Jean, est daté à environ AD 125, seulement quelques décennies après l'original a été écrit. ³ En 1994, un chercheur a trouvé un fragment de papyrus de Matthieu, qui peut être daté plus tôt AD 70. La plupart des manuscrits de la date Bible du troisième siècle.

   10. Les chercheurs ont examiné la plupart des MSS disponibles et les ont divisés en différentes «familles» ou des types de textes. ⁴

       1. Le texte traditionnel, également connu sous le nom de la majorité ou byzantine texte d'une famille de textes qui ont été utilisées couramment jusqu'à fin des années 1800. La majorité des MSS existantes, environ 90%, s'inscrivent dans cette famille, mais peu de preuves de ce type de texte existe avant le IVe siècle après JC. Le soi-disant "Textus Receptus" (TR) s'inscrit dans cette catégorie. La plupart des versions anglaises de la Bible, y compris la version King James, étaient basées sur cette famille de textes jusqu'à fin des années 1800. De nombreux étudiants de la Bible prétendent encore que cette famille de textes reflète le plus étroitement les lectures originales de la NT grec.

       2. Le texte critique, également connu sous le nom de texte alexandrin les plus anciennes représentations de la NT grec (la preuve la plus papyrus) viennent de cette famille. Les lectures de cette famille ont tendance à être plus courts et plus rugueuse, ce qui suggère qu'il ne passe pas par un processus de lissage et d'édition par des scribes. La plupart des érudits bibliques croient que cette famille de textes conserve les lectures les plus proches des originaux.

       3. Le texte-Ouest cette famille de textes contient des lectures légèrement différents de ceux trouvés dans les deux autres types. Lectures occidentales ont tendance à être plus longue et quelque peu inhabituel par rapport aux autres familles. Il n'y a pas de traductions en anglais qui suivent la tradition occidentale.

Remarque: Le fait qu'un certain MSS est classé dans une certaine famille de textes ne signifie pas que tous les MSS de cette famille sont d'accord de manière uniforme. Variantes existent dans les textes de la même famille, mais le MSS dans une famille d'accord dans une large mesure. Les différences au sein des familles sont beaucoup moins que ceux entre les familles. Rappelez-vous qu'aucune MSS deux d'accord dans les moindres détails.

Une autre note: les érudits bibliques continuent de débattre de quelle famille de manuscrits grecs est le plus autorité, fiable, et plus proche des originaux. Certains prétendent que des textes plus anciens doivent être plus proches des originaux, tandis que d'autres soutiennent que la majorité des MSS reflètent probablement les lectures originales meilleur. Comme vous pouvez le deviner, il s'agit d'un domaine très technique et détaillé de l'enquête. Ceux non formés dans les langues bibliques et dans l'histoire des textes et la critique textuelle serait sage de tenir leurs opinions à titre provisoire.

Une troisième note: Comment les familles ci-dessus se développer? Comme le christianisme élargi et développé, des copies du Nouveau Testament ont été effectuées tout au long de l'Empire romain. Dans les endroits où l'église était fort et bien organisé, un type particulier de texte a prévalu et est devenu standardisé. Par exemple, en Egypte la famille alexandrine de textes dominés, et autour de Constantinople (l'actuelle Istanbul, Turquie), la famille byzantine est devenu le «reçu» le texte. Ces deux villes figurent scriptoria, dans lequel le NT a été copié et diffusé, de sorte que les "officiels" ont été relevés le plus largement publié. Finalement, la langue latine remplacé grecque dans la partie occidentale de l'Empire, tandis que le grec était la langue commune dans l'Est. Scribes occidentaux ont commencé la copie de la Bible en latin la plupart du temps (d'environ AD 250), tandis que les scribes de l'Est a continué de faire des copies en grec, ce qui explique pourquoi ce type de texte est maintenant la «majorité» des textes grecs. La plupart des chercheurs pensent que les éditeurs et les scribes "polis" ou aplani les lectures du type texte byzantin au cours des siècles. Ce processus n'a pas eu lieu dans l'ouest parce qu'ils ont cessé d'utiliser le grec là-bas.

11. Compte tenu de tous les faits ci-dessus, certains pourraient remettre en question la fiabilité du texte de la NT est. Après tout, nous admettons que la copie main insérée de nombreuses variantes dans le texte, et nous admettons que au moins trois familles de texte existe, et chacun de ces familles à soutenir des lectures différentes. Cela pourrait suggérer à certains que nous ne sommes pas sûr de ce que le NT dit vraiment. Alors, le NT fiables?

Ce n'est pas une question dont la traduction en anglais est le plus fiable, mais de savoir si les documents originaux de la NT, écrit en grec, nous ont été transmises essentiellement dans un fiable, sans être corrompus. C'est, peut-on récupérer les lectures originales de la mise à disposition du SMS? Bien que sceptiques, critiques et libéraux sans doute serait-il le nier, la plupart des savants conservateurs croient que nous pouvons distiller les lectures originales de la mise à disposition du SMS dans une forme essentiellement non corrompue.

2. Faits à l'appui de la fiabilité du NT

   1. Inspiration et garantie la préservation que le contenu original du Nouveau Testament est disponible dans la preuve manuscrite.

      1. Variantes dans le texte ne fait pas obstacle à l'inspiration ou la conservation. Rappelez-vous que l'inspiration ne s'applique qu'aux processus original dans lequel Dieu «insuffla à« Sa parole. Inspiration a eu lieu en plume de l'auteur a frappé le papier. Si nous avions accès aux originaux, nous trouverions qu'ils soient exempts d'erreurs (infaillible). Malheureusement, les originaux presque certainement n'existent plus. Tout ce que nous avons sont des copies, mais au sein de ces copies le libellé des originaux existe toujours.

      2. Inspiration ne pas techniquement applicables à la copie ou la traduction ultérieure de la Bible. Dieu a promis de préserver sa parole (Psaume 119:152, 160; Esaïe 40:8; Matthieu 5:18, 24:35; Jean 10:35), mais cette conservation a été réalisée providentiellement, pas miraculeusement. Normal moyens humains de la copie a conservé les documents tels que nous les connaissons aujourd'hui. Dieu ne fait aucun doute aurait pu miraculeusement préservé sa parole dans un emplacement particulier dans un état sans erreur, mais il a choisi de ne pas. Basé sur la promesse de Dieu pour préserver Sa Parole, nous avons confiance qu'il n'a pas été essentiellement perdues ou corrompues. ⁵

      3. Nous ne croyons pas que tout texte un particulier ou même famille de textes préserve parfaitement les lectures originales de la NT. En fait, la Bible ne dit rien sur les moyens de sa propre conservation ou l'emplacement de sa préservation. Il n'existe aucune preuve biblique que la Bible doit être conservé sans erreur dans un MS particulier ou une famille de MSS. Ceux qui croient ces choses-là n'ont aucun fondement biblique pour une telle opinion.

      4. La présence de variantes et les imperfections ne signifie pas que le texte n'est pas fiable ou moins de l'Écriture. Comme les traducteurs King James Version clairement indiqué dans la préface de leur travail, une traduction peut à juste titre être appelée la Parole de Dieu, même si elle peut contenir certains "les imperfections et les défauts." Tout comme le discours du roi dont il prononce devant le Parlement est toujours le le discours du roi, même si elle peut être mal traduit en français, néerlandais, italien et en latin, de même aussi dans le cas de la traduction de la Parole de Dieu. Traductions ne sera jamais infaillible, car ils ne sont pas comme les manuscrits originaux, qui ont été produites par les apôtres et leurs associés sous l'influence de l'inspiration. Cependant, même une traduction imparfaite, comme la Septante peut certainement être appelé la Parole de Dieu depuis qu'il a été approuvé et utilisé par les apôtres eux-mêmes. "Nous affirmons et avouer que le dernier des très [c.-à-qualité la plus basse] Traduction de la Bible en anglais mis en avant par les hommes de notre profession. . . containeth la parole de Dieu, dis-je, est la parole de Dieu. " ⁶

"L'Ancien Testament en hébreu,. . . et le Nouveau Testament en grec. . . étant immédiatement inspiré par Dieu, et par ses soins singulier et Providence gardé pur dans tous les âges, sont donc authentique, de sorte que dans toutes les controverses de la religion de l'Église est finalement de faire appel à eux "- Baptiste de Londres Confession (1677).

2. De nombreux manuscrits apporter un soutien pour le texte.

   1. Comme mentionné ci-dessus, plus de 5.600 séparée MSS existent soutenir le texte du NT. Et certains de ces manuscrits ont été copiés seulement quelques décennies après les originaux ont été écrits. Cette situation est unique à la NT, aucun autre document ne peut prétendre ancienne le même niveau de soutien. La plupart des ouvrages existants à partir de cette période de l'histoire ont seulement une poignée de documents qui les soutiennent, et nombre d'entre eux ne sont plus âgés que les moyen-âge. Le NT ne manque pas de justifications.

   2. Où pouvons-nous trouver l'original, le texte parfait du NT? Nous ne pouvons affirmer qu'il existe au sein de la disposition MSS. Le choix de la lecture la plus probable est le domaine de la textuelle (ou «faible») critique. Les érudits bibliques examiner et d'évaluer les mesures disponibles et de choisir celui qu'ils pensent être les plus susceptibles d'être original. Si elles ne sont pas sûrs, ils insèrent souvent une note marginale qui suggère que la lecture variante peut-être raison. L'original King James Bible avait des centaines de notes marginales et de nombreuses lectures en option. Parce que des variantes importantes affectent un pourcentage tellement faible du texte, nous pouvons avoir une grande confiance que les lectures dans nos versions transmettre fidèlement les paroles originales. Lorsque la lecture est douteuse, une note marginale peut conserver l'original.

3. La plupart des variantes sont mineures et touchent de sens que peu ou pas du tout. ⁷

   1. Comme il est indiqué ci-dessus, la plupart des différences entre les textes grecs sont des questions mineures d'orthographe, de l'ordre des mots, le choix des mots, et de petits ajouts ou suppressions. La plupart d'entre eux ne modifient pas le sens du passage que ce soit. Si l'on regarde l'ensemble de la NT, les variations significatives affectent environ 2% seulement du texte. Le petit livre de Jude NT contient environ 450 mots. Environ 6% des mots de Jude sont touchés par des variantes, et la plupart d'entre elles sont mineures. Un couple de variantes mineures:

      1. Dans le verset 3, un texte se lit comme suit «le salut commun» tandis qu'un autre a "de notre salut commun."

      2. Au verset 12, une famille de textes ont "réalisé sur les" tout en un texte différent a «emporté».

      3. Au verset 23, un texte se déplace «avec crainte" à la fin du verset.

      4. Dans le verset 25, un texte se lit comme suit «la gloire et la majesté", tandis qu'un autre lit "la gloire, la majesté."

Aucune de ces variantes changer le sens du texte de manière significative. Comme la plupart des variantes, ils sont très mineures.

2. Certaines des variantes sont plus importants et pourrait changer le sens d'un passage un peu. Plus d'exemples de Jude:

   1. Dans le verset 1, une lecture a "sanctifié", tandis qu'un autre texte a «bien-aimé."

   2. Au verset 22, une lecture est «faire une différence», tandis que l'autre est "qui doutent."

   3. Au verset 23, une lecture a "sur certains aie pitié", tandis qu'un autre ne contient pas ces mots à tous.

   4. Dans le verset 25, une lecture a "le seul Dieu sage", tandis qu'un autre a "le seul Dieu."

Vous pouvez voir dans des cas comme ceux-ci il ya une différence de sens en fonction de ce que la lecture est choisi. Mais encore une fois, ces variantes ne font pas une différence substantielle dans la compréhension du passage, ni n'affectent l'enseignement général de la Bible.

4. Dans quelques cas, des lectures variant faire une différence significative dans le sens d'un texte.

   1. Des exemples de variantes significatives: Dans Jean 1:18, certains textes ont "fils unique" tandis que d'autres ont «seul Dieu engendré." Dans Matthieu 6:13, toute la phrase "Pour toi est le royaume, et le pouvoir, et le la gloire, pour toujours. Amen "ne se trouve pas dans certains manuscrits. Dans 1 Jean 5:13, l'expression répétée »et que vous croyiez sur le nom du Fils de Dieu» ne se trouve pas dans certains manuscrits. Actes 8:37 dit: «Et Philippe dit: Si tu crois de tout ton cœur, cela t'est permis. Et il répondit, et dit, je crois que Jésus Christ est le Fils de Dieu. "Ces mots ne sont pas disponibles à tous en quelque manuscrits grecs.

   2. Des exemples des variantes les plus importantes: Les variantes les plus conséquents dans le NT se trouvent dans John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, et 1 Jean 5:7-8. Chacun de ces textes est contesté parce qu'ils se trouvent dans certains MSS et pas dans d'autres. Divers arguments peuvent être faites soit soutenir ou de contester leur inclusion dans le canon. Que nous les retenir dans le texte ou les supprimer du texte, il ne change pas radicalement le message du NT. Parmi eux, ils n'affectent pas notre foi et la pratique du tout.

   3. Il est au-delà du champ d'application de cette leçon d'examiner les processus et les stratégies impliquées dans le choix de la lecture la plus probable parmi les options reflétées dans les divers manuscrits. Ces tâches devraient être laissée aux experts dans le domaine, et non amateurs. Tout étudiant concerné Bible peut vérifier la gamme de lectures trouvés dans les traductions mieux l'anglais. La plupart des versions les plus récentes comprennent même les passages qui sont contestées, souvent les mettre en valeur avec un indicateur ou un signe, liée à une note marginale qui explique pourquoi la lecture est discutable. Que ce soit ou non la lecture du débat est originale, elle est incluse dans le texte d'une certaine façon, au moins dans le cas des variantes les plus importantes.

5. L'incertitude ne manque de fiabilité égale.

   1. Nous devons admettre que nous trouvons des lectures différentes entre les divers manuscrits du NT, c'est-delà des différends. Nous devons aussi éviter l'erreur de choisir un texte et en proclamant qu'il et seulement elle a miraculeusement préservé toutes les lectures originales dans une vierge, sans erreur de l'État. Une telle affirmation ne résiste pas à l'évaluation historique. La seule façon de déterminer les lectures originales est de comparer et d'analyser les éléments de preuve MS.

   2. Les lectures originales existent au sein de la preuve MS. Comme il est indiqué ci-dessus, notre incertitude quant à la lecture correcte affecte environ 2% seulement de l'ensemble de NT, et dans ces cas nous avons des options qui ne retiennent de la lecture originale. Nous ne pouvons pas être sûr que la lecture est originale, mais nous pouvons être confiants que l'un d'eux est.

   3. Les versions modernes sont fiables en ce sens qu'ils sont le résultat de la recherche et une analyse minutieuse des lectures possibles. Comités d'experts a examiné les lectures possibles et a choisi ceux qu'ils pensaient étaient les plus susceptibles d'être original. Même si ils ont choisi la mauvaise lecture, dans certains cas, cela ne ruine pas l'impression d'ensemble de l'œuvre. La véracité de la Bible ne repose pas sur les traducteurs de cueillette le mot juste dans tous les cas.

   4. Chaque traduction est le résultat des traducteurs cueillette des lectures qu'ils pensent que la plupart reflètent fidèlement les originaux. Sauf si vous pouvez lire le grec couramment, vous devez compter sur la bourse et l'honnêteté des gens qui ont traduit la Bible que vous lisez. Sauf si vous en train de lire une version sectaire (par exemple, la traduction de mot Nouveau) ou une paraphrase libre (par exemple, Le Message), vous n'avez aucune raison de douter de ce que votre Bible dit. Et la consultation d'un couple de différentes versions seront généralement vous garder sur la bonne voie.

6. Aucune des variantes changer l'enseignement global de la NT. Pas un seul variant autels ce que les chrétiens croient et pratiquent. Variantes certainement pas modifier notre compréhension de passages individuels, mais pas une seule variante enseigne l'hérésie, et tous les combinés ne réduisent pas le NT à une condition peu fiables.

Notez la citation: [F] ou plus de 99 pour cent des mots de la Bible, nous savons ce que le manuscrit original a dit. Même pour un grand nombre des versets où il ya des variantes textuelles, ... la bonne décision est souvent tout à fait clair, et il ya vraiment très peu d'endroits où la variante textuelle est à la fois difficile à évaluer et important dans la détermination du sens. Dans le petit pourcentage des cas où il ya une grande incertitude sur ce que le texte original dit, le sens général de la phrase est généralement assez clairement du contexte .... [T], il étude de variantes textuelles ne nous a pas laissé dans la confusion sur ce que les manuscrits originaux dit. Il a plutôt nous a apporté très proche de la teneur de ces manuscrits originaux. Pour des raisons pratiques, puis, les actuels publiés des textes savants du Vieux Testament hébreu et le grec du Nouveau Testament sont les mêmes que les manuscrits originaux. ⁸

Conclusion: La fiabilité du texte du NT est une question importante pour toute personne qui prétend croire à la Bible. Vous pouvez trouver certaines des informations ci-dessus surprenante et stimulante. Autant que nous pourrions souhaiter nous avons eu accès à une édition parfaitement conservé du NT, nous n'avons tout simplement pas. Le contenu original de la NT sont à notre disposition, mais il est actuellement reflétée dans l'ensemble du dossier textuel. Trouver les meilleures lectures et les incorporer dans les traductions modernes est la tâche des chercheurs textuelles. C'est une tâche difficile mais pas insurmontable. Comme les traducteurs de la Bible King James a déclaré, toute traduction qui reproduit fidèlement les textes en langue originale peut être considéré comme la Parole de Dieu.

1 Certains suggèrent que le NT peut-être été composée à l'origine en araméen et traduit en grec très tôt, mais cette affirmation ne peut être vérifiée. Les plus anciens manuscrits du Nouveau Testament sont en grec, et la plupart des chercheurs pensent qu'il s'agit du langage, il a été écrit à l'origine po

2 Grudem, Théologie systématique, p. 64.

3 p ^45, comme on l'appelle, ne mesure que 2,5 "x 3,5" et contient John 18:31-33, 37-38. Il réside à la bibliothèque John Rylands à Manchester, en Angleterre. L'existence de ce fragment prouve que le NT a été connu et utilisé loin de son lieu de composition au cours de la première moitié du deuxième siècle.

4 Les types de textes reflètent la région des gens qui citent des extraits ou d'utiliser les textes, pas là où le MSS ont été trouvés.

5 Par "essentiellement,« Je suis reconnaissant que dans certains cas, sommes-nous pas tout à fait confiants quant à ce que le texte original était. Mais même dans ces cas, nous sommes confiants que le libellé original doit être conservé dans l'une des variantes. Ainsi, il est important pour fournir les lectures facultatives.

6 William W. Combs, «La préface de la version King James Et La King James-seulement la position," Detroit Baptist Seminary. (1996, 2003). Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (vol. 1, page 257-258). La Septante (LXX) est la traduction grecque de l'Ancien Testament. Il s'agit d'une traduction plutôt libre et périphrastique.

7 De Mark Minnick, "How Much Do les différences font?" dans la Parole de Dieu est dans nos mains (Greenville, SC: Ambassadeur d'Emeraude, 2003).

8 Grudem, Théologie systématique, p. 96.

Is the Text of the Old Testament Reliable?

No book in the literature of the world has been so often copied, printed, translated, read and studied as the Bible. It stands uniquely as the object of so much effort devoted to preserving it faithfully, to understanding it, and to making it understandable to others. ¹ The Bible is one of the few texts of antiquity that is still popular today. How many other books from three thousand years ago do people still read? Pas beaucoup. Other books from that period are seldom held in such high esteem as the Old Testament of the Bible is. Of course, few other books claim to be the very words of God. It is because so many people consider the Old Testament to be inspired by God that people still read and study it. The Bible is not like other books. Here “flows the fountain of life, because God himself speaks in it.” ²

Les critiques et les sceptiques voudraient nous faire croire que l'Ancien Testament (AT) n'est pas digne de confiance parce tant d'années entre nous et les écrits originaux. Dr CA Briggs affirmer avec confiance "Nous ne serons jamais en mesure d'atteindre les écrits sacrés car ils réjoui les yeux de ceux qui les ont vu, et il se réjouit le cœur de ceux qui les ont entendus. Si les mots externes de l'original ont été inspirés, il ne nous profiter. Nous sommes coupés d'eux pour toujours. Interposé entre nous et eux est la tradition des siècles et des millénaires même. " ³ Sommes-nous vraiment "coupé" à partir des mots originaux proposés par l'inspiration?

Nous devons admettre qu'aucun des originaux existent encore, ils se sont dissous dans la poussière du Moyen-Orient il ya longtemps. Tout ce que nous avons, ce sont des copies de copies, et la plupart des copies datent au plus tôt le Moyen Age. Pas encore (existant) des copies de l'Ancien Testament peut être daté d'avant de 400 avant J.-C., et la plupart d'entre eux sont beaucoup plus tard que cela. Alors, comment pouvons-nous être sûrs que le texte de l'Ancien Testament est-il fiable? Comment fidèles aux originaux sont les copies existantes?

L'étude des manuscrits (MSS) d'un livre dans une tentative pour trouver les lectures originales s'appelle la critique textuelle ou inférieure. ⁴ Ce n'est pas de critiquer le texte, mais un effort pour trouver le meilleur MSS et les meilleures lectures du SMS. Pas de MS on conserve parfaitement l'intégralité du texte de l'Ancien Testament. Parce qu'il ya de multiples copies des livres de l'Ancien Testament, les chercheurs cherchent à comparer les copies afin d'éliminer les erreurs de scribes et de trouver des lectures qui sont les plus susceptibles d'origine. Alors que certaines personnes prétendent que les copies ne sont plus disponibles transmettre le contenu des originaux, il n'y a guère de raisons de craindre que l'Ancien Testament est en quelque sorte n'est plus disponible dans sa forme originale. Il n'a pas été perdue ou corrompue et que nous ne savons plus ce que le texte original était. Nous pouvons être sûrs que nous avons accès à l'Ancien Testament comme il a été donné à des milliers d'années.

Considérez ce qui suit dans la défense de la fiabilité du texte OT: ⁵

1. Fond

   1. Le OT a été écrit principalement en hébreu et un peu en araméen. Hébreu utilisé pour être écrite dans toutes les consonnes sans les voyelles. Cela peut sembler que ce serait difficile à lire, mais ceux qui sont familiers avec la langue et le texte peut lire l'hébreu, sans les voyelles insérées. Ce n'est que bien après l'époque de Jésus fait scribes juifs développer un système de voyelles inséré dans le texte que nous utilisons encore aujourd'hui. Depuis la voyelle "points de voyelles" (beaucoup de ressembler à de petits points) ne sont pas d'origine à la langue, ils ne sont pas d'une importance primordiale si l'on considère le texte original.

   2. Le fait même que les Écritures hébraïques persistante survécu aux conditions les plus délétères long de son histoire démontre que les scribes infatigables a insisté sur sa préservation. Les livres de l'AT ont été copiés à la main pour les générations sur papyrus hautement périssables et peaux d'animaux dans le relativement humide, le climat hostile de la Palestine, contrairement à la sécheresse du climat de l'Egypte, si favorable à la préservation de ces matériaux. En outre, les perspectives pour leur survie étaient incertains dans un pays qui a servi de pont pour les armées en lice incessante entre les continents de l'Afrique et l'Asie-une terre dont les habitants ont fait l'objet de pillards en début de leur histoire et de capteurs dans leur histoire plus tard, . Qu'aucun d'autres écrits, tels que le Livre de Yashar ou les Journaux du Kings, survivre à cette période montre la détermination des scribes de préserver les livres de l'AT. Mais les pires ennemis de la Écritures hébraïques sont les héritiers mêmes de ses trésors, car ils ont cherché à tuer un grand nombre de ses auteurs (cf. Matt 23:35) et de détruire leurs œuvres (cf. Jr 36). On doit supposer, toutefois, que de la première des Écritures OT capturé les cœurs, les esprits et les loyautés de certains en Israël qui, à risque pour eux-mêmes tenus à leur sécurité. Ces personnes doivent avoir insisté sur la transmission exacte du texte même que ceux de la persuasion même insister sur ce point aujourd'hui. ⁶

   3. Until recently, very few copies of OT books from before the middle ages were available. Il ya une bonne raison pour cela. The Rabbis regarded their copies of the Scripture with almost superstitious veneration, and when the MSS were too old and worn for regular use, they replaced them with new copies. The old copies would often be reverently destroyed, buried or hidden. It was better, they thought, to give them an honorable burial than to run the risk that the materials might be improperly used. Synagogues would often have a special storage room, called a genizah (literally, “hiding place”), where old MSS would be stored. One such genizah was found in Cairo in 1896. The sealed, dark room in the dry Egyptian climate allowed for the preservation the documents. The rich store of linguistic works found there shed light on Hebrew grammar and lexicology. ⁷

   4. Scribes juifs étaient très attentifs et méticuleux dans leurs fonctions de copie. Ils avaient différents moyens de faire en sorte que leurs copies étaient exactes et non pas plein d'erreurs. Ils savaient combien de lettres et de mots étaient censés être dans chaque livre. Ils savaient même le mot qui doit être au milieu de chaque page copiée. Étant donné que les scribes étaient très prudents dans leurs fonctions, nous pouvons avoir une grande confiance qu'ils n'avaient pas l'essentiel de modifier ou de corrompre les lectures originales. Ils ont exprimé l'OT aux générations futures comme ils l'ont trouvé. Parce que les scribes ont fait un excellent travail, la plupart du MSS disponibles sont très similaires. La plupart des MSS sont pratiquement identiques. ⁸ petites différences, comme les changements dans les voyelles ou des changements d'orthographe, ne se produisent, mais la plupart ont des conséquences très peu. Un groupe particulier de scribes appelés les Massorètes ont fait leur travail d'environ 500 après J.-C. à 1000, et le texte qu'ils ont produit est appelé le texte massorétique (MT). Il y avait des écoles de Massorètes au travail à la fois dans la Babylonie et la Palestine; l'école dont la méthode a finalement été adoptée était celle de Tibériade en Palestine. La plupart des érudits conservateurs croient que les Massorètes et leurs ancêtres manipulé le MSS avec soin de telle sorte que très peu d'erreurs glissées dans le texte. Cependant, une grande partie de la copie produite avant que les scribes massorétiques commencé leur gestion du texte, et les savants ne sont pas sûr de savoir comment bien scribes début manipulé le texte. En outre, les Juifs ont été chassés de la Terre Sainte en l'an 70, les différentes guerres et des dispersions a eu lieu, et la religion juive a considérablement diminué par AD 200. De tels événements pourraient avoir eu un impact négatif sur la façon dont le texte a été conservé. Néanmoins, la preuve suggère que les scribes de pré-massorétique étaient très prudents et diligents intendants de la MSS. Cela ne veut pas prétendre à la perfection pour leurs compétences de copie, parce que les scribes ne pourrait jamais éradiquer totalement la glisse de la plume. Les types suivants d'erreurs de scribes produit des variations dans le MSS:

      1. Rédaction d'une lettre une fois quand il aurait dû être écrit à deux reprises, ou écrire une lettre une fois qu'il aurait été écrit à deux reprises

      2. Inverser la position des lettres

      3. La combinaison de mots distincts en un seul, ou en divisant un mot en deux

      4. Substitution d'un homonyme de l'autre

      5. Se tromper en lisant des lettres similaires

      6. L'omission d'une section en raison de l'œil du copiste sautant d'un finissant à une fin similaire

      7. L'omission accidentelle de mots

   5. Comment puis-chercheurs face à ces phénomènes? Au fil des ans, les critiques textuels élaboré des règles, ou «canons», qu'ils s'appliquent à différentes lectures dans un effort pour trouver la bonne. Ces règles les aider à déterminer ce qui la lecture est le plus susceptible d'être original. Parfois, la découverte de la lecture correcte est facile, parfois il est très difficile. Dans certains cas, nous devons admettre que deux ou trois options existent, et l'un d'eux est correct, mais nous sommes incapables de dire de quoi il s'agit. Les variations dans le texte le rendre fiable? En aucune façon. Comme il est indiqué ci-dessus, la plupart des variantes sont mineures et ont peu d'impact sur la signification ou l'application d'un passage. Même les variantes qui affectent sens n'altèrent pas le sens général ou l'enseignement de l'Ancien Testament. Nous ne pouvons pas toujours être en mesure de dire avec une certitude absolue dont la lecture est correcte, mais la lecture correcte est disponible quelque part dans les éléments de preuve MS. ⁹ Dans la plupart des cas, le MT conservera la lecture correcte, et on doit suivre une variante que rarement et pour de bonnes raisons.

2. La mer Morte

   1. Archéologue WF Albright appelle la découverte originale des manuscrits de la Mer Morte (MMM) "la plus grande découverte manuscrit des temps modernes." ¹⁰ Ces parchemins ont apparemment été utilisées par un être vivant secte juive près de la Mer Morte entre environ 150 av JC à 70. À l'époque les Romains détruisirent Jérusalem et déportent les Juifs en l'an 70, les Juifs dans cette secte scellé leurs rouleaux sacrés dans des pots en terre cuite et les cacha dans les grottes voisines. En 1947, un jeune berger à la recherche d'une chèvre perdue jeté une pierre dans une de ces grottes et entendu la poterie se brisent. Il est allé dans d'enquêter et de trouver les parchemins. Dans un délai très court ces rouleaux étaient dans les mains de spécialistes de la Bible qui ont trouvé certains d'entre eux d'être des centaines d'années plus âgés que toutes les copies disponibles à l'époque. En raison des conclusions DSS, des copies de livres de l'AT d'avant l'époque de Jésus sont maintenant disponibles, les critiques textuelles peuvent enquêter sur quel point le texte a été modifié par le processus de copie au fil des ans.

   2. Les DSS contiennent des copies ou des fragments de presque tous les livres OT. Environ 40.000 fragments de SP ont été trouvés dans les grottes. Un très important a été trouvé une copie complète d'Isaïe d'environ 100 av. Une comparaison de la copie DSS d'Isaïe et un de 900 après J.-C. révèle très peu de différences entre les copies et insignifiant séparés par environ un millier d'années. Par exemple, dans Esaïe chapitre 53, seulement 17 lettres diffèrent de la copie au début de celui plus tard, et de ce nombre, 10 sont tout simplement des questions d'orthographe. Sur les 166 mots dans ce chapitre, il ya une seule différence significative, et il ne change pas le sens du passage. Dans la grande majorité des cas, le MSS trouve dans les matériaux DSS sont mot pour mot identique à des copies en date du plusieurs siècles plus tard. Dans le Commentaire d'Habacuc, qui est daté de près de 50 en Colombie-Britannique, les variantes sont assez nombreuses mais mineure dans le caractère, et souvent le résultat évident d'une erreur du copiste. Certaines des variantes trouvées dans le matériau DSS sont utiles pour fournir une meilleure vocalisation pour certains mots hébreux qui sont peut-être pas aussi bien conservées dans la MT. ¹¹

   3. La datation de la MSS premier siècle avant JC sont essentiellement les mêmes que celles datant de mille ans plus tard. Les comparaisons d'autres MSS trouve en tête du MAS à la conclusion que les scribes de l'époque étaient tout à fait capable de prendre soin des textes dans leurs mains. Le texte que les scribes copiaient une centaine d'années avant l'époque de Jésus est essentiellement le même texte que nous avons aujourd'hui. Les scribes qui ont copié le texte fait un excellent travail de la préserver au fil des ans.

   4. Rien dans les découvertes DSS met en danger la fiabilité essentielle et l'autorité du MT. Ils n'indiquent pas que la version des Septante, c'est nécessairement être exalté à une position plus respectée que qu'elle occupait avant la conclusion des matériaux DSS, sauf peut-être dans quelques endroits où le MT semble être défectueux (par exemple, 1 et 2 Samuel). ¹² chercheurs croient que les SSD comprennent "la confirmation la plus phénoménale du texte hébreu." ¹³ critiques textuels croire que «la présence d'un type de texte parmi les DSS (c. 200 av JC à 100) identique à celle conservée par les Massorètes, dont la plus ancienne existant MS remonte à c. AD 900, donne un témoignage à la réalisation incroyable de certains scribes, gardant fidèlement dans le texte. " ¹⁴

3. La Septante et autres versions

   1. Autour de 200 avant JC, les Écritures hébraïques ont été traduites en grec, qui est venu à être connu sous le nom de la Septante, en abrégé LXX. Cette version doit probablement son nom à l'histoire racontée dans la lettre d'Aristée pseudonymes, selon lequel soixante-deux savants convoqués de Jérusalem par Ptolémée Philadelphe (295-47 avant JC) a rendu dans soixante-deux jours d'une traduction parfaite grecque du Pentateuque. Écrivains chrétiens crédité la traduction de l'ensemble de la Bible hébraïque à ces interprètes soixante-deux. ^{de 15} exemplaires de la LXX ne vont pas tous le chemin du retour à l'époque préchrétienne, mais ils ne nous donnent une idée de ce que le texte hébreu était comme autour de 200 avant JC. La LXX diffère de la MT dans de nombreux endroits, et parfois ces différences sont significatives. Parmi les fragments ont été trouvés DSS certains MSS OT qui semblait mieux coordonner avec la LXX qu'avec la MT. Les spécialistes croient que d'environ 200 avant JC, au moins deux (peut-être trois) des familles ou des souches de texte hébreu étaient en circulation. Chercheurs textuels aujourd'hui possible de comparer les différentes familles de MSS pour trouver les lectures qui ont le meilleur soutien. De nombreux chercheurs croient que le MT fournit généralement des mesures correctes, mais dans quelques endroits de la LXX peut conserver l'original. Le processus de recherche et le choix des lectures n'est pas une tâche facile. Sauf si l'on a une bonne connaissance pratique de l'hébreu et le grec, il ne serait pas qualifié pour prendre de telles décisions. Parfois, il est impossible d'être absolument sûr que la lecture est correcte, mais au moins nous pouvons vous proposer quelques options possibles, et l'un d'eux est sans aucun doute raison.

   2. Bon nombre des différences entre le TM et la LXX sont dues à des préoccupations stylistiques comme le choix des mots. La LXX est plutôt libre et paraphrastique dans certains endroits, assez littérale dans d'autres. Dans certains endroits, la LXX est une représentation assez bonne de l'hébreu sous-jacent et à d'autres endroits des preuves traducteur grec d'un manque de compétences. Et puisque la LXX elle-même a été copié au fil des ans, il ne peut retenir les lectures originales grecques dans certains endroits. En comparant la LXX à la MT, nous trouvons la plupart du temps les variations petits détails qui font peu de différence, mais parfois les différences sont dramatiques. Un endroit où existe une différence significative entre la fourmi LXX le MT est dans le livre de Jérémie, où la LXX manque quelques versets soixante trouvés dans la MT. Néanmoins, la LXX est en général d'accord avec la bonne MT globale. For the first three centuries of the Christian church, the LXX was the only OT that most believers read. Most of the quotations in the New Testament come not from the Hebrew but from the LXX, which strongly suggests that believers around the time of Jesus held the LXX to be the authoritative Word of God, equivalent to the Hebrew. In fact, were the Hebrew Bible to mysteriously disappear from the planet, we could use the LXX without a substantial change in faith or practice. In any particular text, whether one follows the MT or the LXX, he will not go far wrong.

   3. The OT was also translated into other languages, like Aramaic, Latin and Syriac. Versions tend to be of value for interpretation rather than for textual criticism.

      1. Aramaic Targums: “Targum” means “interpretation.” During the Babylonian captivity, the Jews began losing their Hebrew language skills. Aramaic was the language of diplomacy and commerce throughout the empire, and the Jews transitioned into that language. A teacher reading the OT would have to repeat what he was teaching in Aramaic because the people no longer understood Hebrew so well. The Targum of Onkelos on the Torah (produced in the 3 ^rd century AD) adheres very closely to the traditional MT in most cases. Some of the targums are quite paraphrastic and free in their renderings of the Hebrew.

      2. Le OT a été traduit en latin à partir de au sujet de AD 200. Certains d'entre eux provenaient de la LXX, pas le MT. Traduction latine de Jérôme est venu de l'hébreu et pendant de nombreux siècles était la traduction officielle en latin dans l'Église occidentale.

      3. Vers la même époque que les Targums araméens ont été produites, les chrétiens syriens ont commencé à produire une traduction de la Bible dans leur dialecte araméen oriental (appelé syriaque). La Peshitta ("simple") syriaque OT doit avoir été composée dans le deuxième siècle après JC ou troisième. Il a probablement été à l'origine traduit du MT, mais a été révisé au cours des ans pour refléter les lectures LXX.

      4. Si nous en quelque sorte perdu tout MSS hébreu et en grec de l'Ancien Testament, nous pourrions encore reconstruire la forme essentielle de l'Ancien Testament de l'araméen, latin et en syriaque (et autres) versions.

4. D'autres facteurs soutenant la transmission fidèle de l'Ancien Testament

   1. Beaucoup de preuves archéologiques soutient les grandes lignes de l'histoire tel qu'il est inscrit dans l'Ancien Testament ainsi que les moindres détails qui pourraient facilement avoir été corrompus au fil des ans. Les noms des rois d'Israël et des régions environnantes, à la fois grands et petits, sont conservés avec une précision remarquable. La Bible enregistre avec précision les noms associés à certaines régions. La Bible décrit avec précision divers officiers servant dans les tribunaux étrangers. Un savant a affirmé que les découvertes archéologiques ont "montré que non seulement la principale substance de ce qui a été écrit, mais même les mots, au-delà des variations mineures, ont été transmis avec une fidélité remarquable, de sorte que qu'il doive y avoir aucun doute concernant l'enseignement transmis par eux. " ¹⁶

   2. Parfois, les dossiers OT la même information dans plus d'un endroit. Certains des Psaumes sont dupliqués dans d'autres livres. Isaïe enregistre les mêmes informations que se trouve dans certaines parties de 2 Rois. Samuel, des Rois et des Chroniques enregistrer une partie de la même information. Bien que l'étude des passages parallèles trouverez quelques différences, ils sont généralement mineurs et peuvent être traçables à des facteurs autres que l'erreur du copiste. La précision de passages parallèles implique que les scribes de copier fidèlement le MSS au cours des siècles.

   3. Une comparaison des autres œuvres de l'antiquité montre que les scribes anciens en général étaient très habiles dans leurs fonctions. Age avant l'avènement de dispositifs mécaniques et électriques, les scribes étaient bien en mesure de maintenir l'exactitude de copié MSS à travers des périodes vastes. La pratique des scribes à travers le Proche-Orient ancien reflètent une attitude conservatrice qui a conservé le texte. "L'étude prolongée et intime des scores de milliers de documents pertinents de l'ancien Proche-Orient prouve que les documents sacrés et profanes ont été copiés avec plus de soin que de la copie est vrai du copiste dans gréco-romaine." ¹⁷

Conclusion: The evidence points to the fact that the text of the OT is reliable. There is no reason to think that the OT is essentially corrupted or lost. Variations do exist among the copies, but most differences are trivial in nature and not one of them substantially affects doctrine or practice. For all intents and purposes, and especially for the layman, the OT is a reliable document that accurately and essentially conveys the original readings to modern readers. As WF Albright noted, “We may rest assured that the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible, though not infallible, has been preserved with an accuracy perhaps unparalleled in any other Near Eastern literature.” ¹⁸ As Skilton cogently observes, “[W]e must maintain that the God who gave the Scriptures, who works all things after the counsel of his will, has exercised a remarkable care over his Word, has preserved it in all ages in a state of essential purity, and has enabled it to accomplish the purpose for which he gave it. It is inconceivable that the sovereign God who was pleased to give his Word as a vital and necessary instrument in the salvation of his people would permit his Word to become completely marred in its transmission and unable to accomplish its ordained end. Rather, as surely as that he is God, we would expect to find him exercising a singular care in the preservation of his written revelation. That God has preserved the Scriptures in such a condition of essential purity as we would expect is manifestly the case. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament has survived the millenniums in a substantially and remarkably pure form.” ¹⁹

1 Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament , p. 121.

2 Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, p. 121.

3 CA Briggs, “Critical Theories of the Sacred Scriptures in Relation to their Inspiration,” The Presbyterian Review, II (1881), 573f., quoted in John H. Skilton, “The Transmission of the Hebrew Text” in The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, edited by NB Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, revised ed. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967).

4 Gordon Fee defines textual criticism as “the science that compares all known manuscripts of a given work in an effort to trace the history of variations within the text so as to discover its original form.” Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 1.

5 Some of this material is from R. Laird Harris, “How Reliable is the Old Testament Text?” Covenant Seminary Review 81.

6 Expositor's Bible Commentary , vol. 1.

7 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Genizah.html

8 Many scholars believe that the consistency reflected in the MT is evidence of an official editorial process (a recension) done between 100 BC and AD 100 that produced a standardized text. Jewish scribes likely consulted their best MSS, produced an official text, and discarded those MSS that did not fit with their work. The Masoretes inherited this standardized text and conveyed it with little variation throughout the centuries.

9 In a very small number of cases, the MS evidence for a reading is so problematic that some scholars think the original reading is no longer available. In such cases, scholars attempt to restore what they think was the probable original reading.

10 Biblical Archeologist , 11:3:55, September, 1948, quoted in Bibliotheca Sacra (Vol. 113, Page 117).

11 Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction , p. 33.

12 Archer, p. 36.

13 Normal Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible , p. 465.

14 Expositor's Bible Commentary , vol. 1.

15 Expositor's Bible Commentary , vol. 1.

16 Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven, 1941, p. 42, quoted in Arnold C. Schultz, “The Old Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Vol. 9, Page 65). Evangelical Theological Society. (1966; 2002).

17 WF Albright, quoted in Expositor's Bible Commentary , vol. 1.

18 Quoted in Archer, Old Testament Introduction , p. 58.

19 John H. Skilton, “The Transmission of the Scriptures”

A PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETIC APPLIED TO ISLAM'S TEACHING REGARDING GOD AND SALVATION

A Paper Presented to Central Baptist Theological Seminary

By Bradley G. Anderson, 15 April 2005

Introduction

One and a third billion people subscribe to the following assertion: “There is no other God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger and servant.” ¹ This confession is often the first sentence Muslim parents whisper to a newborn, and the last words a Muslim hears on his deathbed. When said with full conviction and understanding at least once in one's lifetime, this simple declaration is all that is required to make one a Muslim. Islam is growing quickly and is currently the world's second largest religion, behind only Christianity.

Islam has much in common with Christianity and Judaism. All three consider Abraham their progenitor, recognize only one God, emphasize similar moral principles, and stem from the Middle East. Thus, some see Muslims, Jews, and Christians as different branches of the same tree. Some within Christendom even suggest that sincere Muslims do not need to hear the gospel because God accepts all people who sincerely seek him. Islam and Christianity, however, are irreconcilable on many points. Christians should develop a basic understanding of Islam so they will be able to defend Christianity from Muslim claims and effectively point Muslims to Christ. A presuppositional Christian apologetic will be employed to compare and contrast Muslim views on God and salvation with biblical teachings. Both offensive and defensive apologetic elements will be applied in the course of the argument, under the assumption that the reader has a basic knowledge of Islam.

An Apologetic Approach

Christians share some common views with Muslims—monotheism, adherence to standards of morality, belief in an afterlife, and commitment to an authoritative book. In approaching Muslims, therefore, Christians need not argue for the existence of God or undermine the conclusions of secularism as they might do when dealing with atheists. The basis on which the apologetic “game” must be played is the sacred writings of each group. Christians must assert the authority of the Bible and undermine the claims of the Qur'an. One could begin an apologetic encounter by presenting all the reasons the Bible is reliable and all the reasons the Qur'an is not. The aim of such a strategy would be to undercut the Muslim's confidence in his book and to engender confidence in the Christian book. Such a two-step approach would constitute a monumental task, and few are genuinely qualified to tackle it. An apologist would seek not only to discredit the Qur'an, but also to show that the Bible is trustworthy and qualified to supplant it. A Christian would argue that biblical Christianity accords best with reality and that the Qur'an contains serious flaws rendering it unreliable. The ultimate judge of which set of sacred writings is most trustworthy in this scenario must be the human intellect. No one denies that God can use this approach to draw Muslims to himself, and many apologists find this method fruitful, but a different approach may be even more effective.

A presuppositional strategy requires several assumptions, the first being that Muslims have some knowledge of the true God. This does not suggest they are actually worshiping the true God, but that residing within the heart of every human is some knowledge of the true God. Another assumption of the presuppositional approach is that the Bible is true and authoritative. ² All men have some knowledge of God because the Bible teaches such, ³ but like other non-Christians, Muslims suppress and corrupt the knowledge of God they have. A third assumption is that “the gospel . . . is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes;” ⁴ therefore, conversion is the result of the Holy Spirit convincing a human soul of the truth of the gospel. It is not primarily the result of a good argument or effectively marshaled evidence, although such techniques may play a supporting role in the process. A fourth assumption is that God is sovereign in the salvation of a soul. ⁵ All the elect will certainly be saved, because the sovereign, efficacious call of God is what ultimately unlocks the door to an unbeliever's heart, and not weighty, logical arguments. ⁶ The Lord must open the unbeliever's heart. ⁷ A fifth assumption is that the proclamation of the gospel is a necessary element in the conversion process, because the elect will certainly be saved, but not without access to the gospel message. ⁸ Muslims, like everyone else, must hear the Word in order to respond to it because “faith comes by hearing.” ⁹ God is pleased to use the “foolishness of preaching” to save those who believe. ¹⁰ This presuppositional approach will be applied to Muslim teaching regarding God and salvation.

A Presuppositional Approach Applied to Islam

Regarding God

When Mohammed originally entered the Ka'aba in Mecca, he found over three hundred pagan idols. He somehow concluded that none of these idols adequately represented “the God,” Allah. Although Arabs at that time were pagan idolaters, Mohammed, to his credit, rejected such idolatry, perhaps because of his exposure to Christianity and Judaism. When he was about forty years old, Mohammed claimed to have begun receiving revelations about Allah via the angel Gabriel. Miller asserts that the “heart of the message which Mohammed received was that there is no God but Allah, the one true God, who created heaven and earth.” ¹¹ Islam is based on the Qur'an, a compilation of these revelations, and the Hadith, traditions based on the life and sayings of Mohammed. Because of the apparent similarities between Allah and Yahweh, many suggest that the two are different representations of the same deity. Muslims, some claim, although gravely mistaken in their worship, are nevertheless seeking after the true God, the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. ¹² Muslims believe they are worshipping the same God as Christians and Jews because the Qur'an plainly as much: “We believe in what has been sent down to us and in that which was sent down to you; our God and your God is One; and we are submitted to him.” ¹³ However, closer examination reveals that Allah is so unlike the true God of the Bible that it is impossible to conclude that Muslims are worshiping the true and only deity. Allah is different from the true God in a number of significant ways.

Absolute Singularity vs. Trinity

The essential natures of the God of the Bible and Allah of Islam are vastly different. According to Miller, “Possibly the greatest theological core value of Islam is tawheed, the unity of God. . . . The oneness of God is considered by many to be Islam's central theological value. Therefore the concept of the Trinity is repulsive to Muslims.” ¹⁴ In fact, the Qur'an denounces Christian trinitarianism as tri-theism, the worship of three Gods. ¹⁵ Madany claims that “Muslim theologians ridiculed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, claiming that it was irrational, and had no basis in God's true revelation in the Qur'an . ” ¹⁶ Muslims strongly assert that “Allah does not have a partner or associate, and He did not beget nor was He begotten. Unlike the word God, the word Allah does not have a plural or gender.” ¹⁷ In fact, one of the greatest sins Islam can conceive of is shirk, assigning partners to Allah. The Qur'an states: “God forgiveth not the sin of joining other gods with Him. . . . [O]ne who joins other gods with God hath strayed far, far away.” ¹⁸ Christians, who assert the Trinity, are committing an unforgivable sin, which in the Muslim tradition is punishable by death.

Muslims obviously misunderstand or simply reject what the Bible teaches about the triune nature of God. For them, any hint of plurality within the Godhead amounts to polytheism. The biblical God is a Trinitarian being Who is one God in three persons, not one God in three Gods. Several Old Testament texts use plural pronouns to refer to God, ¹⁹ and God's name is occasionally applied to more than one person. ²⁰ In Exodus 3:1-5, the Angel of the Lord is equated with God and worshiped as God. While the Old Testament does not furnish a sufficient basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, it does contain suggestions consistent with the doctrine. The Old Testament stressed the unity of God, ²¹ and Old Testament saints were strict monotheists. It is highly doubtful that Old Testament saints held any true Trinitarian ideas.

The revelation concerning God the Son and God the Holy Spirit had to wait until the historical appearance of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit. Several New Testament texts mention the three persons of the Trinity in close proximity. At the baptism of Christ, the Son was in the water, the Father's voice was heard from heaven, and the Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. ²² Luke 1:32-35 mentions the Lord God, the Son of the Most High, and the Holy Spirit. Even the baptism formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” clearly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the same singular “name.” ²³ Finally, the apostolic benediction, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” ²⁴ aligns the persons in close relationship. A multitude of texts assert the unity and equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ²⁵

Because Muslims claim that Allah can have no partners, they reject the concept of God having a son, especially one who is “begotten.” Like many pseudo-Christian cultists, Muslims misunderstand the entire “only begotten Son” concept. The suggestion that God can be known as Father is blasphemous to Muslims. In their estimation, one must engage in sexual contact with a human female in order to be a father. Such an idea is repulsive to Muslims and is certainly not what Christians imply when they call God their Father. That Jesus is called a “begotten Son” does not suggest any kind of sexual relationship between God and a human female. The biblical terms “father” and “son” do not require a physical relationship or demand sexual activity. For example, Paul called Timothy his “son in the faith” ²⁶ without implying physical descent. The sonship of Jesus has nothing to do with physical relationships.

Le terme????????? literally means “of sole descent,” an only child, without brothers or sisters. ²⁷ The word may refer to physical descent or to a special status or position, just like Isaac was Abraham's “only begotten son,” even though Abraham had other sons. ²⁸ Jesus is the one and only, special, unique, unparalleled, incomparable, dearest, or most beloved Son of God. That alone is why he is called “the only begotten” Son. The term emphasizes the special relationship between the Father and the Son. God has many children, but only one only begotten Son. Muslims seem not to grasp the fact that, as Geisler notes, “[p]aternity can be understood in more than a biological sense.” ²⁹

Although Trinitarian doctrine may be denied by Muslims and is perhaps mysterious and confusing to average Christians, trinitarianism is orthodox biblical teaching. Monotheism and trinitarianism are not mutually exclusive ideas. Christians are monotheists who recognize plurality within divine unity. Muslims would be loathe to consider any faith which denies the unity of God, and rightly so. Christians must assure them that orthodox Christianity is monotheistic. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one. ³⁰ Christians do not deny the essential unity of God.

Wholly Other Transcendence vs. Knowable Immanence

Another significant distinction between the God of the Bible and Allah concerns a man's capacity to know the deity. The Qur'an presents Allah as wholly other and ultimately unknowable. Cate asserts that Allah is “distant and impersonal, He does not have a covenant relationship with humans. He is omnipotent, and people cannot get close to Him.” ³¹ Muslims hold that nothing resembles Allah in any respect. ³² Allah is an aloof God, unlike Yahweh, who has promised to remain in close personal contact with his people. Geisler maintains that “Allah does not have an essence, at least not a knowable one. . . . There is no nature or essence in [Allah] according to which he must act.” ³³ Because Allah has no essential nature or character, he is capable of shifting positions. “[Allah] does not have to be merciful; he could be mean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving to all; he could hate, if he chose to do so. . . . In other words, love and mercy are not of the essence of [Allah].” ³⁴ The essential nature of Allah, if there is one, is ultimately unknowable, even for sincere Muslims.

While Christians often speak of knowing God or growing in the knowledge of God, Muslims rarely use such language. They are not interested in knowing Allah himself, only in submitting to his will. Thus, as Geisler notes, “the Islamic view of God involves a form of agnosticism. . . . God's names do not tell us anything about what God is like but only how God has willed to act. God's actions do not reflect God's character.” ³⁵ Muslims freely admit as much. Muslim philosopher Abu-Hamid al-Ghazali taught that “the end result of the knowledge [for Muslims] is their inability to know Him, and their knowledge is, in truth, that they do not know Him and that it is absolutely impossible for them to know Him. . . . It is impossible for anyone to really know Allah except Allah (Himself).” ³⁶ Muslim intellectual Isma'il Al-Faruqui admits that “[Allah] does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. God reveals only His will.” ³⁷ Muslims seem to ignore the contradiction between the claim that Allah is unknowable and the assertion that he has revealed his will. Any communication from Allah would reveal something about his person. If Allah is truly unknowable, Muslims should not propose any statements about him. Even the statement, “Allah is unknowable,” asserts something about Allah. On the other hand, if descriptions of Allah are true, Muslims should not claim that he is unknowable. Ironically, the claim that “the ultimate goal (for man) is to know God” is not foreign to Islam. ³⁸ One may seek to know Allah, but such a search will only yield frustration, because in the end, He is unknowable.

Christians believe that they know God because God is knowable and has revealed himself in ways the human mind can grasp. ³⁹ Because humans reflect the image of God, they have the capacity to know God. Christianity asserts that God has certain attributes, and these attributes truly describe God's nature and essence. As Erickson states, “Attributes are permanent qualities of the entire Godhead, constituting God what He is.” ⁴⁰ Unlike Allah, the true God will never contradict his essential character. God has revealed not only his will, but also himself, to mankind in the form of Jesus, who is the ultimate expression of God to man. ⁴¹ God has revealed himself via the Word of God and the Son of God. Christians maintain that God is ultimately incomprehensible, but not that he is unknowable.

Capricious Command vs. Stable Sovereignty

Muslims and Christians disagree about the nature of God's sovereignty. The cry “Allahlau Akbar,” meaning “God is the greatest,” is loudly heralded from minarets throughout the Muslim world several times a day. As Cate notes, Islam teaches that “God has complete power and can do whatever He wants to do. He has predestined every day of each person's life.” ⁴² Allah's predestination of all things includes the unbelief of the infidel and the wickedness of the sinner. The Dictionary of Islam says that “[Allah] willeth also the unbelief of the unbeliever and the irreligion of the wicked and, without that will, there would neither be unbelief nor irreligion.” ⁴³ Sovereignty for Muslims means that Allah may change his mind and even commit acts that would be sinful for humans. Cate states the following:

Three times the Qur'an teaches that God deceives. These same three verses say that God is the best deceiver (Surah 3:54; 8:30; 10:21). English translations of these verses use words like “plot,” “plan,” or “the best planner.” But these translations do not reflect the full meaning of the original makara. Hans Wehr's standard Arabic dictionary says that makara means “deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, or double-cross” and makir is defined as “sly, cunning, or wily.” ⁴⁴

Muslims worship a God who is not only unknowable, but also unpredictable. If he chose to be hateful and inhumane, that would not contradict his essential character because he has none. Interestingly, the Qur'an teaches that Allah is directly responsible for disasters, crimes, and all manner of evil. Nearly twenty passages in the Qur'an teach that Allah leads men astray. ⁴⁵ Yet Muslims never describe Allah as wicked or evil. But if Allah is described by his actions, it would seem consistent to describe him as evil and wicked, as well as good. That Allah is essentially unknowable means one can never be sure how Allah will act or what he will do.

Christians agree with their Muslim friends that God is omnipotent and sovereign over his creation. But the true God cannot sin or act in a way contrary to what he has revealed about himself. The true God is no deceiver ⁴⁶ and will never act inconsistently with his holy character. ⁴⁷ God is not the author of sin, ⁴⁸ although he is capable of using the sinful actions of evil men to achieve his own ends. ⁴⁹ As Berkhof remarks, the true God is “devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises. . . and is free from all accession or diminution and from all growth or decay in His Being or perfections.” ⁵⁰ As the psalmist says, “[T]hey shall be changed: but thou art the same.” ⁵¹ Jesus Christ, the supreme revelation of God to man, is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” ⁵²

Animistic Superstition vs. Confident Faith

Another notable distinction between Christianity and Islam centers on the quality of the believer's faith. Pagan superstition, rather than a confident trust in the goodness and power of Allah, prevails within Islam. For example, Muslims believe that the black stone meteorite in the Ka'aba was originally crystal clear but became pitch-black through taking the sins of the Muslims who kiss it. Any form of veneration of a dead stone—especially to the extent of bowing down and kissing it—can only be identified with pagan idolatry rather than pure monotheistic worship. ⁵³ Cate avers that “Muslims strongly believe in a personal Satan and demons, called jinn. From the jinn come the powers of the evil eye. The fear of the evil eye, the jinn, and curses given by those with special power can lay a heavy toll on Muslims.” ⁵⁴ A long list of common Muslim superstitions could be listed. Cate mentions a few:

In children's first years they are frequently kept very dirty, even in clean houses by clean parents, because a clean child could attract the evil eye. No one is to compliment a baby or a young child, because this could open the child up to being zapped by the evil eye. If a compliment is given, then Masha Allah (“Praise God”) is said in order to block the power of the evil eye from harming the child. Verses of the Qur'an are pinned to children's clothing to ward off the evil eye. And a kerosene light might be kept on all night in a village home in order to keep jinn away. . . . Muslims flock to the tombs of saints, believing in the powers at the tomb of the dead bones of that saint to intercede or to answer their prayers. Muslims may walk around the tomb, touch it with their hands, and then put their hands on their face to pass the blessing from the saint onto themselves. . . . Many amulets are worn to ward off the power of the evil eye and the jinn. Many Muslims believe that some form of magical power helps them maintain equilibrium or balance with the spirit world. ⁵⁵

In one particularly absurd example of Muslim superstition, the Hadith has Mohammed saying, “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.” ⁵⁶ Another tradition alleges that Satan plays pranks on those who sleep when they should be praying. ⁵⁷

The Bible teaches that Satan roams the earth seeking to destroy whomever he can, but it mentions nothing about him lodging overnight within someone's nostril. Christians acknowledge the power of Satan and demons, but they also recognize that such powers are ultimately under God's sovereign control. Christians overcome Satan and evil spirits because God is greater than “he that is in the world.” ⁵⁸ Christians can sleep sweetly and soundly, knowing that they have nothing to fear when God is the source of their confidence and security. ⁵⁹ The impersonal, distant, unknowable God of Islam does not engender confidence or security in his followers. Christians fear no spirits, devils, jinns, or evil eyes. A spirit of fear and timidity is replaced with “power and love and discipline.” ⁶⁰ As Cate suggests,

Christians should never forget that they worship a personal God, who hears and answers prayer, who has created the world, who has all power, who has defeated Satan on the cross, who will ultimately defeat Satan, and who can solve the problems with which any Muslim is wrestling. ⁶¹

True Christianity banishes superstition, while Islam is replete with it.

Regarding Salvation

In addition to their differing views regarding the nature of God, Christians and Muslims disagree on the requirements for salvation. Like Christians, Muslims are interested in securing a place for themselves in heaven. Muslims believe that earthly life is preparation for eternity, either in heavenly bliss or in damnation of hell. ⁶² The Qur'an contains many warnings regarding the coming Judgment Day in which all will be held accountable for their faith and actions. While Christians agree with Muslims regarding the reality of a future judgment and the existence of heaven and hell, the two faiths differ drastically in their teachings regarding the nature of salvation and the conditions for achieving it.

Weakness vs. Depravity

The sinfulness of man is a significant area of disagreement between Christians and Muslims. Islam teaches that man is weak, sinful, and ignorant, but not spiritually dead. Man needs a teacher and guide, not a savior. Man is fully capable by his own will and efforts of pleasing God. Kateregga asserts that “Islam does not identify with the Christian conviction that man needs to be redeemed. The Christian belief in the redemptive sacrificial death of Christ does not fit the Islamic view that man has always been fundamentally good, and that God loves and forgives those who obey his will.” ⁶³ Accordingly, man needs only a shove in the right direction, not a total renovation of his nature or regeneration of his soul. Man's ultimate purpose in life is not to know God, glorify God or to enjoy him forever, but to understand Allah's will and become more obedient to his commands. ⁶⁴

Although Muslims believe the basic outlines of the fall of man as revealed in Genesis, they also hold that Adam's sin did not change his nature, and that the fall did not have any impact on succeeding generations. As Rhodes notes, Muslims believe that “Adam was the same after the fall as he was before. He was still perfectly able to obey God.” ⁶⁵ Mahmoud A. Ayoub states the following:

Islam insists, both in the Qur'an and prophetic, hadith tradition, that every human being is born with an innate knowledge of God. This knowledge is not so much awareness or information, rather it is a state of innocent faith, a state ( fitra ) of the original creation expressed anew in every child. ⁶⁶

Islam asserts that every child is born as innocent as Adam was before the fall. Muslims see Adam's sin as a “minor slip-up,” ⁶⁷ not a foundational corruption of human nature passed down from Adam to the whole human race. Kateregga claims that “Muslims . . . do not accuse Adam and Eve of transmitting sin and evil to the whole of mankind. The two were absolved of their sin, and their descendants were made immune from its effect. Sin is not original, hereditary, or inevitable.” ⁶⁸ Adam made a mistake—he forgot about God's prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree. But he repented, God forgave him, and all was restored to a pre-fall condition. Muslims believe that people sin, not because of a sin nature inherited from Adam, but because of human weakness and forgetfulness. Sinners needed the prophets to supply continual reminders of Allah's laws. Oddly enough, the Qur'an claims that Satan reminded Adam about the results of sin during the temptation. This tradition contradicts the Muslim teaching that Adam simply forgot God's command not to eat of the fruit. ⁶⁹ Islam recognizes that men will sin, but those who seek to obey Allah's will find forgiveness. Man's heart is not utterly depraved; it is merely distracted. Muslims do not describe salvation in terms of conversion or deliverance from sin, but as remembering or returning. ⁷⁰

If sin is such a minor matter and so easily overcome, why do sinners merit the drastic punishments Allah threatens against them? Allah's extreme reaction against transgressors is inappropriate if sin is no more than forgetfulness and distraction. Further, the Muslim view of sin cannot account for the depths of human depravity. It is hard to believe that root of idolatry, greed, and hatred is simple memory lapse. Reminders and appeals to return have little power to curb the lust of the flesh and the pride of life.

Christians believe the problem of sin is far more extensive than Muslims. The Bible regards Adam's iniquity as more than a trivial slip-up. By his disobedience, Adam plunged the whole race into sin and brought the world itself into the “bondage of corruption.” ⁷¹ The sin of the one man passed down to all men. ⁷² The Bible teaches that the one sin of the one man Adam somehow influences the whole race. Man sins because he is sinful, and sin has penetrated every part of every person. People are sinners by birth and by choice. Sin is rebellion against God, a violation of his law, and failure to meet God's standard, not merely weakness and forgetfulness. Christianity does not identify with the Muslim idea that man is fundamentally good.

Christians believe that the solution to the sin problem is not reminders or redirection, but total renovation. Man needs a new “heart of flesh” to replace his heart of stone. ⁷³ Jesus came into the world as a Second Adam to reverse the effects of the fall for believers. Those “in Christ” are new creations ⁷⁴ who have the Spirit-given capacity to turn away from sin and live holy lives. Man's slavery to sin has been broken; sin has no more dominion over the believer. ⁷⁵ The Christian has been justified, legally pardoned based on Christ's substitutionary atonement. He is no longer found guilty; his sins are forgiven, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. ⁷⁶ God, through Christ, solves one's sin problem judicially and gives the believer the capacity to overcome sin practically.

Faith Plus Works vs. Repentant Faith Alone

Muslim ideas of faith and works are radically different from Christian views. Muslims are quick to point out that their system of faith is far easier to believe and practice than the complicated and abstract faith of Christianity. Islam has only three basic elements of faith: belief in the oneness of God, belief in the prophecy of Mohammed, and belief in life after death. These three are commonly expanded to include belief in Allah and his attributes, the teaching of the prophets, the sacred books, resurrection, the angels, and Allah's sovereign control over everything. ⁷⁷ Whoever denies any of these elements is assumed to be kafir, an unbeliever. Islam, as popularly understood and practiced, boils down to the following simple ideas: “spread peace, feed people food, and do some devotional practice, and you'll enter paradise without any trouble.” ⁷⁸

Islam affirms the biblical truth that “faith without works is dead,” ⁷⁹ but unlike Christianity, it holds that good works are a necessary, meritorious element of salvation. Islam emphasizes the following “pillars” or good works that the faithful are expected to carry out and without which salvation is impossible: confession, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in one's life. Some Muslims also include jihad , holy war or some other kind of exertion for the cause of Islam. ⁸⁰ No salvation exists in the Muslim world apart from practicing the pillars, described by the Arabic word ibadat , from the root “slave. Miller notes that these pillars or works “are the services a slave renders to his Owner.” ⁸¹ One American convert to Islam found that faith attractive because it “puts the onus of salvation on the believer.” ⁸² On the final Judgment Day, Allah will weigh one's good works against his evil works. The Qur'an states, “Then when the Trumpet is blown, . . . those whose balance (of good deeds) is heavy—they will be successful: But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide.” ⁸³

Muslims must believe the right things and do the right things if they are to maintain any hope of a blissful afterlife. Faith alone will not save anyone; works are also required. Many passages from the Qur'an assert the necessity of both faith and works for salvation:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness—to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and give Zakat (regular charity); to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God fearing. . . . To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath God promised forgiveness and a great reward. . . . But those who believe and work righteousness—no burden do We place on any soul, but that which it can bear—they will be Companions of the Garden, therein to dwell (for ever). . . . As to those who believe and work righteousness, verily We shall not suffer to perish the reward of any who do a (single) righteous deed. ⁸⁴

Christianity teaches an entirely different understanding of faith. Christians believe the Word of God, ⁸⁵ in which they find revealed the person and work of Christ. ⁸⁶ This revelation leads to faith in Christ himself. ⁸⁷ Sincere, repentant faith that apprehends the proper object is salvific; nothing else is required. If a person “has” Christ, he has eternal life. ⁸⁸ The object of saving faith is the prophet—Jesus Christ. Not so in Islam. Muslims believe that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, but not that Mohammed is divine or that his work is the basis of salvation. Mohammed revealed Allah's will and set a good example, but he did not purchase salvation for anyone other than himself. In Islam, every individual must purchase his own salvation through faith and good works. Belief in Mohammed is not trust in him to forgive sin or provide salvation. In contrast, Christian faith requires the believer to trust the person and work of Christ to save him. Christ is the Savior; Mohammed never claimed to be a savior.

Further, Christianity takes a radically different view of good works than does Islam. Biblical authors repeatedly deny the idea that works are meritorious in salvation. ⁸⁹ Christians claim to be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, while Muslims seek to merit God's favor through obedience. The Bible asserts that one can trust in God's grace for salvation or seek to earn God's approval through good works, but not both. ⁹⁰ The good works of the unregenerate, although they are good in a sense, are nevertheless non-meritorious. Works will naturally surface in the lives of genuine believers, but works do not aid or secure salvation for Christians. Faith without works is dead, but so is faith that depends on works to bring salvation.

Uncertainty vs. Certainty

In spite of all its bold assertions about the requirements for salvation, Islam conveys little certainty that the faithful will ever attain it. Because salvation in Islam is based on a comparison between one's good and evil works, the typical Muslim is unsure of his eternal destiny. For Muslims, affirming their own righteousness is presumptuous because it is impossible for anyone to know whether his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds until Judgment Day. When a Muslim is asked if he is a believer or if he will attain heaven, he will commonly answer, “If it be the will of God.” ⁹¹ No assurance of salvation is possible for Muslims, at least not one based on faith and good works. The only people who can be absolutely assured of heaven are those who lose their lives fighting in a jihad, which explains why so many Muslims are willing to give their lives in Allah's service. Sura 3:195 states, “Those who have . . . fought or been slain—verily I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into gardens with rivers flowing beneath.” Since the majority of Muslims do not die during jihad, they can have no confidence of eternal life. Muslims commonly attempt to do additional good works such as fasts, prayers, gifts to charity, and pilgrimages, in the hope of shifting the scales in their favor. But ultimately, a blissful eternity is dependent upon the arbitrary will of Allah, and no one can predict what Allah's decision will be. ⁹² One authoritative tradition suggests that Mohammed himself was unsure of his eternal destiny. ⁹³ Like all other Muslims, even the prophet could only hope for the best.

Unlike Muslims, Christians can be assured of their eternal destination. The Bible repeatedly asserts that one can know he is saved. ⁹⁴ One's sense of assurance is based on biblical promises, the presence of certain evidences, and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. If a believer has sincerely repented of sin and turned to Christ for forgiveness, he has fulfilled the biblical requirements for salvation. Shortly after salvation, fruit should start appearing in the life of a believer. This fruit, or evidence of spiritual life, may take many forms, such as obedience to Christ's commands, love for the brotherhood of believers, a desire to be baptized, and union with a church. Those without such evidence have good reason to question their salvation, but the presence of such evidence should give the believer increased confidence that he is genuinely saved. The Holy Spirit has promised to indwell the believer and witness to him internally that he is a child of God. ⁹⁵ This internal witness is admittedly a subjective, personal experience and not to be considered apart from biblical promises or the presence of evidence. If one has followed the biblical guidelines, is experiencing the common evidences of salvation, and is enjoying the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, he should be confident that he is saved.

Fanciful Speculation vs. Spiritual Worship

The Muslim view of existence after death differs drastically from the Christian view. Muslims believe that at the point of death the soul of a faithful Muslim is clothed in sweet- smelling garments, taken through the seven heavens, ushered into the presence of God, and then returned to the physical body to wait for the future Judgment Day. The soul of the unbeliever is wrapped with a foul-smelling garment, brought to heaven but turned away, and then is returned to the body to wait for judgment. While in the grave, Muslims are visited by angels who examine them regarding their faith. If a dead person claims Allah, Islam, and Mohammed, the angels make the person comfortable and “open a window through which they can gaze at the Garden and receive the winds and odor of Paradise.” ⁹⁶ Unbelievers, on the other hand, are subject to great discomfort and feel the hot winds of hell and other torments while in the grave. Although some Muslims reject the idea of punishments and rewards before the judgment, the popular viewpoint maintains both. Some believe that souls sleep, while others hold that souls are fully conscious and active. Some suggest that the dead do not interact with the living, but others claim that the dead speak and even visit their friends. Perhaps spirits temporarily hover near their homes and observe how their affairs are being discharged. Departed spirits possibly wander the earth or visit the Garden. Islam asserts no uniform teaching on the activities of the dead at this stage, and most educated Muslims do not speculate about the exact nature and details of the afterlife. ⁹⁷

As Geisler notes, “the fact of bodily resurrection is a cornerstone of Mohammed's early preaching.” ⁹⁸ Muslims believe that at the final judgment, the angel of death, Israfil, will blow a trumpet, after which God will resurrect the dead. Allah will recreate each person's body in its original shape and will rejoin every soul to its body. All people will be called to stand before Allah to await judgment, and this waiting period may last for a thousand years. Eventually, he will begin judging everyone based on his deeds, intentions, and desires, which have been recorded by two angels. Allah will employ a scale to weigh one's good deeds against his bad. Everyone will be forced to cross seerat , the bridge over hell. The faithful will cross quickly and easily, while unbelievers will fail to cross and will fall into the abyss of hell. During this process, some will implore Mohammed to intercede for them; and he will agree, allowing many who were destined for hell to enter heaven. In fact, some who fell into hell will be released through the prophet's intercession. Most Muslims believe that only the musrikun , those unbelievers who have committed the worst sins, such as impugning the unity of God, will suffer the eternal torments of hell. Geisler condenses the Qur'an's description of hell:

[The inhabitants] will be given a mixture of boiling water. Then shall their return be to the (blazing) fire” (37:62-68). . . . Furthermore it has fierce “boiling hot water” (55:44), with “a fierce blast of fire and boiling water, and in the shades of black smoke” (56:42-43). “When they are cast therein, they will hear the (terrible) drawing in of its breath even as it blazes forth, almost bursting with fury” (67:7-8). The people of the fire are sighing, wailing and wretched (11:106). Their scorched skins are constantly exchanged for new ones so that they can taste the torment anew (4:45). They drink festering water and though death appears on all sides, they are not able to die (14:16-17). . . . Boiling water will be poured on their heads, melting their insides as well as their skins, and hooks of iron will drag them back should they try to escape (22:19-21). ⁹⁹

Muslims who successfully cross the bridge over hell will arrive safely in heaven, the “Gardens of Felicity.” ¹⁰⁰ The faithful will be given delicious drinks and are promised the companionship of young and beautiful women. In fact, each man may have seventy-two beautiful maidens at his disposal. ¹⁰¹ Kripalani asserts that “Mohammed's conception of Paradise is well known to be materialistic and voluptuous,” a place where all physical desires may be fully satisfied. ¹⁰² Everyone will be content, peaceful and secure. The Qur'an says that the faithful “will enjoy gentle speech, pleasant shade, and every available fruit, as well as the cool drink and meat they desire. They will drink from a shining stream of delicious wine,” wear gold and pearls, robes of finest silk, and be waited on by servants. ¹⁰³ A tree in Paradise is so large that a rider can travel in its shade for a hundred years. Spectacular views of fountains, pavilions, and rivers delight on every side. ¹⁰⁴ One tradition asserts that each man in heaven will inhabit a hollowed-out pearl, sixty miles long, in which he will have a number of wives, none of whom will see the others. ¹⁰⁵ But the spiritual joys of heaven will exceed the physical pleasures of the place. “[T]he greatest bliss is the good pleasure of God: that is the supreme felicity.” ¹⁰⁶ Muslims differ on whether the descriptions of heaven and hell should be interpreted literally or symbolically.

A simple description of the Muslim view of the afterlife exposes it as a weak link within the system. Pleasant or foul-smelling garments, graveside views of heaven or hell, angelic visitors, disembodied spirits hovering nearby, the bridge over hell, sensual delights of heaven, barbaric descriptions of hell—many such elements were likely plagiarized from earlier religions such as Zoroastrianism. Christians agree that heaven and hell exist, but the biblical description of these places has little in common with the fanciful imaginations rife within Islam.

The Bible teaches that upon death the soul immediately leaves the body and eternally resides ever after in a state of bliss or punishment. The soul does not remain in the grave with the dead body, nor does it sleep or haunt its old neighborhood. Absent from the body, one's soul is “present with the Lord” ¹⁰⁷ or experiencing the just desserts of sin. ¹⁰⁸ Christians will be judged for their works, but their entrance into heaven is not based on this judgment. Viewpoints regarding the eschaton differ within Christianity, but all agree that there will be a future resurrection and judgment for the just and the unjust. The just will enjoy eternal bliss while the wicked will suffer eternal torment. Then all things will be made new and the eternal state will commence. ¹⁰⁹ Noticeably absent from Christian belief are the more gruesome descriptions of hell or the sensual and fanciful descriptions of heavenly bliss, but Christians can agree with their Muslim friends that “the greatest bliss is the good pleasure of God.” Worship, not the fulfillment of physical desires, will be a primary activity for those in heaven. ¹¹⁰ Intimate, unbroken, perfect fellowship of believers with their Creator and Redeemer will be the ultimate reward.

Conclusion

While Islam and Christianity share some common views, they are not compatible faiths. Muslims worship a different God and seek salvation through different means. Allah has little in common with the true God revealed in the Bible. God is a Trinity, not an absolute singularity. God has revealed himself to man and is knowable, not wholly other and essentially unknowable. God's character and nature are stable, not arbitrary and contradictory. The Christian faith precludes superstition rather than encouraging it. Likewise, the Christian view of salvation differs radically from Islam. Christianity takes the problem of human sinfulness far more seriously than does Islam, asserting that the natural man is utterly depraved, not just distracted. Man is saved by repentant faith alone, not by faith plus works. The Christian may be confident and secure in his salvation, while even a sincere, faithful Muslim has no genuine assurance that he will ever attain heavenly bliss. Christians look forward to an orderly and worshipful afterlife, not a chaotic, sensual one.

The Qur'an claims that Allah told Mohammed, “When in doubt ask those who read the previous scriptures.” ¹¹¹ Some Muslims may follow this advice and be receptive to the Christian message. Since the gospel is the “power of God unto salvation,” and since “faith comes by hearing,” the best approach to employ when encountering Muslims is a simple proclamation of biblical claims. The Qur'an says, “You will find those who are nearest in love to [Muslims] to be those who say, 'We are Christians' because among them are men devoted to learning and self-denial, and they are not arrogant.” ¹¹² A humble, compassionate, educated explanation of “the previous scriptures” may be the most effective strategy in reaching Muslims.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Ayoub, Mahmoud A. “Revelation and Salvation: Towards an Islamic View of History.” No pages. Cited 17 December, 2004. Online: http://al-islam.org/al-serat/rev-salv.htm.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.

Caner, Emir Fethi, and Ergun Mehmet Caner. More than a Prophet . Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Cate, Patrick O. “ Islamic Values and the Gospel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 355-370. Libronix Library System Version 2.1b 2000-2004. Print ed.: Bibliotheca Sacra 155. Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Geisler, Norman L., and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Gilchrist, John. “Our Approach to Islam: Charity or Militancy?” No pages. Cited 20 Dec 2004. Online: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/charity.html.

Hanson, Hamza Yusuf. Mohammed: Legacy of a Prophet on DVD. Menlo Park, CA: Kikim Media and Unity Productions Foundation, 2002.

Khan, M. Muhsin, trans. Sahih Bukhari . Vol. 4, book 54, no. 516. No pages. Cited 24 Jan 2005. Online: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ 054.sbt.html.

Kateregga, Badru D., and David W. Shenk. A Muslim and a Christian Dialogue . Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1997.

Kittle, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Libronix Library System Version 2.1b. 2000-2004. Print ed.: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Translated by GW Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Kripalani, Raj. “The Doctrine of Heaven (Paradise) Behind the Veil of Islam.” Conservative Theological Journal 6, no. 19 (2002): 351-375. Libronix Library System Version 2.1b. 2000-2004. Print ed.: Conservative Theological Journal 6. Tyndale Theological Seminary, 2002.

Madany, Bassam M. “The Trinity and Christian Missions to Muslims,” Reformation and Revival 10, no. 3 (2001): 119-135. Libronix Library System Version 2.1b 2000-2004. Print ed.: Reformation and Revival 10. Reformation and Revival Ministries, 2001.

Miller, William M. A Christian Response to Islam . Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1976.

Rauf, Mohammed Abdul. Islam: Creed and Worship . Washington DC: The Islamic Center, 1974.

Rhodes, Ron. Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims . Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2002.

Shehadi, Fadlou. Ghazali's Unique Unknowable God . Leiden: Brill, 1964.

Zahoor, A., and Z. Haq. “Biography of Prophet Mohammed.” No pages. Cited 26 Mar 2002. Online: http://users.erols.com/zenithco/Mohammed.html.

1 The composition of this statement may take various forms such as, “There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his apostle.”

2 John 17:17; 1 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Pet 1:19-21.

3 Rom 1:18-25.

4 Rom 1:16.

5 Rom 9:15-16.

6 John 6:37, 40, 10:28.

7 Acts 16:14; 1 Cor 2:13-14.

8 Rom 10:9-17.

9 Rom 10:17, cf. John 5:24.

10 1 Cor 1:21.

11 William M. Miller, A Christian Response to Islam (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1976), 21.

12 Miller, Christian Response , 75. “When Muslims worship their Creator, they are surely worshiping the true God.” Miller concedes that much of what Muslims believe about God is incorrect.

13 Sura 29:46.

14 Patrick O. Cate, “ Islamic Values and the Gospel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 357. Version 2.1b. 2000-2004.

15 Miller, Christian Response , 73. Cf. Sura 5:116.

16 Bassam M. Madany, “The Trinity and Christian Missions to Muslims,” Reformation and Revival 10 (2001): 120. Version 2.1b. 2000-2004.

17 A. Zahoor and Z. Haq, “Biography of Prophet Mohammed,” np [cited 26 Mar 2002]. Online: http://users.erols.com/zenithco/Mohammed.html.

18 Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 20.

19 Gen 1:1, 1:26; 3:22.

20 Ps 110:1; Isa 48:16, 61:1.

21 Deut 6:4-5.

22 Matt 3:16-17.

23 Matt 28:19.

24 2 Cor 13:14.

25 John 6:27, 20:17; Heb 1:8; Titus 2:13; John 1:1, 5:23; Acts 5:3-4; Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14.

26 1 Tim 1:2.

27 Büchsel, “?????????,” TDNT . Version 2.1b. 2000-2004.

28 Heb 11:17.

29 Geisler, Answering Islam , 139.

30 John 10:30, 17:22; Acts 5:3-4.

31 Cate, “Islamic Values,” 357.

32 Mohammed Abdul Rauf, Islam: Creed and Worship (Washington DC: The Islamic Center, 1974), 2.

33 Geisler, Answering Islam , 140.

34 Geisler, Answering Islam , 141.

35 Geisler, Answering Islam , 141.

36 Fadlou Shehadi, Ghazali's Unique Unknowable God (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 37.

37 Isma'il Al-Faruqi, Christian Mission and Islamic Da'wah: Proceedings from the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982), 47-48, quoted in Geisler, Answering Islam , 142.

38 Shehadi, Unknowable God , 37.

39 Jer 9:24; Phil 3:10; 1 John 2:3.

40 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 265.

41 Heb 1:1-3.

42 Cate, “Islamic Values,” 357.

43 Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, Dictionary of Islam (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1980), 147, quoted in Emir Fethi Caner and Ergun Mehmet Caner, More than a Prophet (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), 41.

44 Cate, “Islamic Values,” 358.

45 Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2002), 99.

46 Titus 1:2, literally “the non-lying God.”

47 Isa 47:4, 57:15.

48 Jas 1:13.

49 Acts 4:27-28.

50 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 58. Version 2.1b. 2000-2004.

51 Ps 102:26-27.

52 Heb 13:8.

53 John Gilchrist, “Our Approach to Islam: Charity or Militancy?” np [cited 20 Dec 2004]. Online: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/charity.html.

54 Cate, “Islamic Values,” 362.

55 Cate, “Islamic Values,” 362-363.

56 M. Muhsin Kahn, trans. Sahih Bukhari , np [cited 24 Jan 2005]. Online: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/ fundamentals/hadithsunnah/ bukhari/054.sbt.html.

57 Kahn, Sahih Bukhari , np Someone told the Prophet about a man who had kept on sleeping until morning and had not got up for prayer. The Prophet said, “Satan urinated in his ears.”

58 1 John 4:4.

59 Prov 3:23-26.

60 2 Tim 1:7.

61 Cate, “Islamic Values,” 364.

62 Geisler, Answering Islam , 109.

63 Badru D. Kateregga and David W. Shenk, A Muslim and a Christian Dialogue (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1997), 175.

64 Rhodes, Reasoning , 233.

65 Rhodes, Reasoning , 235.

66 Mahmoud A. Ayoub, “Revelation and Salvation: Towards an Islamic View of History , ” np [cited 17 December, 2004]. Online at: http://al-islam.org/al-serat/rev-salv.htm .

67 Rhodes, Reasoning , 234.

68 Kateregga, Dialogue , 141.

69 Sura 7:20.

70 Caner, More than a Prophet , 123.

71 Rom 8:21.

72 Rom 5:12-19.

73 Ezek 11:19.

74 2 Cor 5:17.

75 Rom 6:14-22.

76 Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:21.

77 Geisler, Answering Islam , 125.

78 Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Mohammed: Legacy of a Prophet on DVD , np Kikim Media and Unity Productions Foundation, 2002.

79 Jas 2:17.

80 Geisler, Answering Islam , 126.

81 Miller, Christian Response , 57.

82 Kevin James, Legacy , np

83 Sura 23:101-103.

84 Sura 2:177, 5:10, 7:42, 18:30.

85 Rom 10:17; 1 Thess 2:13.

86 John 20:30-31; 1 Thess 4:14.

87 John 12:44; Acts 16:31.

88 1 John 5:12.

89 Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5.

90 Rom 11:6.

91 Geisler, Answering Islam , 128.

92 Rhodes, Reasoning , 236.

93 Caner, More than a Prophet , 125.

94 1 John 3:14, 4:13, 5:10-13.

95 Rom 8:16.

96 Geisler, Answering Islam , 111.

97 Geisler, Answering Islam , 114.

98 Geisler, Answering Islam , 117.

99 Geisler, Answering Islam , 122.

100 Sura 37:43; 52:34; 56:17; 74:19.

101 Rhodes, Reasoning , 268.

102 Raj Kripalani, “The Doctrine of Heaven (Paradise) Behind the Veil of Islam,” Conservative Theological Journal 6, no. 19 (2002): 351. Version 2.1b. 2000-2004. “As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup.” Sura 78:31.

103 Sura 37:45-47.

104 Rhodes, Reasoning , 257.

105 Kripalani, “Doctrine,” 358.

106 Sura 9:72.

107 2 Cor 5:8.

108 Luke 16:19-31.

109 2 Pet 3:9-13; Rev 21:5.

110 Rev 4:10-11, 15:4, 22:9.

111 Sura 10:95; 16:43.

112 Sura 5:85.

Additional Material: A Primer on Presuppositional Apologetics ¹

Christian apologetics is the discipline or practice of defending and commending Christianity. Le christianisme comme une vision du monde est en concurrence avec une multitude de visions du monde d'autres pour représenter avec précision les choses comme elles sont. Imaginez avec moi un chrétien engager un non-chrétien dans l'apologétique. Selon quels critères sera-il juger les arguments? Ah, mais voici le meilleur: Le débat porte sur les critères eux-mêmes.

Comment cela? Quand un chrétien se livre un non-chrétien, chacun fait une réclamation au sujet de la réalité ultime-la façon dont les choses sont réellement. Maintenant, la façon dont les choses sont vraiment affecte la façon dont les gens peuvent connaître des choses. (Philosophie dit que votre ontologie [la philosophie de ce qui est] a des implications pour votre épistémologie [philosophie de la façon dont nous savons ce qui est].) Le chrétien tire son ontologie et l'épistémologie de la théologie biblique et systématique; le non-chrétien tire son d'ailleurs -si un athée, peut-être de sa propre expérience filtré à travers sa propre raison. Le chrétien et le non-chrétien, parce qu'ils ont différentes ontologies et épistémologies, maintenez des idées très différentes sur ce qui est scientifiquement possible, moralement juste, ou rationnellement plausible. (For instance, the vicarious atonement is morally repugnant to unbelievers, cf. 1 Cor. 1:18–24.) Worldviews clash over ultimate issues, including what categories best sort data and what criteria best judge arguments. Le christianisme nous dit que même plus qui est en jeu, à savoir, comment nous pouvons être en règle avec Dieu.

Reconnaissant cette énigme, certains apologistes tenter d'amener les incroyants au christianisme au cours soi-disant un terrain neutre, de faire appel à des hypothèses et des critères "communs" à la fois le chrétien et le non-chrétien. A school of apologetics called presuppositionalism, however, has disagreed with that methodology. Presuppositionalism asserts that by assuming that the believer and unbeliever have criteria in common—that there is neutral data out there they both may properly use—the apologist has already sold the farm (at least, implicitly).

I advocate presuppositional apologetics. Je suppose que mes parts d'audience de mon engagement à glorifier Dieu en toutes choses et à reconnaître la Seigneurie du Christ dans toute entreprise (1 Cor 10:31;. 2 Cor 10:4-5;.. 1 P 3,15). I do not assume that anyone who opts for a different apologetic methodology from me is somehow deficient in his religious affections, nor do I deny the valuable contribution non-presuppositional apologists have made to Christian scholarship or to kingdom service. J'espère que de provoquer à l'amour et aux bonnes œuvres, et de préconiser une méthode d'apologétique que je crois est compatible avec ce que l'Ecriture révèle. Tout d'abord, je vais résumer les domaines pertinents de la théologie systématique. Deuxièmement, je vais en tirer les conséquences de la théologie pour la philosophie et apologétique. Finally, I will outline a rough strategy of presuppositional apologetics.

Théologie

La Bible nous dit que Dieu est un et trine, personnelle, volontaire, éternel, omniscient, souverain, autonome, auto-suffisante, à la fois transcendant et immanent. Il est le Créateur unique. Quand nous disons que Dieu est autonome et auto-suffisante (en théologie, son aséité, cf Jean 5:26;. Actes 17:25), on sous-entend qu'il y avait une époque où la Trinité est tout ce qui était (Ex. 3:13-15;. Ps 90:2), sans doute profiter les uns des autres de l'amour infini (Jean 17:5, 26; 1 Jean 4:8). When we say God is self-contained and self-sufficient, we also imply that God looks to nothing outside Himself for self-definition. Il n'existe pas au sein d'une matrice plus large métaphysique (Ésaïe 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:21-22). Furthermore, He knows Himself perfectly. The Spirit searches “the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10). God is perfectly satisfied with Himself. He knows everything about Himself, and He knows how all of that “everything” relates to the rest of that “everything.” (I speak as a fool.) Since He knows Himself and all the interrelations exhaustively, His knowledge is of unique and infinite quality: no creature could ever attain to that unique and infinite quality of knowledge. It is not just a very big quantity of knowledge; it's on a different level (Isa. 55:8–9). Lorsque Dieu créa le monde, Il a créé selon Sa connaissance parfaite et son plan. God's knowledge and God's plan are mutually inclusive: All that He has planned He knows about, and all that He knows about He knows by virtue of the fact that He planned it (Ps. 104:24; Dan. 4:35; Isa 46:10; Heb. 1:3). Le Créateur est distinct de Sa création.

The Bible says that this God has revealed Himself. Il ya deux catégories de base de la révélation: généraux (à tous les hommes en général) et spéciaux (à quelques hommes en particulier). Lorsque Dieu se révèle, Il est couronnée de succès dans ses fins (Ésaïe 55:11). Now general revelation and special revelation have different purposes, but both kinds of revelation are necessary. Ils travaillent ensemble, l'un aidant à interpréter l'autre. Théologie de la Réforme enseigne que par rapport à ses fins, la révélation de Dieu fait autorité, suffisante, claire et-et, finalement, nécessaires à notre existence (Job 23:12; Ps 19, 119;. Prov. 29:18; 46:10. Isa; Amos 8:11; Matt 5:17-18;. 16:1-4; Jean 10:35; Rm 1, 2. Tim 3:15;. Tite 1:2; He 6:13)..

Comme Francis Schaeffer a dit, Dieu est là, et il n'est pas silencieux. Mais qui est à l'écoute? What of man and his capacity to receive God's self-revelation? The Bible tells us that God created man to bear God's image and to act as a vice regent in creation. L'homme est rationnel, émotionnel, spirituel, moral, créatif, relationnel, et ainsi de suite. Même dans le jardin, comme une créature, l'homme était fini. Unique among creatures, but still not the Creator. Genesis describes the Fall from this innocence into sin: Eve's rejecting God's word for Satan's, and the subsequent tragic trajectory of a fallen civilization. Now man was not simply finite; now He was sinful, too. Il n'aurait jamais pu atteindre à la connaissance de Dieu, mais maintenant sa compréhension a été déformée, trop. The Fall had noetic effects (effects on man's knowledge). L'homme déchu rejette instinctivement la vérité de Dieu au point d'aveugles auto-tromperie parce que la vérité de Dieu le condamne (Jér 17:9; Rom 1:18; Rom 8:07, 1 Corinthiens 2:14; 2 Cor 4....: 4, 2 Pet 3:5)..

En bref, parce que l'homme déchu ne craint pas Dieu, il a perdu la vraie sagesse et la connaissance (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). Because He is separated from God (Isa. 59:1–2) and rejects Christ, He does not know where “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are tucked away (Col. 2:2–3). Only with salvation can fallen man's mind be renewed (Rom. 12:1–2; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:10).

Implications pour la philosophie et apologétique (une liste d'épicerie)

Tout d'abord, à cause de qui il est, Dieu Lui-même est la norme de ce fait le droit bien et le mal mal, de ce qui est possible et ce qui est impossible. Because of who He is, only such a Being is qualified to speak authoritatively and interpret the facts of existence for us. Les lois de l'univers lui obéir, et non vice-versa. Parce que rien n'est au-delà de sa connaissance ou de contrôle, rien ne pouvait lui aller vers le haut ou de lui causer de se tromper, nous ne pouvons faire confiance à sa Parole (Hébreux 6:13). Only such a sure word can serve as a proper foundation for knowledge. Comme je l'ai dit plus haut, notre ontologie détermine notre épistémologie. Ontologie chrétienne est d'environ un Dieu infini-personnelle qui parle, et l'épistémologie chrétienne dit que personne n'a accès à la connaissance que moins il reçoit de Dieu qui nous parle.

Second, Christianity's most basic distinction is the Creator-creature distinction. God is God; everything else is not God. That's easy to say but hard for sinners to accept. We keep trying to ascend to God or to bring Him down to chum around benignly among us.

Troisièmement, la révélation de Dieu est, objectivement parlant, assez clair pour que tous voient ce qu'il dit. He says that even the lost people “know” Him, although they lie like crazy and tell us the data are too ambiguous to be sure (Rom. 1). Les techniciens informatiques ont un nom pour un problème similaire: «l'erreur est entre le clavier et le président." Il n'y a pas des bugs dans le programme de Dieu. The error is not with Him. The unbeliever is in a pickle: He has rejected God and His Word and must fend for himself in a universe that cries out to him that he is justly condemned (Rom. 1). The data are anything but ambiguous; God regards them as objectively certain. The unbeliever persists in finding out by himself. Il est un Dieu wannabe.

Quatrièmement, toutes les connaissances humaines est soit un obéissants ou une réponse désobéissant à la révélation de Dieu. Même dans le jardin, Adam et Eve n'avaient pas de générer leurs propres connaissances: Ils ont reçu la révélation de Dieu, et de leurs propres esprits construit un modèle d'interprétation (dans leur propre créature façon) de ce que Dieu avait dit. À ce jour, la connaissance humaine est une construction fondée sur ce que Dieu a dit. Certains reçoivent la Parole de Dieu docilement, certains piller à leurs propres fins. De toute évidence, les incroyants reconnaissent certaines données sur l'univers, le problème est, ils essaient de brancher ces données dans une vision du monde qui est finalement fausse, et donc une vision du monde qui ne peuvent pas expliquer les données.

Fifth, there is an antithesis in the way a believer or an unbeliever receives God's knowledge. Oui, ils regardent les mêmes données dans la création. Yes, they look at the same printed Bible. But they do not make the same ultimate assumptions. L'incroyant suppose qu'il n'a pas besoin de Dieu, le croyant sait ce qu'il fait. Une alliance est un disjoncteur, l'autre un gardien de l'alliance. Voici le point crucial: L'incroyant affirme qu'il n'a pas besoin de Dieu, mais c'est une affirmation auto-destructeur (voir ci-dessous).

Enfin, le christianisme est une unité cohérente. Le christianisme n'est pas le théisme nu avec un Messie cloué sur. Both in reality and on paper, God is a Trinity, the Second Person of which entered into space-time history and took on a human nature to redeem mankind who had sinned grievously against Him and had become hopelessly lost. Tant dans la réalité et sur le papier, tous ces événements et les propositions sont inextricablement liés. God, Christ, the Spirit, Scriptures, sin, salvation—the sinner needs to know the basics of each to have a proper understanding of how to be saved. En outre, pour défendre le théisme nu (même provisoirement) sans le Christ est de défendre un dieu qui n'est pas là, c'est pour défendre une construction humaine, une idole.

Comment «faire» Apologétique présuppositionnels

Which apologetic method is most consistent with Christian theology? Comment allons-nous faire apologétique, de défendre le christianisme, sans (1) en sautant dans le fidéisme irrationnelle ou (2) de vendre la ferme et d'être incompatible avec le christianisme nous dit tout?

First, point out to the unbeliever his own creatureliness. He cannot know everything. Les implications de notre condition de créatures sont qu'il y aura toujours quelque chose en dehors du domaine de notre expérience et / ou au-delà de notre raisonnement. Comment pouvons-nous savoir avec certitude que tout ce que nous avons actuellement crois est vrai, s'il ya la possibilité que quelque chose "là dehors" pourrait potentiellement bouleverser toutes nos idées antérieures? Eh bien, nous devons les prendre sur la foi. All knowledge involves a certain amount of faith.

Deuxièmement, signaler à l'incroyant que nous avons tous raison un peu circulairement. Il ya certains présupposés (d'où le nom que tout le monde presuppositionalism détient sur la foi, consciemment ou inconsciemment Nous avons tous des grilles d'interpréter les données;. Ces grilles sont façonnées en fonction de nos propres présupposés et, à vrai dire, prédilections.

Third, point out his sin or his anti-Christian assumptions. Il a assumé il n'ya pas de Dieu qui peut parler en tant que Dieu a parlé.

Quatrièmement, souligner le caractère auto-destructeur de ces hypothèses. Il a construit une maison épistémologique sur le sable. Quand les pluies de l'existence de descendre, sa maison ne peut subsister. He has claimed the right to judge the rationality, possibility, and morality of things; but apart from God, he cannot make any of his claims “stick” beyond his own subjective state. Il ne peut pas expliquer la rationalité elle-même. Why do the laws of logic seem to work? Qui dit cela? Pourquoi nous avons tous des idées morales bien et le mal et le désir de les imposer? Why do we expect nature to act uniformly? The unbeliever cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the why of the most basic “laws,” the very criteria he wants to impose. Il faut admettre que ce soit il les a faites vers le haut ou qu'il les accepte sur l'autorité d'autres créatures finies. The believer, however, asserts that God has spoken to us, that deep down we know this, and that God has explained these most basic laws and criteria. God has not told us everything there is to know, but He has told us enough with which to navigate existence.

Pratiquement parlant, le croyant cherche à déconstruire la vision du monde de l'incroyant, montrant comment l'incroyant n'a rien à se tenir debout. Le croyant a à sa disposition tous les donnée des choses univers même que "peu probable" que le mal et la souffrance-parce que le christianisme donne la seule explication satisfaisante pour ces données. Il n'a pas besoin quoi que ce soit la peur de l'incroyant pourrait jeter sur lui, le fait même que l'incroyant peut protester contre Dieu est témoin de la guerre entre la semence de la femme et la semence du serpent. Lorsque l'incroyant utilise la logique contre le christianisme, il reconnaît implicitement un Dieu qui nous accorde la logique. This is “Judo” apologetics: Unbelievers' energy is used against them.

En bref, le chrétien doit affirmer que le christianisme est la seule satisfaisante vision du monde. Tout le reste est impossible. Any other claim is too small.

1 Mike Osborne, BA en Bible et d'une maîtrise en Histoire de l'Église de Bob Jones University. http://www.sharperiron.org/2006/06/13/a-primer-on-presuppositional-apologetics/ , consulté Juin 2006.

Lesson 14: Islam

[Note to teacher: this lesson could easily take two class periods]

We will conclude our study in apologetics by examining one of the fastest growing and most influential non-Christian religions today, Islam. Followers of Islam are Muslims or Mohammedans. Islam has much in common with Christianity and Judaism. All three originated with Abraham , recognize one God ( monotheistic ), are centered in the Middle East, and emphasize similar moral principles. Thus, some see Muslims, Jews and Christians as different branches of the same tree. There are even some within Christendom who suggest that sincere Muslims do not need to hear the Gospel because God accepts all sincere people of faith. However, Islam and Christianity are contradictory on many points. Christians should develop a basic understanding of Islam so that they'll be able to both defend Christianity from Muslim claims and effectively point Muslims to Christ.

Background: ¹ The word Islam means peace by submission and obedience to the will and commandments of God ( Allah ). It is also understood to mean total peace that comes from surrender to the will of God Almighty. The word “Islam” should be pronounced with a “ss” (I s lam) sound rather than a “z” sound (I z lam).

Islam arose in the deserts of Arabia near the city of Mecca . Mecca was an important commercial city and also a shrine city. In it is the Ka'aba, “the cube,” a building traditionally thought of as a worship center built by Abraham and Ishmael. Although the Arabs recognized Allah as the supreme God, he was not the only god they worshipped. The Ka'aba was full of images of other gods and goddesses. The Arabs at the time of Muhammad were thoroughly pagan.

The shrine at Mecca was an important element in Arab culture when the father of the faith, Muhammad ibnu Abdillah, was born around 570 AD. He earned his living as a trader and was known by his people as al-amin (the trustworthy one). By the time he was twenty-five, Muhammad had become well known in the city for his integrity and kindness. When Muhammad reached the age of 40, the angel Jibril (Gabriel) supposedly came to him with revelations that established Muhammad as a prophet. He first instructed his immediate family in Islam, including his wife Khadija and their six children. But eventually it was revealed to him that he should begin delivering the message to all of mankind. For the next 20 years, he communicated the message of Allah to his people, and set an example for how each human being should lead his life. Muhammad died on June 8, 632 AD.

According to Muslim tradition, the angel Gabriel visited Muhammad as commanded by Allah revealing Ayat (meaning signs, loosely referred to as verses) in Arabic over a period of twenty-three years. The revelations that he received were sometimes a few verses, a part of a chapter or the whole chapter. The revealed verses were recorded on a variety of available materials (leather, palm leaves, bark, and shoulder bones of animals), memorized as soon as they were revealed, and were recited in daily prayers by Muslims. All the revealed verses were compiled in the book known as Qur'an (Koran). The Qur'an speaks in the first person as Allah's commandments to His creation. Gabriel also visited the Prophet throughout his mission informing and teaching him of events and strategy as needed to help in the completion of the prophetic mission. The Prophet's sayings, actions, and approvals are recorded separately in collections known as Hadith .

The mission of Muhammad was to restore the worship of the One True God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, as taught by Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and all Prophets of God, and to demonstrate and complete the laws of moral, ethical, legal, and social conduct and all other matters of significance for the humanity at large. Almost sounds like Mormonism—an angel appears to Joe Smith telling him to restore true worship.

The first few people who followed this message were Mohammed's cousin Ali, his servant Zayd ibn Harithah, his friend Abu Bakr and his wife and daughters. At first, the Muslims were a small, persecuted group within their community. They endured insults and hostility from all sides, engaged in battles with opposing warlords, and even had to leave the area temporarily. Eventually, however, Muhammad and his followers became more influential. Several prominent Arab leaders converted to Islam, as did the people in many communities. Muslims carried the message of Islam wherever they went, and within ninety years the teachings of Islam reached Spain, North Africa, the Caucasus, northwest China and India.

Today, there may be 6 to 8 million Muslims in North America, over 30 million in Western Europe, and 50 to 60 million in different parts of the Republics that were once a part of Soviet Union. Significant Muslim minorities live in the Far East and in Eastern Europe. Islam prevails in countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Lebanon, etc.

Beliefs:

Islam is a complete way of life. It embraces the spiritual, social, moral, economic and cultural life of its followers, as well as their belief in God. It is concerned with the total person, and all acts receive their justification and direction from the teaching that is embodied in Qur'an. Unlike in the US where one's religion is often separate from the rest of his life.

• God: As noted above, Muslims are monotheists , believing in only one God, Allah. Allah is the proper name (not a title) in Arabic for the one and only God, the creator and sustainer of the universe. Muslims believe this is the same God the Christians and the Jews worship. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and he does not beget nor was He begotten. Islam proclaims that God is infinitely beyond anything that the human mind or senses can grasp or comprehend, imagine or explain. He is the originator and the fashioner of the whole universe and all of its perfect systems, which he sustains according to his infinitely wise plans and laws. Islam proclaims that God alone is divine and no one else shares his divinity. ²
• Muhammad (“the Prophet”): He was the last and greatest of God's prophets. All sincere Muslims try to follow the Qur'an and the Prophet's example to minute details.
• Other religions: Muslims have respect for other “people of the book,” that is, Jews and Christians. The Qur'an mentions four previously revealed Scriptures: Suhoof (Pages) of Ibrahim (Abraham), Taurat ('Torah') as revealed to Prophet Moses, Zuboor ('Psalms') as revealed to Prophet David, and Injeel ('Evangel') as revealed to Prophet Jesus. Islam requires belief in all prophets and in all original, non-corrupted scriptures.
• Scriptures: The Muslim teaching is that Islam as a religion has been practiced by the righteous since the creation of mankind and that all the prophets of God preached the same message. Many prophets were given scriptures to guide their nations and communities. Muslims believe that the last revealed scripture is the Holy Qur'an, and it is the only revealed scripture that has not been corrupted by human additions or deletions since its revelation 1400 years ago.

The Qur'an has 114 chapters that vary in length from four to 286 verses and it contains about 78,000 words. The Qur'an is believed to be the word of God, spoken through the angel Gabriel and recorded by Prophet Mohammad as God willed it to be. The Qur'an regulates every phase of the Islamic law, religious practice, culture and morals.

Another body of Islamic literature is called The Hadees (or Hadith). There are six such collections and each collection has multiple volumes. The Hadees, or The Traditions, is a recording of the actions, words, and deeds of Prophet Mohammad. For instance, the Qur'an commands that the Muslims should pray and worship, and pay charity; the Hadees explains the method of prayer, worship and the acts of charity. The Hadees and the Qur'an are complimentary, but the source of all the principles is the Qur'an.

• The Prophets: The Qur'an states that God sent a guide to every community, nation or tribe of people, and it mentions the names of many of them, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. According to the Qur'an, Adam was the first prophet and from Abraham came a long line of prophets through his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the forefather of the Arab people and thus of Prophet Mohammad, and, from Isaac descended a number of prophets, including his son Jacob, grandson Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, John the Baptist and Jesus. The Qur'an tells that Moses, David and Jesus were given written scriptures by God, and only scattered portions of the originals remain today.

Islam teaches that Jesus was one in the line of prophets sent to the children of Israel. He brought the message that reiterated the need of submission to God Almighty and obedience to God's law as had been given to Moses. The Qur'an states that Jesus was a human being, who delivered the message of one-ness of God and taught that God should be worshipped. ³ Jesus was the greatest prophet other than Mohammad. Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. God performed a miracle and delivered him from the hands of his enemies.

• Morality: Islam emphasizes social justice , mercy, charity , and generosity. The duty of each person is to work out his or her own destiny, and each is responsible for his or her own actions.
• Doctrine: Islam is not a doctrinally driven religion. The focus is on faithfulness to Allah and to Muhammad as the Prophet, but beyond that, individual belief varies significantly.
• Salvation: there will be a day of judgment and accountability with resurrection, at which time, those subservient to the will of God will be rewarded and those who failed to observe their obligations will be punished. An average Muslim believes that God gives life and death and that death may come at any time; thus, every one should try to earn the pleasure of God through good deeds. With this perception, a Muslim has to live a virtuous life all the time. Thus salvation is by works .
• Worship: Muslims believe in Five Acts of Worship:

• Declaration of Faith – Declaration of faith is the first act of worship when it is done with full sense of sincerity and commitment. The declaration that “There is no other God but One God (Allah) and Mohammad is His Messenger and servant” is the simple statement that makes a person a Muslim and is required to be said once in one's life time with full conviction and understanding. In practice Muslims may say it several times a day.
• The Prayer ( Salat ) – The prescribed prayer is the most visible act of worship. Prayer is to be offered five times a day (at the break of dawn, at noon, mid-afternoon, at sunset and at dusk after dark).
• Fasting ( Saum ) – Muslims fast in the month of Ramadan every year from the break of dawn till sun set. In addition to physical fasting, Ramadan is the month of spiritual activity at a heightened level.
• Charity ( Zakat ) – In simple terms, the rich and the well-to-do are obligated to pay charity to help the needy. This obligatory tax is paid out of all assets that the individual possesses at the end of every year, above and beyond the individual's personal and family needs. It is calculated at a fixed rate of two and one half percent per year.
• Pilgrimage ( Haj ) – A trip to Mecca is an essential duty that all Muslims should attempt at least once in a lifetime. Only those people are required to go for Haj who are in good health and have the means to travel to Saudi Arabia. The person who travels to Mecca and carries out the prayers and procedures in and around the grand mosque of Ka'aba at the time of Haj is called Haji (the pilgrim). Every year more than 1.5 million Muslims from all parts of the world perform Haj at Ka'aba.

What about jihad? Although jihad is not considered one of the five pillars, it is still an essential concept in Islam. The word literally means “ strive, struggle, fight .” In the Muslim sense, it has a wide range of meanings, anywhere from inner, personal struggle for greater piety or to overcome evil (“ greater jihad”) to political or military struggle to defend or expand the Muslim world (“ lesser jihad”). We often associate the term with “holy war,” armed conflict Muslims conduct against “infidels” (non-Muslims). A person who engages in any form of jihad can be called a mujahid (plural: mujahidin , Arabic for striver, struggler ). Such a person might engage in fighting as a military struggle for religious reasons, or for example, struggle to memorize the Qur'an. Extremists/radicals/terrorists have used the concept of jihad as a pretext for armed conflict against infidels, or even against other Muslims, in the name of Allah. Some Muslim traditions teach that those killed in the pursuit of jihad will receive great rewards in heaven. “Shahada,” or Death for Allah, promises rewards including the enjoyment of 72 “dark-eyed virgins” in Paradise. The only certain way of getting to Paradise is to die in jihad.

What's the Difference?

It should be obvious that Islam is a force to be reckoned with, a highly influential and growing religion with many millions of adherents. In the US, Islam is growing very quickly through immigration of Muslim believers and conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. How should Christians respond to these challenges?

Christians should recognize that Christianity and Islam are incompatible as sources of truth. Christianity and Islam contradict each other on many points.

Some suggest that Muslims are indeed worshipping the correct God, but are just mistaken in their concept of Him. But there are many distinctions between Allah and Yahweh Elohim (the LORD God): ⁴

Islam

Le christianisme

Allah is an absolute unity, without partner or peer.

God is a Trinity (or tri-unity). God eternally exists within the three Persons of the Trinity: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Allah claims to be a schemer, the author of evil and deception.

God neither is tempted by sin nor does He tempt anyone to sin.

Allah frequently changes his mind and substitutes one revelation for another.

God's character and purposes are eternal and unchangeable (immutable).

Allah presides over a paradise of sensual pleasure (72 virgins, etc).

Holy worship, contentment and joy characterize God's heaven.

Allah has no children. A Muslim would never claim Allah as his father. Men are servants of Allah, but enjoy no close personal relationship.

God claims to be a Father to His people. God invites men to come to him and enjoy close personal fellowship.

Allah rarely expresses love for anyone. Allah does not love those who don't love him.

God frequently expresses His love for all people, those who serve Him as well as those who don't.

Allah is utterly unknowable. He does not reveal himself to anyone in any way. Allah reveals only his will.

God cannot be fully known, but He can be truly known. God reveals both Himself and His will. The most outstanding revelation of God is Jesus Christ.

Allah is the personal name for God.

The Bible says God's name is Yahweh.

Allah is essentially one of the pagan gods of the Arabs whom Muhammad chose and exalted to a high position.

God chose Abraham and revealed Himself as the one and only God. The worship of Yahweh did not evolve from polytheism.

• Muslims claim to respect the Christian Scriptures, but in reality they deny the Bible and Christian theology. Muslims claim that the Christian Bible has been corrupted over the years and is no longer reliable. Christians obviously disagree. There is no reason to believe any part of the Bible is corrupt or invalid. The Qur'an is guilty of verifiable historical errors, unlike the Bible.
• Muslims claim to respect Jesus as a most important prophet. However, they are far more devoted to Muhammad than to Jesus. Islam teaches that Jesus was a great man, but not equal with God and certainly not worthy of worship . They don't even believe that Jesus died on the cross, teaching that Allah would never let his prophet die such a dishonorable death. Thus Muslim teaching directly contradicts biblical teaching and historic Christian theology.
• Islam teaches salvation by good works . Muslims must both believe in Muhammad and Allah, as well as perform good works in the hopes of earning a place in paradise. Muslims hope to accumulate enough good works to outweigh their bad works. They can never be sure if they are acceptable to Allah, whether they'll go to heaven or hell. Christianity teaches that salvation is through faith based on God's unconditional grace. Those who are saved may be confident that God accepts them on the basis of Christ's death for them.
• Islam teaches that man is weak, sinful and ignorant, but not spiritually dead . Man needs a teacher and guide, not a savior. Man is fully capable by his own will and efforts of pleasing God. In contrast, the Bible teaches that man is incapable of saving himself. Man is dead in sin, unable and unwilling to please God, in need of a new heart, not just a shove in the right direction.
• Some Muslim practices and doctrines give evidence of Islam's pagan roots. For example, Muslims believe that the black stone meteorite in the Ka'aba was originally crystal clear but became pitch-black through taking the sins of the Muslims who kiss it. Any form of veneration of a dead stone—especially to the extent of bowing down and kissing the stone—can only be identified with pagan idolatry rather than pure monotheistic worship.

A Note about radical Islam (“Islamo-radicals, Islamo-fascists”):

Some assert that militant, radical, “extreme” Muslims are not following the true faith but are corrupting a peaceful, tolerant religion. However, from its very inception, Islam expanded throughout the Middle-East and Africa due to the correct understanding of its followers, that the Dar al-Islam (“the house of Islam” ⁵ ) must extend to all the corners of the earth, and that this expansion is to be achieved by fighting and conquering the forces of unbelief. Far from getting it wrong, groups like the Iranian Revolutionaries, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda understood the message of Muhammad far better than most of their modern brethren. Christians shouldn't believe for a moment the ridiculous line the media is currently preaching regarding Islam being a noble religion of peace and tolerance. Islam is by nature a militant religion that cannot ultimately allow for the existence of opposition. ⁶ There is every reason to believe that the radicals are seeking and will use WMD—chemical, biological and/or nuclear.

Note the Quote: “To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.” Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad

Conclusion: If there is indeed only one God, there can only be one true religion, one faith that alone can give men access to the presence, knowledge and favor of God. That religion is Christianity, not Islam. While Islam has some things in common with Christianity, it is clearly not compatible with Christianity. Muslims worship a different god, seek salvation through different means, and believe different scriptures.

The best approach to Muslims is one of understanding, love and respect. Christians who “blast away” at Islam will likely be highly ineffective witnesses. But those who display great patience and kindness will find Muslims eager to discuss spiritual matters.

The Qur'an says:

You will find those who are nearest in love to [Muslims] to be those who say, “We are Christians” because among them are men devoted to learning and self-denial, and they are not arrogant.

Christians should always be “nearest in love” to Muslims and everyone else they come into contact with. An attitude of caring and concern for their well-being, both temporally and eternally, should be the overriding factor in our dealings with all men. ⁷

Discussion:

1. Who is the father of Islam? Muhammad ibnu Abdillah
2. Where and when did Islam arise? Around 600 AD in what is now Saudi Arabia
3. What is the name of the shrine at Mecca? Ka'aba
4. What is the Muslim book of scripture called? The Qur'an (Koran)
5. T or F Muslims believe Allah is the same God that Christians and Jews worship.
6. What do Muslims think about Jesus? They revere Him as a great prophet and teacher, second only to Muhammad, but not as equal with God or worthy of worship. They don't believe He died or rose again.
7. What do Muslims teach about salvation? One is saved by good works. One must accumulate more good works than bad.
8. What is the Declaration of Faith? “There is no other God but One God (Allah) and Mohammad is His Messenger and servant”
9. What do Muslims think of the Bible? They claim to respect the Christian Scriptures, but in reality they deny the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Muslims claim that the Christian Bible has been corrupted over the years and is no longer reliable.
10. Are Muslims saved? No; if one is a genuine Muslim, he denies the Bible, the deity of Christ, the sacrificial death of Christ, the resurrection, the character of God, and many other cardinal doctrines of Christianity. They claim to respect Christianity and see it as a true religion, but they essentially reject Christian doctrine.

1 Much of this history taken from Biography of Prophet Muhammad by Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq © 1990, 1997, 1998 (http://users.erols.com/zenithco/muhammad.html)

2 An Introduction to Islam Mohammad I. Hussain, MD

3 Hussain

4 Sam Shamoun, Is Allah The God Of Bible? http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm and The Character of God in Bible and Qur'an: A Study In Contrasts http://www.answering-islam.org/God/ character.html

5 Dar al-Islam (Arabic: literally “house of submission”) is a term used to refer to those lands under Muslim government(s) or where Muslims are free to practice their faith. In the conservative tradition of Islam, the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, the “house of war.”

6 Andrew Webb

7 John Gilchrist Our Approach to Islam: Charity or Militancy? http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/charity.html#3

Lesson 13: Jehovah's Witnesses

Historical Background: Charles Taze Russell ¹ began a Bible study group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the early 1870's. In 1879 he began publishing Zion's Watchtower to promote his views. In 1881 Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was formed, and in 1884 it was incorporated, with Russell as president. The Society's name was later changed to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. By 1909 the work had become international, and the Society's headquarters was moved to its present location in Brooklyn, New York.

Founder: Most students of the movement agree that Russell was a charlatan and con man. He received no more than a 7th grade education and had no theological training. Russell was divorced in 1913, possibly for adultery. He said that if anyone desired to know the Bible, he must study his (Russell's) explanatory notes called “Studies in Scripture.” He claimed that if a person studied the Bible without them, he would remain in darkness. The 7-volume work is still used. During one court trial he was involved in, Russell claimed that he knew Greek, but could not even identify the letters of the Greek alphabet. Russell made a number of embarrassing false prophecies. He said the time of the Gentiles would be over and Christ would return on Oct 1, 1914. Later he changed the date to 1915, then 1918. Other JW leaders dated the beginning of the kingdom at 1925, 1929, 1942, and 1975. JW's currently believe that 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the beginning of the transition period from human rule to the Thousand Year (Millennial) Reign of Christ.

Joseph F. Rutherford succeeded Russell as president of the group. Most of the beliefs of the JW's are based on the writings of Russell and Rutherford. Nathan Knorr took over in 1942, and after that came Frederick W. Franz (1977). Today the organization is led by a Governing Body of 12 members. The Jehovah's Witness organization currently claims about 6.5 million members worldwide in about 98,000 congregations (Kingdom Halls). Only about one million members live in the US.

The Name: JW's base their name on Psalm 83:18 ² : “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” They are insistent that God should be known by His real name, Jehovah (or Yahweh). Technically, the name “Jehovah” is a combination of the Hebrew consonants for Yahweh (hwhy – sometimes called the Tetragrammaton) and the Hebrew vowels for “Adonai” (ynda “Lord”). Devout Jews would typically refuse to say the name “Yahweh,” substituting “Adonai” instead. The word “Jehovah” came about as people used the consonants from one word and the vowels from the other. Hence, “Jehovah” is technically not a Hebrew word.

Publications: Primary JW publications are Watchtower and Awake ! magazines. They also publish Studies in the Scriptures and The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures . Today, their presses in Brooklyn, NY crank out about 100,000 books and 800,000 magazines each day.

Distinctives: JW's emphasize the kingdom of Christ, a future time of paradise on earth. They believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven (a special, elect class of people who earn the right). JW's are highly evangelistic, with many members spending time going door to door passing out their literature and attempting to make converts. They refuse to receive blood transfusions or eat anything containing blood. Any disobedient member is disfellowshipped and considered to be dead. JW's tend to be quite serious about their faith and well-educated regarding what they believe. They often know their Bible better than genuine believers do and are well-rehearsed in arguments supporting their theology. They also tend to be quite antagonistic against “organized religion,” ie, denominational Christianity.

Their “Bible”: JW's use The New World Translation of the Holy Scripture . This “version” (really a perversion) is an exceedingly bad translation that is biased to support their theological opinions.

Doctrinal errors of Jehovah's Witnesses:

1. Concerning Jesus Christ: JW's teach that Jesus is a created being, Michael the arch-angel, the first and greatest of Jehovah's creation ³ ; that He was a perfect man, “a god,” but not essentially equal to God; and that Christ was raised from the dead as “an immortal spirit person,” not physically. Jesus returned invisibly to earth in 1914 and is in the process of overthrowing Satan's rule and will soon establish his kingdom.
2. Concerning the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit is a force or power exerted by God, not a personal being. JW's reject any notion of the Trinity. The concept of the Trinity produces a “freakish, three-headed god,” and is satanic in origin.
3. Concerning man: The human soul is mortal and may cease to exist at death. Believers who persevere until death enter soul-sleep until the Second Coming of Christ. Human government is under satanic control, so JW's refuse to pledge allegiance to the nation. Saluting any national emblem (like a flag) amounts to idolatry.
4. Concerning Salvation: Full salvation is not possible outside JW membership; 144,000 elite JW's will reign with Christ in heaven, while the rest inhabit a perfect earth for 1,000 years. If they prove faithful, they will survive Armageddon. The faithful will live on a perfect earth forever. One is saved through faith and obedience. Salvation is not an event or a decision, but the result of a faithful, obedient life. Immortality is a reward for faithfulness. If one fails to endure to the end, he will not be saved. JW “salvation” focuses on human works and effort. “Salvation is a free gift from God. It cannot be earned. Yet it does require effort on our part.” ⁴
5. Concerning Hell: There is no literal hell or lake of fire. Hell and the grave are synonymous. Unbelievers will be annihilated—this is the second death. Hell is a doctrine from the devil. The very idea contradicts God's love and mercy.

Refutation of Errors:

1. Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity. He is equal with God, eternal and not created. John 1:1 and many other passages show us that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, equal with God in essence while submissive to God in function. Jesus is the Creator, and thus is not a created being (Col 1:16).
2. The Holy Spirit is a Person , not a force or influence of God (Acts 5:3-4).
3. Salvation is by grace , through faith , not by works (Eph 2.8-9). Salvation is God-centered. The saved person will persevere . Those who fail to persevere were never saved in the first place. Genuine believers are eternally secure . Unsaved man is totally depraved and unable to contribute anything to his salvation.
4. Both believers and unbelievers will enjoy (or endure) conscious existence after death prior to the resurrection (Luke 16:20f). There is a coming millennial kingdom in which Christ will rule the earth (Isa 11:1-9; Rev 20:4-6). Unbelievers will not be annihilated, but will spend eternity in the lake of fire (Matt 10:28; Mark 9:43-45; Rev 20:10, 15). Believers will enjoy eternity with God.

A Few Other Notes:

• Most cults can be measured by their concept of a few major Christian doctrines, such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Those groups which reject such essential tenets of Christianity are clearly not Christian.
• Most cults use human reason as the criterion for rejecting classic Christian ideas. That is, the doctrines of the Trinity and the co-equality of God the Father and God the Son don't make sense to the (unregenerate) mind, so they must not be true. However, human reason is not able to determine the legitimacy of God's truth.
• One of the JW's most infamous and controversial translations is their rendering of John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” However, the normal translation “… the word was God” is the best and most accurate way to render this passage.
• JW's claim that their “Bible,” the New World Translation, is the best available translation because it is free from “human traditionalism,” inconsistency and unreasonableness that has characterized most other English translations. However, the NWT is likely one of the worst, most biased, and least reliable versions available today. It's a perversion rather than a version.
• Jesus clearly did not return to the earth in 1914 as JW's insist that he did. In Acts 1:11, the angel said to the disciples, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” The Second Coming of Christ will be anything but silent and/or invisible. Also, the millennial reign of Christ will occur immediately after Christ returns to the earth. So the idea that Jesus is currently reigning on earth is entirely bogus.
• JW's commonly put average Christians to shame. They can quote Scriptures, trot out surprisingly reasonable arguments, and generally cause normally solid believers to question what they have been taught. They are bold and sure of themselves. Some Christians are afraid to even talk to a JW for fear of being confused. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. True believers with the genuine knowledge of God should not be afraid of any cultist. The better you know the Bible and orthodox Christian theology, the better you will be able to both defend legitimate Christianity and prove the cultist wrong.

Conclusion: The Jehovah's Witness faith is pseudo-Christianity. It uses much of the same language, but contradicts many primary points of Christian theology. It is a dangerous cult in that it reaches many with its false gospel and deceives them into believing that they are genuine Christians.

Discussion:

1. Who was the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Charles Russell. Sometimes JW's are called “Russellites.”
2. Where to JW's worship? Kingdom Halls
3. What is the primary emphasis in JW theology? The millennial kingdom reign of Christ.
4. How is one saved under the JW system? Faith plus works plus enduring until the end.
5. How do we know that Jesus is not a created being? Jesus is the creator (Jn 1:2) and he's eternal (Mic 5:2; Jn 1:1).
6. How do we know that Jesus did not return to earth in 1914? He will return visibly and bodily, as he departed. That has not happened yet.
7. Why do some JW's refuse to salute the American flag? They see such as idolatry. They see human government as under Satan's control, and thus refuse allegiance to any particular country. Oddly enough, there are many JW's in the US military.
8. How can people who read the Bible so much be blind to its truth? 1.) They use a faulty/perverted translation, so they don't know what the Bible really says; 2.) They are unregenerated and hence cannot understand spiritual truth (1 Cor 2:14).

1 Some people call JW's “Russellites.” JW's generally reject this label, however.

2 Or Isaiah 43:10 – “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”

3 JW's are following the age-old error of Arius, a theologian who taught that Jesus was created rather than eternal. JW's are Arians.

4 “What Must We Do to Be Saved?” The Watchtower February 1, 1996

Lesson 11: Rationalism and Pragmatism

Today we'll be studying two more “isms” that have had profound impact on how our culture thinks and on Christianity itself.

Rationalism

Rationalism is a very old idea, being found in Plato, philosophers of the Middle Ages, and in the Age of Enlightenment. We'll briefly examine the Enlightenment because it still has an immense influence on Western thinking.

The Age of Enlightenment

The Enlightenment extended from the mid 1600's to the late 1700's. It was a time during which leading writers and scientists in Europe and America foresaw a new age enlightened by reason, science, and respect for humanity. It was a time of new discoveries in science, exploration of the world, and great leaps forward in technology.

Leading figures of the Enlightenment: René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke

Of the basic assumptions and beliefs common to philosophers and intellectuals of this period, perhaps the most important was an abiding faith in the power of human reason . If humanity could unlock the laws of the universe, God's own laws, why could it not also discover the laws underlying all of nature and society? People came to assume that through a prudent use of reason , an unending progress would be possible—progress in knowledge, in technical achievement, and even in moral values.

Enlightenment thinking placed a great premium on the discovery of truth through the observation of nature, rather than through the study of authoritative sources, such as Aristotle and the Bible. Most Enlightenment leaders saw the church—especially the Roman Catholic Church—as the principal force that had enslaved the human mind in the past, and they took great joy in criticizing and ridiculing Christianity. Nothing was attacked with more intensity and ferocity than the church, with all its wealth, political power, and oppression. However, most Enlightenment thinkers did not renounce religion altogether. They opted rather for a form of Deism, accepting the existence of God and of the afterlife, but rejecting Christian theology. Human aspirations, they believed, should not be centered on the next life, but rather on the means of improving this life. Worldly happiness was placed before religious salvation.

The Age of Enlightenment is usually said to have ended with the French Revolution of 1789. Yet the Enlightenment left a lasting heritage for the 19 ^th and 20 ^th centuries. It marked a key stage in the decline of the church and the growth of modern secularism. It served as the model for political and economic liberalism and for humanitarian reform throughout the 19th-century Western world. ¹ The modern attitude that exalts science, technology and human reason is rooted in the Enlightenment.

Rationalism Defined

Rationalism was a key component of Enlightenment thinking. It stresses the ability of the human mind to know things. Rationalists hold that whatever is knowable by the human mind is true. The human mind has an innate ability to understand things. Reasonable thought and logic become the tests of truth. Whatever is logically inescapable is necessarily true. If something is unreasonable, it must not be true. So the emphasis in rationalism is the mind , logic , and human reason .

Rationalism is not synonymous with rationality . To be rational is to be reasonable and logical, ie, to be in one's right mind. But if one adopts rational ism , he believes that all things must conform to human reason. One can be rational without being a rationalist or adopting rationalism.

Contributions of Rationalism

Without logic and reason, there is no way to make meaningful statements, no way to distinguish right from wrong. Also, rationalism's emphasis on the knowability of reality is good. The universe is not just an illusion. Man's mind has the capacity to know and experience reality. One need not be totally skeptical about man's ability to know truth. What is real is rational. The universe makes sense. One can employ logic to solve complex problems. Also, all people benefit from rationalism's emphasis on scientific investigation and technological progress.

Weaknesses of Rationalism

1. The rational may not be real . That is, something may make sense without being true. For example, scientists continually change their explanations for various phenomena. Arguments often seem rational until they are proven to be wrong . Logic does not lead necessarily to reality. If one starts with wrong assumptions, he will inevitably come to wrong conclusions, even if he proceeds rationally.

2. Rationalists tend to arrive at their basic presuppositions without the use of reason. Their presuppositions are not subject to tests of logic. Rationalists think they are being rational because they are rational. It's impossible to provide a starting point for rationalism without presupposing the truth of rationalism. Rationalism is just as circular in its reasoning as any other system.

3. Logic is best used as a negative test for truth. It can rule out what is illogical and unreasonable, but it has a hard time proving what is true. It can eliminate the false but it cannot (by itself) establish what must be true. Logic can demonstrate what may be real but not what is actually real. Again, something may seem logical and yet be untrue or unreal.

4. While some rationalists have proposed logical arguments for proving the existence of God, such arguments are quite weak and unconvincing to most unbelievers. Further, we know that unbelievers do not ultimately come to Christ because of weighty logical arguments, but because of God's work within their lives.

5. For most modern rationalists, the Bible is a mythical storybook that has little or no value. Rationalism rejects Christianity as irrational.

A Biblical Response to Rationalism

1. Logic and reasonable thought are basic aspects of Christianity . Christianity is a reasonable faith and benefits from the application of the laws of logic.

2. The ways of God do not need to conform to man's sense of reason. God's ways are unsearchable and past finding out (Rom 11:34), and God's thoughts are higher than the heavens (Isa 55:8-9). We should not be surprised if God's ways exceed the human intellect's ability to understand them (Deut 29:29).

3. If God exists, it is reasonable for Him to interrupt the natural order of things if He so desires. Miracles are not irrational.

4. There is no standard of truth, logic or reality higher than, or independent of, God, to which He must conform. God sets such standards. While God is logical, He need not conform to human ideas of reason. God and His ways are not irrational or illogical, although they may be beyond man's ability to grasp them.

5. God is incomprehensible . We can know God, and what we know about Him is true, but our knowledge of God is not complete.

Although some rationalists argue on behalf of Christianity, most modern rationalists deny God and the Bible. Rationalism, as a philosophy of life, because it depends so much on human the intellect, does not conform well to Christianity. God is under no obligation to explain His ways to man. Rationality, on the other hand, is the handmaid of good theology. All believers should strive to be rational and logical.

Pragmatism

“ Works for me ” is the mantra of pragmatism. To be pragmatic is to be practical , to insist on using whatever methods or tools that work best. A pragmatist is one who focuses on getting the job done in the most successful and simple way. He is not concerned about theories or hypothetical solutions. He doesn't have time for the mysteries of philosophy or religion. He is a practical man, a realist, not a dreamer. He wants useful results as soon as possible. If the results are acceptable, the method that achieved them is acceptable. Whatever works best is best. The ends (ie, the results) justify the means (ie, the methods).

Pragmatism is the dominant attitude shaping American life. Americans want results. They want to do things better, faster, cheaper, cleaner, and easier. Pragmatism is the spirit of problem solving. Science and technology can provide rubber-meets-the-road solutions to virtually all of man's problems.

Pragmatism may sound pretty harmless, but there are several dangerous implications associated with it.

1. Pragmatism is basically atheistic or agnostic . It is highly skeptical of any theological or metaphysical claims. Metaphysics and theology deal with ultimate questions. Y at-il un Dieu? What is he like? What is the nature of reality? Qui suis-je? Pourquoi suis-je ici? The pragmatist cares little about such issues. He's too busy putting food on the table or money in the bank. He would say that searching for the answer to such questions is a foolish waste of time.

2. Pragmatism is focused on the here-and-now, the temporal rather than the eternal . According to the pragmatist, whatever works best now is best. But Christianity asserts that there is a higher standard to consider: the judgment of God. In God's judgment, whatever will bring the most glory to Himself is best, whether it seems to work here on earth or not. Pragmatism rejects any kind of eternal analysis.

3. “What works” and “truth” are not necessarily synonymous. The fact that something seems to work does not guarantee that it is true or good. For example, the pragmatist would say that if belief in God helps someone cope with life, then let people believe in God. If it doesn't help, then don't believe in God. Success, or lack thereof, should never be the criteria for determining truth.

4. Pragmatism is another form of relativism . If truth is determined by what works for the individual, then the test for truth ultimately becomes the individual himself. “Works for me” is the pragmatist's slogan. Thus the self becomes the highest value.

5. Pragmatism's value system tends to be savage and inhumane. What works often causes great pain and suffering for masses of people. It “worked” for the Nazis to exterminate millions of Jews during WWII. It “worked” for Stalin and Mao to kill millions of their own countrymen to achieve their communist goals. It “works” for scientists to destroy human embryos in the hopes of producing treatments for diseases. It “works” for women to abort their unwanted babies. Pragmatism has no basis for basic human rights, kindness or compassion.

6. Pragmatism leads to an unending pursuit of the latest and greatest method of achieving “success.” Newer methods and ideas always promise greater growth, deeper satisfaction and more exciting experiences. Those committed to a pragmatic approach to life will always be chasing the bigger and better methods.

Unfortunately, a spirit of pragmatism has crept into Christianity. This attitude suggests that any method that succeeds in spreading the gospel, packing the pews, and/or making converts is acceptable. Whatever is working to draw more people to church must be good. Churches and Christian leaders are eager to hop on the latest bandwagon and ride it until another promising trend comes along (eg, Prayer of Jabez, Purpose Driven Church/Life ). However, in Christian ministry, we know that the ends do not justify the means. That is, the goal of outreach does not validate all means of achieving that goal. Certain methods are simply inappropriate for use within Christianity because they violate the character of God. For example, transforming the worship service into an entertaining variety show may increase attendance, but it does not glorify God. Christians must do God's work in God's way, even if it doesn't seem to be “successful.” A pragmatic, “whatever works” attitude has no place in Christian ministry.

Conclusion: Both rationalism and pragmatism are hostile to Christianity. Because rationalism subjects all truth to human reason, it has no room for an omnipotent God. What is rational is not necessarily real. God's ways go beyond man's ability to find them out. Because pragmatism tests all things by “what works,” it has no place for virtue or morality. Pragmatism can tell you what works now, but not whether your work has eternal value.

Discussion:

1. Define rationalism. The human mind is the standard of truth.

2. Why is rationalism ultimately circular in its reasoning? It presupposes what it's trying to prove.

3. Define God's incomprehensibility. God can be truly known but not fully known.

4. What is pragmatism? An attitude that focuses on the practical solution of problems—what works.

5. Why can't pragmatism distinguish good from evil? “Good” and “evil” are not categories that pragmatism deals with. “Good” for the pragmatist is what works; “evil” is what doesn't work.

6. How has pragmatism affected Christianity? By shifting the focus from pleasing God to pleasing man, and by asserting that the ends justify the means.

1 “Enlightenment, Age of,” Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation.

Lesson 10: Pantheism and New-Age Mysticism

Pantheism

Pantheism teaches that the universe and all it contains is God. That's why it's called pantheism — everything is part of God. The word Pantheism derives from the Greek words pan (all) and theos (God). Thus, pantheism means All is God .

In essence, pantheism holds that the universe as a whole should be regarded with religious reverence, and that there is nothing that truly merits the name God other than the universe and nature. The Cosmos is divine, and the earth sacred. Pantheists do not propose belief in a deity; rather, they hold nature itself as a creative presence. Pantheists believe in Divine Immanence, ie, that God is present in all things. To the Pantheist, divinity does not transcend reality; it surrounds, and is within. All share divinity. This leads the pantheist to personal ethics of tolerance and understanding. ¹

Natural or Scientific Pantheism has much in common with religious humanism, religious naturalism and religious atheism, as well as with philosophical Taoism, Zen Buddhism, and symbolic paganism. Scientific Pantheists take the real universe and nature as their starting point, not some preconceived idea of God. Scientific Pantheists feel a profound reverence and awe for these, like the reverence and awe that believers in a more conventional God feel towards their deity. Natural/scientific pantheism reveres and cares for nature, accepts this life as our only life, and this earth as our only paradise, if we look after it.

Natural/scientific pantheism does not require faith in miracles, invisible entities or supernatural powers. It does not regard this life as a waiting room or a staging post on the way to a better existence after death. It has a healthy and positive attitude to sex and life in the body. It teaches reverence and love for nature. ²

Pantheism is built on the philosophical idea called monism . Monism teaches that all reality is unified, ie, everything is part of the same big system. All things are ultimately and absolutely united. Reality is indivisible. Differences are simply illusions. There is one solid, eternal indivisible ball of being. Since everything is part of everything else, everything that exists must be God.

Probably the most well known pantheistic religion is Hinduism.

Pantheism asserts the following:

1. God is non- personal . God is not a person; God is the oneness of all things, the single reality that encompasses all things. God has no self-consciousness. God is an It, not a He.

2. God is absolutely infinite and unknowable . We can say what God is not but not what God is. Logical reasoning is incapable of comprehending God.

3. Because God is not a person, one cannot have a personal relationship with God. The disciple's goal is to be unified with God, to converge with God's oneness. One achieves this unity by turning away from the physical world and focusing on the soul. It is only through meditation and mystical intuition that one leaps beyond the physical and is united with the One.

4. God is the source of all being. Everything is rooted in God and springs from God.

It's obvious even to the casual observer that pantheism is in sharp disagreement with Christianity. Note some weaknesses of pantheism:

1. If all being is unified, then no individual existence is possible. It's self-defeating to assert that individual existence is not real. If one's individual conscious existence is merely an illusion, then the idea that “all is one” is an illusion, too.

2. Pantheism and monism assert an idea that cannot be proven, ie, that all reality is part of the one. However, different kinds of beings may exist, namely, finite (man) and infinite (God).

3. Pantheism cannot distinguish good from evil . Both good and evil must necessarily be part of God if everything is one.

4. An impersonal God is no God at all. The idea of God as a personal, loving father is foreign to pantheistic thought. In fact, pantheism differs little from atheism . They both assert that the universe is all there is.

5. The pantheistic God is incomplete without creation . If nothing material existed, the pantheistic God would not exist.

6. It's impossible to say for sure what the pantheistic God is. If all is God, then even two contradictory statements about it would both be true, which is logically absurd. One can say nothing meaningful about the pantheistic God.

7. To claim that God is unknowable is illogical , for it is claiming to know something about God, ie, that he is unknowable.

The Bible clearly asserts that God is a Person, not the unity of all things. It's man's depraved mind that worships and serves the creation rather than the creator (Rom 1:17f). God exists separate from His creation. Created beings do not share in the divinity of God. God is knowable and the information we have about God is true, logical and meaningful. The Bible contradicts pantheism on almost every point.

When dealing with pantheists, the best attack is to present the gospel in the most clear and positive terms. Further, believers must show pantheists how illogical their system is.

The New Age Movement

The New Age Movement is largely based on pantheistic notions. The New Age Movement is not a unified system of thought, but a loosely-knit association of ideas and philosophies, most of which are incompatible with Christianity.

The New Age Movement, unlike most formal religions, has no holy text, central organization, membership rolls, formal clergy, geographic center, dogma, or system of beliefs. The New Age is a free-flowing spiritual movement; a network of believers and practitioners who share somewhat similar beliefs and practices. Seminars, conventions, books and informal groups replace sermons and religious services.

Recent surveys of US adults indicate that many Americans hold at least some New Age beliefs:

• 8% believe in astrology as a method of foretelling the future.

• 7% believe that crystals are a source of healing or energizing power.

• 9% believe that Tarot Cards are a reliable base for life decisions.

• about 1 in 4 believe in a non-traditional concept of the nature of God which are often associated with New Age thinking:

• 11% believe that God is “a state of higher consciousness that a person may reach.”

• 8% define God as “the total realization of personal, human potential.”

• 3% believe that each person is God.

New Age teachings became popular during the 1970's as a reaction against what some perceived as the failure of traditional sources to provide spiritual and ethical guidance for the future. Its roots are traceable to many sources: Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Spiritualism, Taoism, Theosophy, Wicca and other Neo-pagan traditions, etc. The movement started in England in the 1960's where many of these elements were well established. The movement quickly became international. The movement has become established a stable, major force in North American religion during the past generation. New Agers expect their movement to expand, promoted by the social backlash against logic and science. ³

Basic New Age ideas:

1. God is an impersonal energy or force . The New Age idea of God is very pantheistic—everything is part of God. People must come to realize their connection to God. Everyone is divine.

2. Death initiates another life . New Agers generally believe in reincarnation , the idea that after death they come back and experience another life. One accumulates wisdom from one life to the next, and eventually one may be released from the cycle of life and death.

3. Release from the reincarnation cycle depends on one's karma , ie, works. Good works build up good karma; bad works build up bad karma. If at the end of life one has accumulated enough good karma, he may be reincarnated at a higher level of life. But if one has accumulated enough bad karma, he may come back at a lower level and suffer for his “sin.”

4. Those who break out of the cycle by accumulating enough good karma experience Nirvana , the state of nothingness, the absorption into the One.

5. The New Age Movement has a low regard for logic or rational thought. An important part of the system is a mystical, transcendental form of meditation in which one seeks unity with the One. Such an experience is not rational. The emphasis is on experience rather than logical thought. A mystical , trance-like state is required to experience unity with the One. This is achieved through various means, such as hypnotism, drugs, yoga, meditation, dreams, visualization, chants, dancing, and various other rituals. Achieving “cosmic consciousness” will supposedly unleash hidden powers and assist in the exploration of the “universe within.”

6. Some aspects of the New Age Movement are returning to pagan religious rituals like sun and moon worship, ancestor worship, god/goddess worship, magic, the use of crystals, channeling, witchcraft, etc.

7. Because there is no personal God, there can be no absolute standards of right and wrong. New Agers are relativists, except when it comes to environmental issues, where they want to be more objective. They refuse to make moral judgments because they have no basis to make such judgments. Note: this obviously contradicts the whole idea of karma. But that doesn't matter to a New Ager—he can live with all sorts of contradiction. Generally, such people make up their own standards of karma.

8. Personal Transformation: A profoundly intense mystical experience will lead to the acceptance and use of New Age beliefs and practices. Guided imagery, hypnosis, meditation, and (sometimes) the use of hallucinogenic drugs are useful to bring about and enhance this transformation. Believers hope to develop new potentials within themselves: the ability to heal oneself and others, psychic powers, a new understanding of the workings of the universe, etc. Later, when sufficient numbers of people have achieved these powers, a major spiritual, physical, psychological and cultural planet-wide transformation is expected.

9. Ecological Responsibility: A belief in the importance of uniting to preserve the health of the earth, which is often looked upon as Gaia (Mother Earth), a living entity.

10. Universal Religion: Since all is God, then only one reality exists, and all religions are simply different paths to that ultimate reality. The universal religion can be visualized as a mountain, with many sadhanas (spiritual paths) to the summit. Some are hard; others easy. There is no one correct path. All paths eventually reach the top. They anticipate that a new universal religion which contains elements of all current faiths will evolve and become generally accepted worldwide.

11. New World Order: As the Age of Aquarius unfolds, a New Age will develop. This will be a utopia in which there is world government, and end to wars, disease, hunger, pollution, and poverty. Gender, racial, religious and other forms of discrimination will cease. People's allegiance to their tribe or nation will be replaced by a concern for the entire world and its people.

Logical problems with the New Age Movement:

1. If there's no personal God, then it's impossible to tell what is “good” karma and what is “bad.” If all is part of the same universal One, then there can be no distinction between good and evil.

2. It's impossible to tell when one has accumulated enough good karma to reach Nirvana. Comment est-elle suffisante?

3. Most people don't remember their (supposedly) previous lives, so how can they carry any wisdom from one life to the next?

4. According to the New Age system, those enduring suffering are probably being punished for their accumulation of bad karma from a previous life or lives. Hence there is no reason to try to help them or to decrease their suffering.

5. It's illogical to think that all religions are equally valid, each one a separate but legitimate path. When two religions contradict each other, they cannot both be right.

A Biblical Response:

The New Age Movement clearly rejects biblical revelation. What does the Bible say about New Age ideas?

1. God is a person , not a force or the unity of all things.

2. There is only one physical death, and after that is the judgment . There is no such thing as reincarnation. See Heb 9:27. The second death, not another life, awaits those who reject Jesus Christ.

3. Nirvana is not synonymous with heaven . Believers will enjoy eternal conscious existence in a place of happiness and fulfillment (John 14:2-3); they will not be absorbed into “the one.” Unbelievers will be punished with everlasting, conscious torment.

4. Believers are complete in Christ (Col 1:28, 2:10). We need no special mystical experiences to enjoy a relationship with God. All saved people have access to the same benefits from God. It is not necessary to experience a mystical trance or altered state of consciousness to commune with God.

5. The New Age Movement is really just another version of salvation by works . The Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9).

6. The created universe is not part of God. God exists independently from the universe. He is self-existent and needs nothing.

7. Faith in Jesus Christ is the one and only means of salvation. All religions that deny this are false.

As with any pagan, the best method of reaching a New Ager is through a simple presentation of the gospel. New Agers tend not to value deep logical or rational arguments, so it may be difficult to engage them in a rational discussion. Just proclaim the gospel and call the person to repentance and faith.

Conclusion: Both pantheism and the New Age Movement are particularly hostile to Christianity. They directly contradict biblical claims and are seemingly impervious to logical argumentation. Their belief systems are so vague and broad that they can encompass all sorts of odd doctrines. Christians must show such people the error of their ways by proclaiming the gospel to them and calling them to faith and repentance.

Discussion:

1. Define pantheism? The belief that All is God.

2. How is pantheism similar to naturalism? Both claim that there is nothing beyond nature, nothing “outside the box.”

3. What is monism? The idea that all things are part of the absolute One.

4. Why is it self-defeating to say that God is unknowable? Because you're saying something that you know about God.

5. Why can'ta pantheist or New Ager distinguish good from evil? Because they accept no absolute standard or Law Giver. Also, since everything is part of the same One, good and evil are the same.

6. Explain reincarnation, karma, and Nirvana.

1 Universal Pantheist Society, http://www.pantheist.net/

2 World Pantheist Movement, http://www.harrison.dircon.co.uk/wpm/index.htm

3 http://www.religioustolerance.org/newage.htm

Part III: The Weaknesses of Unbelief and Unorthodoxy

Lesson 9: Atheism and Agnosticism

Thus far in our study we've shown that it's reasonable to believe the documents and ideas central to Christianity and that criticisms of the Bible and of Christianity are weak and unconvincing. Part of the apologetic task is defensive, but part is also offensive. We now take the offensive, and our task is to show how weak and unbiblical unorthodoxy is. We'll start by examining atheism and agnosticism.

Atheism

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. The word literally means “no-god-ism.” We live in an age when people are very skeptical of claims that cannot be proven to be true. Our culture also places a high value on science and technology, which have, to the modern mind, removed the need for God. Scientists can explain nearly every phenomenon that man encounters, so there is no more need for God. Clinging to a belief in God is a proof that one is unable to deal with the truth that we live in an impersonal universe ruled, not by a sovereign God, but by the laws of nature. Science yields no evidence that God exists; in fact, science clearly asserts that God does not exist. There is just not enough evidence to affirm the existence of God, or so the atheist claims.

A philosophy that is closely associated with atheism is naturalism . Atheists are usually naturalists. Naturalism teaches that nothing exists outside the material, natural order. The material universe is the sum of all reality. There is no supernatural realm—no gods, no angels, no devil or demons, nothing beyond that which occurs naturally. The material universe has always existed—no god created it or sustains it. Miracles are impossible because they are super natural, ie, outside the boundaries of the natural order. Everything that happens can be explained in terms of natural, material processes. Scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. Man has no soul or spiritual existence, nor is there life after death. Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. Humans are mere animals or machines who inhabit a universe ruled by chance, and whose behavior and thoughts are determined by the constant and impersonal forces of nature and environment. It's never necessary to seek an explanation for events beyond the natural realm because there is nothing beyond or in addition to nature.

Atheists tend to focus on the here-and-now rather than on the eternal. They are often concerned about the quality of human existence. Because they believe that life is strictly limited to earthly existence, some atheists seek to make their life, and the lives of others, as rich and enjoyable as possible.

Obviously atheism and naturalism are in stark opposition to Christianity. How should we respond to those who hold these philosophies?

1. Encourage them to examine their presuppositions .

What is a presupposition? An unproven starting point for all following arguments. Like in math there are various laws/axioms that everything else is based on. Everyone starts with certain presuppositions. These may be reasonable or irrational.

The Christian must not allow the atheist to think that the steps by which he came to atheism are in any way superior to the steps by which a Christian comes to a theistic point of view. There is no more proof to support atheism or naturalism than there is to support theism. Science does not somehow compel open-minded people to become atheists. It's impossible for anyone to prove that nothing exists outside the boundaries of nature. People become atheists because the idea of God doesn't suit them, not because of evidence, proof, science, or sound reasoning. It's more of a religious sentiment than an intellectual conclusion drawn from the facts.

Weaknesses of naturalism:

• It's utterly impossible to prove that nothing exists outside the boundaries of the natural realm. Naturalism is a statement of faith , not of reason or science.
• Science seems to show that matter is not eternal . If matter is not eternal, then naturalism is invalid. If there ever was a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever exist. Something could never come from nothing.
• Atheism has no answer for the question “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?”
• If one event could be proven to have happened outside the boundaries of nature, then naturalism is finished. We've already seen that at least one supernatural event, the resurrection of Christ, is well supported by substantial proofs.
• Naturalism cannot adequately explain how mind, knowledge, reasoning, and morality arises from random, mindless, natural processes. Atheists must assume that the personal somehow arose from the impersonal.
• The natural world is exceedingly complex and sophisticated, especially when viewed by an electron microscope. Such complexity argues against a purely mechanical origin for all things. DNA, for example, is so extremely complex that it's hard to believe that it developed without a designer.
• Naturalism generates pessimism and despair . Life is meaningless if we live in a cold, impersonal, indifferent universe. Good and evil can have no meaning for a naturalist. As one atheist stated, “Man is an empty bubble on the sea of nothingness.”

1. Encourage them to examine the arguments for the existence of God .

We acknowledge that the best approach to apologetics is one that recognizes that all people know God exists, and that they have suppressed that knowledge (Rom 1:17f). People need to hear the Gospel, because within the Gospel message is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16). One should not attempt to argue an unbeliever into submission. The best method is to present the good news about Jesus Christ as clearly and as often as possible, and to urge people to repent and believe. However, within a serious discussion with an atheist, a presentation of various arguments for the existence of God may be profitable. One may be able to show the unbeliever that belief in the existence of God is rational and reasonable.

These arguments are logical rather than biblical. Even though the atheist/agnostic does not acknowledge the validity of the Bible, believers may still build logical arguments that point to God.

The Teleological or Design Argument

Argue that the presence of order in the universe requires the existence of a Designer .

A typical formulation of the argument:

1. The universe manifests evidence of design.

2. All design demands a designer.

3. Therefore, the universe must have a designer.

4. This designer is the God of the Bible.

Intelligent design seems to be incorporated into nature. Many physicists and cosmologists recognize that the universe had a beginning and that many physical laws look suspiciously “fine tuned” for the existence of intelligent life. In addition, biochemists and biologists have discovered a microscopic world of mesmerizing complexity belying the simple blobs of protoplasm that Darwin imagined. ¹

A popular expression of the design argument is Paley's Watch argument: ²

While walking through a field, one finds a watch on the ground. He naturally and rightly concludes that someone must have made it. Likewise, if one studies the more complex design in the natural world, he must conclude that there is a world Designer behind it.

This argument may be of some value, but it's unlikely that an educated evolutionist will find it very compelling.

• Various observers can look at the same thing without agreeing that it shows design.
• Modern science has shown that apparent design and chaos often exist side by side.
• The presence of apparent design might be an isolated exception. Perhaps we are an island of design in a vast ocean of chaos. Our own world may have occurred by chance, no matter how unlikely that seems.
• Design is not an inescapable deductive proof of biblical theism. Design points to the presence of a designer, but not to much more than that. Although the teleological argument makes the existence of a designer likely, the argument by itself does not lead necessarily to belief in biblical monotheism. It could, for instance, also support polytheism.

• Critics feel the Darwinian theory of natural selection has destroyed the teleological argument by showing that changes come from purely natural causes rather than by special design. Evolutionists commonly use terms like “design” to describe purely natural processes without implying a Designer. Nature's “designs” are simply the unintended side effects of nature's productive self-sufficiency.
• Modern scientists embrace a “something from nothing” viewpoint. They really believe everything evolved from nothing.

“There is no reason why the physical universe cannot be it's own first cause. … [O]ur relatively complex universe could have arisen out of the entity that is simplest and most mindless of all—the void.” ³

The Cosmological, or Cause-and-Effect, Argument

Science and reason assert that any effect or result must have a cause . Since the universe is an effect or result, then the universe as a whole must have a cause. Something has caused the universe to exist rather than not exist.

A summary of the Cosmological Argument

• Some dependent beings exist. A dependent being is one whose existence is not necessary. Eg, people are dependent beings—we owe our existence to causes other than ourselves.
• All dependent beings must have a cause or explanation for their existence.
• An infinite regress of causes is impossible. Ie, you can't trace causes back infinitely.
• Therefore, there must be a first uncaused Cause of dependent beings.
• This Uncaused Cause is the God of the Bible.

RC Sproul's cosmological dilemma is another formulation of the same argument. Either the universe is:

1. An illusion – but if so, then it's an illusion to my mind, so I must exist, which shows that the universe cannot be an illusion.
2. Self -created – but something cannot create itself. It's impossible to both exist and not exist at the same time.
3. Eternal – but all natural effects must have a cause. Matter is dependent, not eternal. Also, if an eternal God is unacceptable, eternal matter is as well.
4. Created by something eternal, ie, God.

Limitations:

• If everything requires a cause, one may argue that God requires a cause. If God requires no cause, then some things do not require a cause. However, if it can be shown that the eternal existence of God is different than the (supposedly) eternal existence of the universe, this argument might hold up.
• Making the jump between the cosmological cause and the God of the Bible may present a problem. Many religions believe in a creator/designer god, but not the Christian God (eg, Islam).

Note: God is not self-caused; He is self-existent and eternal. He did not cause Himself to come into existence. He has always existed in, of, and by Himself.

The Moral Argument

Moral values, the idea that certain behaviors are right or wrong, are common to all cultures. While a few cultures support certain “wrong” behaviors (eg, cannibalism, human sacrifice), most people agree on basic ethical standards. Most cultures acknowledge that murder and theft are wrong and that it's good to be kind and generous. Ethical values for most people go beyond mere personal feelings. We believe that certain behaviors ought to be done and others ought not to be done. Where do such ideas come from? If the naturalist is correct, there should be no moral values, because the natural world doesn't seem to be governed by morality. There are no ethical standards in the animal kingdom. Survival of the fittest is the only constant. If man is the result of natural evolution, where did he get the idea that any behavior is good or evil? On what basis can an impersonal, randomly-ordered universe develop morality? Even cultures that have no organized religious system recognize ethical standards. Pourquoi?

Obligations and loyalties arise from personal relationships, not mechanical ones. The legal system tells us that certain behaviors are acceptable and others are not acceptable. A hierarchy of moral authority suggests that there must be somebody at the top who dictates what is right and wrong. In a natural, mechanistic universe, there is no need for, nor process to explain, morality. But a higher moral law does seem to exist, and such a law seems to be independent of natural processes. If so, there must be a law-giver, and that must be God.

Agnosticism

The word “agnostic” literally means “no knowledge.” Agnostics claim that they personally don't know if God exists. Some claim that no one can know for certain if there is a God. A few agnostics dabble in religion just in case there is a God. They want to cover themselves in the off chance that God really does exist. But most agnostics behave just like atheists. Agnosticism is not a halfway position between theism and atheism; it's atheism under another name.

Just as there are no true atheists, so there are no true agnostics, because all have some genuine knowledge of God. A true agnostic would be receptive to the Gospel, because he'd be convinced that the God of the Bible does exist. Unfortunately, most agnostics are very skeptical about biblical claims. They are self-deceived, claiming not to know if God exists, but in reality rejecting the knowledge that they have.

Conclusion: The Bible teaches that atheists are fools (Ps 14:1; Rom 1:28). Scripture denies that anyone can be a true atheist or agnostic. God has clearly revealed Himself to all, so that all know Him, although some suppress and deny that knowledge (Ps 19:1-3; Rom 1:16-23). Believers must confront atheists and agnostics, insist that they re-examine their presuppositions, and challenge them to respond appropriately to the Gospel. Such unbelievers will not be brought to faith by weighty arguments and logical discussions. They need to understand their sinfulness and their alienation from God, and they must be challenged to forsake their rebellion and to seek forgiveness from Christ. It may seem foolish to preach the gospel to those who reject the Bible, but the gospel message contains the power to convert the most earnest atheist.

Discussion:

1. Define atheism. The belief that there is no god(s).
2. Define agnosticism. The belief that one cannot know if there is a god or gods.
3. Define naturalism. The belief that nothing exists outside of natural processes.
4. What is one supernatural event that is very well attested? The resurrection of Christ.
5. Why does the complexity of DNA argue for a designer? It's hard to believe that such a complex system could arise without some outside direction.
6. Why can't the universe be self-created? It would have to exist and not exist at the same time, which is absurd/irrational.
7. Briefly discuss the three arguments for God that we examined. Design, cause-effect, morality

1 Jay Richards, “Intelligent Design Theory: Why it Matters” http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues /issue178/item1315.asp

2 William Paley, Natural Theology , cited in Geisler, Norman L., Christian Apologetics , (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1976) pp.88,89

3 Vic Stenger, “Flew's Flawed Science,” http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Flew.htm . Accessed Aug 2006. Stenger is a professor of physics and astronomy.