Introduction to Islam:The Giving of the Qur'an and the State of Church History in AD 610

In A.D. 610 Muhammad, a forty-year old man from the Quraysh tribe, ascended Mt. Hira in Arabia. In a cave on this mountain, Muhammad began praying and meditating. Having spoken with Christians, and having realized the spiritual bankruptcy of the polytheism practiced in Mecca, Muhammad turned his mind to seeking true religion. One night, Muhammad was visited by an angel who claimed to be Gabriel. In a single night- called  Laylat al-Qadr: the "Night of Power"- Muhammad received the entire revelation of the Qur'an; he was overwhelmed by this revelation. Then, over a period of about twenty years, Muhammad received the Qur'an again, one section at a time.

When Muhammad received the Qur'an in A.D. 610, the Church had already settled issues regarding the Trinity (as seen in the Athanasian Creed, 6th c.), Christology (as seen in the Definition of Chalcedon, AD 451), and- largely- the canoncity of Scripture (as seen in codices such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, 4th c.).

In the early seventh century, there were also some specific errors within the Christian community. By A.D. 610, the Veneration of Mary had also increased to the point that if Muhammad had visited a church, he would have likely seen icons of Mary. Also, false Gospel accounts, like the Gnostic-tinged Gospel of Thomas, were still influential among some who claimed to be Christians. Both of these errors- the Veneration of Mary and the use of the Gospel of Thomas- would impact the teachings of the Qur'an concerning Christianity.

Works That Validate Living Faith

James, the brother of Jesus, wrote, "Faith alone, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" (James 2:17).

It is spiritually instructive to examine exactly what kinds of actions, according to James, prove that belief is true. James mentions the following:

Endurance (1:3)

Perseverance (1:12)

Purity of Life (1:21)

Obedience to Scripture (1:22-23)

Compassion for the Needy (1:27)

Impartiality (2:1-9)

Acts of Compassion (2:15)

Control of the Tongue (3:2-12)

Humility (4:6,10)

Truthfulness (4:11)

Patience (5:8)

Prayer and Confession (5:13-18)

Notice how the works mentioned above are fairly well unquantifiable. They are certainly obvious in their absence (in other words, if you cuss someone out, commit perjury, or kick a homeless guy in the shins, you know you are not in line with the list), but it is hard to think that anyone could ever check off one of these items and think, "Well, I'm done with that one: now I know that I have endurance or patience and therefore I have a living faith." Instead the items on the above list indicate a character or lifestyle that is indicative of a faithful person.

[The above list was given to me by my friend Nathan White: I think that he may have gotten in from a John MacArthur resource.]

Culture, Morally Neutral?

I found the following quote saved in an old document file on my computer. I'm not sure of the original source, but it's thought-provoking, to say the least:

You constantly read this: 'Culture is neutral- morally neutral. So if culture changes, we can adopt it. We can do what we please.' Well, wherever do you find in the Bible that culture is morally neutral? Nowhere it's in the Bible text- it isn't in the Bible at all. The Bible says the opposite; it says there is a great world system, 'the system of this world,' which is under the sway and the rule of Satan. Culture of this world is often demonic- it's written in the vaults of Hell, it's wrong, it's antagonistic to Christian thinking and the standards of the Word of God. But no, they say, 'culture is neutral.' So whatever cultural form comes about, even if it's invented in the entertainment business by people who did it while on drugs and who are emphasizing rebellion against God and just about everybody, and sexual liberty, that's a culture which is morally neutral. And we should do the same. This is what people want, this is what the young wants, this is what the worldly wants.

"Only One Gospel:" Three Quotes by Martin Luther

Luther on the singularity of the Gospel declared in Scripture:

“One should realize that there is only one gospel, but that it is described by many apostles.” (104)

“Just as there is no more than one Christ, so there is and may be no more than one gospel.” (105)

"The Old Testament declares the same Gospel of Jesus Christ:" (Jn. 5:39, 46; Acts 3:24; 17:11; I Pet. 1:10-12)

Martin Luther, “A Brief Introduction On What To Look For And Expect in the Gospels,” Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Timothy Lull, ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989)

The Mission of the Church?

In both 2005 and 2011, Christmas Day fell on Sundays. At those times, there were controversies because some churches decided to cancel their regular Sunday meetings. For example, Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, said that church leaders decided organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources.

Parkinson noted that when the church remained open for service on Sunday of 1994 (the nearest Sunday previous to 2005 that was also on Christmas Day), only a small number of people showed up to pray.

"If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?" she said. [From an Associated Press article: "Some Megachurches Closing On Christmas".]

The question I would like to raise here is this: is the mission of the Church properly defined as reaching the unchurched? Why or why not?

Comments are welcomed.

"You are in danger of going to Hell." Does that statement offend you?

Imagine that you are walking down the sidewalk, a man approaches you and says, "I'm an oncologist, and I suspect that you have a rare form of cancer, do you mind if I ask you a few questions?" After a few minutes of conversation, he says, with apparent concern, "It's just as I thought! You have ten obvious symptoms of the form of cancer that I mentioned; you need to get treatment immediately, or you will soon be dead!"

How would this conversation make you feel? Certainly, you would be upset, and perhaps even offended. You were not planning to be diagnosed, you had thought that you were in perfect health, and the doctor may have been somewhat insensitive and abrupt. Also, you would not necessarily take the random oncologist- a stranger- at his word. You may want to do some more research. But if it turns out that the doctor was correct, then wouldn't your attitude change? Failing to follow up on this diagnosis could be extremely dangerous. Even if it turns out that the oncologist was wrong, you would hopefully not remain offended and upset toward that particular doctor; certainly, you would not turn bitter toward all oncologists: the random oncologist that you met saw apparent symptoms, he was genuinely concerned, and he didn't make any money from the conversation.

I present the above scenario in order to illustrate how people sometimes react to evangelists. The evangelist speaks to a non-Christian, seeks to diagnose the non-Christian's spiritual condition, and then presents the non-Christian with the idea that repentance from sin and trust in Jesus Christ are necessary if one is to escape Hell and gain a right relationship with God. Hearing this, the non-Christian is sometimes upset and offended. The non-Christian was not planning to be spiritually diagnosed, he thinks he is already in perfect health, and the evangelist is often (at least perceived to be) insensitive and abrupt.

When the non-Christian is offended and upset, it is often hard for the evangelist to understand. Evangelists are used to thinking about spiritual things and having spiritual discussions. As someone who has engaged in evangelism, I can say that if a devout Muslim tells me that I am going to Hell if I do not reject the doctrine of the Trinity, I am neither offended nor upset. I think that the Muslim is wrong, and hope to talk with him about why I believe as I do, but I understand where the Muslim is coming from.

The point is, society works best when every group of believers (or professing non-believers) seeks to understand where other groups are coming from. This is NOT to say that the various groups should neglect speaking from their point of view; instead, let us each vigorously contend for our beliefs (or non-beliefs), but without personal offense or rancor.

The End of the Road

Do I personally believe in an afterlife? No, but to be honest, I do not find it a particularly important question one way or the other. I am not in the least bit interested in fighting those who believe or hope in it. My own interest is in how we live our lives here below. I am sure that we are called to do the will of God "on earth, as it is in heaven." Heaven, however, I leave up to God. Earth is where our responsibility lies, that is where the Kingdom of God is lost or found. Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan. Westminster John Knox Press: 1996. 131.

Before starting down a path, it is always wise to consider where that path might lead. Similarly, before adopting a certain belief, it is wise to find out the end of that belief. Historically, the biblical faith has affirmed that "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever" (The Westminster Shorter Catechism). This is much different from the belief stated by Crossan, who (throughout his writings) seems much more focused on on people's relationships to one another than on God's glory. Crossan offers little hope of enjoying God for ever, as he admits he does not even believe in an afterlife.

How can Crossan claim to be a Christian and yet disbelieve in the afterlife, when it is so obvious that Jesus taught the message of everlasting life? For in the Gospel of John chapter 3 Jesus directly connects the message of the Kingdom of God (which Crossan wishes to confine to the time we have on earth) with everlasting life through faith in Him (see John 3:3, 16).

Crossan attempts to get around this clear teaching by denying that the Gospel of John is authentic as historic narrative. What is his basis for doing so? One reason is that the Gospel of John contains so much material that is not found in the synoptic Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The other is that the Gospel account of John contains language that strongly identifies Jesus as God Himself, and Crossan's theory is that Jesus was not identified as God until long after His death.

But are these objections persuasive from a historical standpoint? Are there other explanations for the unique material and the high Christology in John that do not require this book to be a fraud? For the Gospel of John is certainly a fraud if it is not an eyewitness account of historical events, as the author places such emphasis on his veracity as a witness to the events he records, as demonstrated in John 21:24, which I have quoted before, and also in John 19:35, "He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe" (ESV).

But if the author of the Gospel of John had the synoptics before him as he wrote or had a knowledge of these accounts, then it makes perfect sense that he would focus on reporting important information that was not previously recorded. This explanation would make much better sense than the idea that the writer of this Gospel was a liar who hypocritically portrays Jesus naming Himself as the Truth (see John 14:6).

And the idea that the identification of Jesus with God developed over decades is historically bogus as well. For Crossan admits that the Pauline epistles were written in the 50s-60s A.D. (page 126 of his book quoted above) and these letters contian a similarly high Christology (see Philippians 2:5-7,Colossians 1:15-22). In Titus 2:13 Paul even goes so far as to refer to Jesus as "our great God and Savior" (on why it is grammatically certain that these titles both refer specifically to Jesus in this passage, see this essay Granville Sharp's Rule).

And so any reasonable basis for Crossan's rejection of the Gospel of John as true historical narrative has been proven false. It is clear, therefore, that the quote given by Crossan is in direct conflict with this teaching of Jesus as recorded by John.

Please pause to pray for John Dominic Crossan, that he would submit to the teaching of Jesus and be given the gift of everlasting life, which he now denies.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:36-37 NKJV)

[Originally posted on 8/14/05.]

Righteous Thoughts

My tongue will speak of Your righteousness and of Your praises all day long. (Psalm 35:28 NIV 1984)

Usually when I wake up, my mind is immediately filled with the tasks of the day. This morning as I woke, my mind was immediately transfixed on the words of Christ from Matthew 5:6, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled:" the implications of this verse for my own life, my witness, and the life of the Church. I did not plan to meditate on this passage this morning: it was a special blessing from the Lord, which arrested my heart, for which I give him glory.

Scavenging Animals?

In discussing the crucifixion, I argued that the story of Jesus' burial by his friends was totally unhistorical. If he was buried at all, he was buried not by his friends but by his enemies. And not in a tomb hewed out of stone, but in a shallow grave that would have made his body easy prey for scavenging animals.

 [Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan. Westminster John Knox Press: 1996. 120.]

Introduction

On August 27, 2005, Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries debated John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar on the subject of "IS THE ORTHODOX, BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF JESUS OF NAZARETH AUTHENTIC AND HISTORICALLY ACCURATE?" This debate held particular interest for me personally as I have received a good deal of information of how to give a biblical answer to those who oppose the Gospel through Dr. White's apologetics ministry, he became an acquaintance of mine through the #prosapologian chat room, and I also once had the privilege of having him as a dinner guest in my home (though he may not remember me now).

On the other hand, as a minor in philosophy at Georgia State University, I often encountered the teaching of John Dominic Crossan and other members of the Jesus Seminar in classes that subtly called the basic tenets of biblical Christianity into question. (Issues in this regard have already been examined in my post Jesus' View of Scripture.) And if you are in a college program that includes any philosophy classes or you know someone who is, this debate should hold interest for you as well, for the teachings of the Jesus Seminar have become so prevalent in academic circles.

Over the next few weeks I hope to post as frequently as possible on different quotes taken from John Dominic Crossan and to give a biblical, God-honoring response to these quotes.

Eaten by Wild Dogs?

The quote given at the head of this post is one of the most infamous of Crossan's sayings. If you have heard the name of John Dominic Crossan before, you more than likely heard it in relation to this saying.

Crossan gives this quote based on the historical evidence of what usually happened to criminals who suffered crucifixion. But this is just the problem with his logic. To examine what normally took place does not disprove multiple accounts of what were obviously meant to explain an exception to the rule. The fact that men do not normally walk on the moon does not mean that "one small step" never historically occurred.

And this is the main failure of Crossan's words about scavenging animals: that they contradict the historical narrative of the Gospel accounts. Most Christians reading the above quote would get angry at the thought of our Lord's corpse being so dishonored, but really, if we think about it, there would be nothing wrong with Crossan's hypothesis if we did not have a direct witness to the contrary. For Jesus was treated with the utmost dishonor in His death on the Cross, and so, with no further word from the Gospel writers, we would expect that He would have been despised in His manner of burial as well. But God chose to demonstrate His approval of His Son's sacrifice beginning with the manner of Jesus' burial. And the following points must be made, which will be repeated in different ways throughout this discussion of Crossan's work:

1. The Gospel narratives are given an an eyewitness account of historical events.

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us, it also seemed good to me, having carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4 HCSB)

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24-25 HCSB)

2. The historicity of the events provided in the Gospel accounts are given by God to provide basis for our trust in Christ as the fulfillment of prophecy.

Yet He was with a rich man in His death. (Isaiah 53:9b NASB)

Conclusion

As we continue to look at these quotes by Crossan, I hope that these posts will provoke you to meditate on the nature and purpose of Scripture, and I hope that we will all worship God better as a result of this focus.

[The material above is adapted from a post that originally appeared on 8/13/05.]

That Postmodern Inclusivism is Antithetical to Biblical Christianity

My Position Reiterated

Postmodern philosophy is an enemy to the gospel as surely as was the philosophy of modernism. As modernism assaulted the Word of God through rationalistic "higher criticism" that undermined the inerrancy of Scripture and proceeded to deny the posibility of God through embracing materialism, which is contrary to Jesus' teaching that "God is Spirit" (cf. John 4:24). Postmodernism assaults the Word of God by an experientialism that undermines the sufficiency of Scripture and proceeds to deny Jesus through embracing relativism, which is contrary to Jesus' teaching that "I am the Truth" (cf. John 14:6).

Postmodern Inclusivism Explained

A prime example of the assault waged by postmodernism against the gospel of our Lord can be seen in the chapter "Between Exclusivity and Plurality: Toward a Postmodern Christian Philosophy of Other Religions" by Andrew Dell'Olio found in the book Postmodern Philosophy and Christian Thought, edited by Merold Westphal. In this chapter, Dell'Olio states that he wishes to "bracket" the issue of salvation and speak instead of truth-- he decries what he refers to as the error of "soteriocentrism"-- indeed, he directly identifies the idea of soul-winning to the crusades or jihad: acts of violence by religious fanatics.

He states, "I will argue that the postmodern Christian philosopher ought to reject the position of religious exclusivism." [In this case, "religious exclusivism" refers to the belief that Christianity is true and all other religions are false.]

Calling for "a posture of openness to the other religion," the author promotes "a postmodern version of Christian inclusivism [which] maintains that divine truth is definitely in Jesus Christ, but that Christianity- the religion- does not enjoy full possession of this truth. Postmodern Christian inclusivism thereby refrains from granting the teachings and practices of the Christian religion any absolute status vis-a-vis other religions." The author asserts that as all people are made by God for God, any person of another religion may have had divine truth revealed to them, and so we should listen to them. As could already be expected from the previous statements, it is clearly stated in this chapter that people will not go to hell for choosing some religion other than Christianity.

The Biblical Response Examined

First, I would like to point out that the attempt to discuss truth in this context while ignoring the question of salvation is an impossible task. For all religions have an ultimate goal at their core, such as gaining the favor of a god, attaining spiritual enlightenment, or living in harmony with the universe. When a Christian speaking from the biblical perspective makes the claim that the teaching of God's Word is true and all other religious perspectives are false, the point is not that the various world religions are incorrect on all points of fact, but rather that they fail to achieve the end to which they claim to aspire, whereas only biblical Christianity has the hope of achieving its stated goal- that of eternal reconciliation with God.

The basic, insurmountable problem of seeking to unite a philosophy that promotes inclusivism with Christianity is that the Christian Scriptures-- the authority on which the Christian religion rests-- are outspokenly exclusive in the sense mentioned above.

To list all the verses that prove this point would basically reconstruct the entire Bible right here on this blog, so I will give a limited sampling from some of the major groupings and teachers recorded in Scripture:

The Law, the Psalms and the Prophets

The Law of Moses commands worship to the LORD exclusively (Exodus 22:20 NKJV): "He who sacrifices to any god, except to the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

The Psalms teach us to that there is no god but the LORD alone, and so those who worship other gods are idolaters (Psalm 96:5 NKJV): "For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the Lord made the heavens."

The prophet Isaiah records the words of the LORD mocking other gods and naming worshippers of other gods as an abomination (Isaiah 41:21-24 NKJV):

"Present your case," says the Lord. "Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob. "Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or do evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together. Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination."

The New Testament Witness

The Apostle Paul preached an exclusive gospel (Galatians 1:6-9 ESV):

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel: not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

The Apostle Peter taught an exclusive gospel (Acts 4:11-12 ESV):

"This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Jesus taught an exclusive gospel (John 14:6 ESV):

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

Conclusion

It has been my desire in this post to obey the command of God:

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (I Thessalonians 5:21-22 NASB)

Postmodern inclusivism has been demonstrated to be a form of evil as it directly contradicts the Word of God.

In seeking to "bracket" the issue of salvation, this philosophy has utterly forsaken the only hope of salvation, found in God's Word alone:

Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made the world's wisdom foolish? For since, in God's wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. (I Corinthians 1:20-21 HCSB)

[For further reading on related subjects, please see the following links: “The Law of Contradiction” by Phil Johnson, “A Word About Labels” by Phil Johnson, “What Should We Think of the Emerging Church?” Part One and Part Two by Al Mohler.]