Is Charity a Means to Salvation?

Does the Pope teach works salvation?  The Vatican Information Service capsulized one of his recent talks under the heading, "POPE'S LENTEN MESSAGE: CHARITY AS A MEANS TO SALVATION," but perhaps more significantly consider his own words, as provided by VIS:

All of us have received spiritual or material riches meant to be used for the fulfilment of God's plan, for the good of the Church and for our personal salvation.

(Benedict XVI via Vatican Information Service, 7 February 2012)

By contrast, we believe that salvation is entirely of the Lord.  We teach that it is all of God.  God is both the author and finisher of our salvation. 

Hebrews 12:2  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Philippians 1:6  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Christ is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end:

Revelation 1:8  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Don't get me wrong. Good works are important, as the pope quoted, the Scriptures say:

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

Yet it is not by those works that we are saved. As it is written:

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Amen, and praise the Lord for his mercy and grace, which endure forever.

-TurretinFan

Is Rejecting Rome the Only Protestant Unity?

Andre writes:

In my exit interview, federal vision, NPP, and NT Wright were suddenly my pastor’s best friends. He told me that he’d be comfortable if I worshipped with them but that he would worry for my soul if I joined the Catholic Church. When I heard that, I was even more comforted by my decisions. Because suspicion toward Rome seems to be the only thing uniting Protestants at this point.

First, let me tip my hat to Andre for at least going through the "exit interview" process.  While I am sure I have a lot of issues with him and his views, I am glad to see that he took the process with more seriousness than many.

That said, Andre has a warped perspective.  His former pastor would say the same thing if Andre was leaving for Islam or Mormonism, both of which claim (like Romanism) to have an authority that either de facto or de jure supercedes the Bible.  The problem is that Andre has left the visible church to join a church that rejects the gospel and has a history of persecuting those who preach the gospel.

We would and do give him the same sorts of warnings we give to those who leave for Islam or Mormonism.  The Roman magisterium is no more legitimate than Mohammed or Joseph Smith, notwithstanding their lofty claims for themselves.  We fear for the souls of those who take such actions, because they are turning their backs on the gospel, and departing from the catholic and apostolic faith.

Our warnings to those who join the federal visionist or new perspectivist groups tend to be somewhat different, mainly because their serious doctrinal errors there do not necessarily rise to the level of rejecting the gospel.  The warnings we would give in those cases would be similar to the warnings we would give to someone leaving to a Methodist or Lutheran church.

I'm not sure whether Andre understands this important distinction between the gospel and other important doctrines.  I will, however, pray for his repentance and restoration to the visible church.

-TurretinFan

Why Does the Universe Look So Old?

In human terms, of course, the universe is old.  It's thousands of years old, much older than any living human, and maybe two orders of magnitude older than a typical retiree.  It's old.  It is not, however, as old as people who adopt the presupposition of naturalism think it is.

These days they are telling us that the universe is between 13-14 Billion years old.  Even the Earth itself is between 4-5 Billion years old, they tell us.  Perhaps, on the presupposition of naturalism, that's the "right" approximate age.

That presupposition of naturalism, however, is wrong.  The Earth only appears to be as old as naturalism would suggest it is.

But why then does the Earth look so "old."  Is God lying to us by dressing the world in old clothes to deceive us about its true age?

First, God can hardly be accused of deceiving us about the world's age, when he gives us such detailed information in Genesis and Exodus that allows us to generate an approximate age of the universe.

Second, what would a "young" universe look like?  On naturalism, a 6000 year old universe would be one that is totally inhospitable to life - the same for a 6000 year old Earth.  So, one obvious answer for the reason that the Earth and Universe don't look "young" is that the Earth and Universe are here to support life.

Third, as David Gadbois has noted (see here) any conceivable universe that has the laws of conversation of mass and energy would look older than it is, because the existence of matter and/or energy would imply the indefinite past existence of matter and energy.

Fourth, this "apparent age" is subjective.  Sure, I know that "scientists" use various objective measures and perform calculations, but the notion of appearance is itself inherently subjective.  We see this subjectivity in the "increasing age of the universe" phenomenon.  Nineteenth century scientists evidently estimated the age of the world in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years range.  By contrast, the age of the earth is now estimated to be the billions of years, range - with no real guarantee that new theories won't bring new revisions.

In short, given propositional divine revelation, any appearance of age of the universe is hardly problematic.  Moreover, since naturalism cannot account for fully formed worlds springing into being in a moment, it is unsurprising that the universe "appears" older than it is.  When the universe had just been formed, every possible naturalistic judgment of the earth's age would necessarily suggest it was older than it actually is.  That is especially the case for an habitable world, given that both new universes and new earths (as described by the scientific theories du jour) would be completely inhospitable to human life.

-TurretinFan

Another Beckwith-like Apostasy to Rome

You may recall that some time ago, Francis Beckwith made waves by secretly rejoining the Roman communion, while continuing in his role as president of Evangelical Theological Society. Sadly, we can add to that another similar tale.

Mr. Jason Stewart was an OPC pastor. According to a letter provided by his (now former) presbytery:

Whereas the date Mr. Stewart entered into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (January 10, 2011) evidences a studied commitment to that church’s doctrine and practices while he remained a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and

Whereas, in contravention of his ordination vows (FOG XXIII.8. (1-4)), Mr. Stewart did not disclose his change of convictions to his Presbytery until March 10, 2011, thus deceiving both the Presbytery, and the congregation of Trinity, Easton, and

Whereas Mr. Stewart has refused to be dissuaded from his course,

Therefore, in accordance with Book of Discipline V.2.b (1), Presbytery erased his name from its rolls, recorded the circumstances in its minutes, and communicated this action as a form of discipline (BOD V.2) to the congregation of Trinity, Easton with exhortation and encouragement toward a godly response to these events and to Mr. Stewart.

One wonders whether his new-found comrades at the Roman blog, Called to Communion, are aware of the facts of his conversion experience. In his account, he characterizes the events as: "Our decision to leave Presbyterianism for the Catholic Church surprised many." I'll say!

We will pray for repentance and restoration of Mr. Stewart (the erasure by Presbytery is de facto deposition and excommunication). Until that time, however, he ought to consider himself outside the visible and catholic church, and under threat of eternal judgment.

The reason for posting this point publicly, of course, is to draw attention to the issue of deception alleged by his former presbytery. I don't expect that this will matter to the Called to Communion team, but it ought to matter to seekers of truth. It helps to demonstrate the principle announced by the apostle, that they went out from us, because they were not of us. It also helps to qualify the credentials that are being used to promote his "conversion story" ("OPC Pastor ...") - yes, he managed to infiltrate the presbytery - but his manner of departure shows the sort of person he was.

-TurretinFan

Bodily Exercise Profiteth ...

Western culture is obsessed with a variety of conflicting things. One of those obsessions is health. Perhaps from good motives connected with our duty to preserve life under the sixth commandment, or perhaps from other motives, a lot of Christians in Western culture have come to think that being healthy is godly, and that being unhealthy is sinful.

We're not talking about people who get cancer - but people who eat fast food, or fatty food, or sugary food, or who smoke. These people are told that the Bible tells them to live a healthy life. So, what does Scripture actually say?

Well, Scripture does say that there is value in bodily exercise, but it calls the value "little."

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Moreover, there are general warnings in Scripture against glutton, sloth, and drunkenness. The following is a nice example of all three.

Proverbs 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

But what are the usual prooftexts of the Christian Health movement? One is 1 Timothy 4:8, omitting the portion after "profiteth." The more popular verses, however, are the verse that says our body is a temple, and another one that describes bringing our body under submission.

Those verses, however, are being taken out of context.

1 Corinthians 6:13-20
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The point Paul is making is not to stay away from the doughnuts, but rather to avoid fornication. Paul is not concerned with sub-optimally healthy diet choices, but with immoral behavior.

Likewise:

1 Corinthians 9:23-27
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

In this context, Paul is making an analogy between the preparations an athlete makes and the preparation that an evangelist makes. The expression "keep under my body, and bring it into subjection" is part of that analogy. The point is that our spiritual preparations should be as rigorous as the physical preparations of an athlete.

None of the above should be an endorsement of living in a way that takes no regard for one's health. We are to have a concern for our own life and the lives our neighbors, under the sixth commandment. That doesn't mean any particular health craze is good or right - or that trying extend our life through obsessing over diet or exercise is good or right. The point is simply that making health eating, drinking, etc. a priority is a matter of Christian liberty, not a matter of moral duty.

-TurretinFan

Maximus the Roman Catholic Confessor?

My friend James Swan posted a short article describing Maximus the Confessor's view of Rome's authority.  Matthew Bellisario at the Catholic Champion has now posted a response.

The material provided by my friend, Mr. Swan, was as follows:

7. They said to him, "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union." And he said to them, "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is." And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"

Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p. 23.

Maximus, according to this material, was posed with the question about what he would do if Rome united with the Constantinople on the question of the two wills of Christ. That is to say, they asked him what he would do if Rome embraced monothelitism.

The first way that they posed the question led him to respond that if the legates of the patriarch (meaning the bishop of Rome) did not have a letter from the partriarch, even if they technically took communion with the bishop of Constantinople (as evidently was expected) that would not prove that the Partriarchite had consented to that monothelitism is either correct or acceptable.

Thus, they modified their question. As modified, Maximus could no longer escape the idea that Rome had embraced monothelitism. His response under that proposed hypothetical scenario was to maintain his current position. Even if Rome accepted monothelitism, he would not.

That position is not, in itself, Sola Scriptura. After all, Maximus does not explicitly state that the reason for his refusal to adopt Rome's position is because Scripture is a higher authority. One might infer such a position from his reference to Galatians (Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.).

Whether or not such an inference is correct, Maximus the Confessor is plainly not a Roman Catholic - willing to accept whatever position Rome adopts.

Mr. Bellisario has attempted to provide some counterpoints. He provides three quotations with the citation, "(Saint Maximus the Confessor- The opuscula fragments)." The first quotation is as follows:

All the ends of the inhabited world, and those who anywhere on earth confess the Lord with a pure and orthodox faith, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines, just as the holy six synods, inspired and sacred, purely and with all devotion set them forth, uttering most clearly the symbol of faith. For, from the time of the descent to us of the incarnate Word of God, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have held and possess this most great Church as the sole base and foundation, since, according to the very promise of the Saviour, it will never be overpowered by the gates of hell, but rather has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and to those who approach it with reverence it opens the genuine and unique piety, but shuts and stops every heretical mouth that speaks utter wickedness. For that which the creator of everything himself, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, established and built up - together with his disciples and apostles, and the Holy Fathers and teachers and martyrs who came after - have been consecrated by their own works and words, by their sufferings and sweat, by their labours and blood, and finally by their remarkable deaths for the sake of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they, through two words, uttered without pain or death - O the long-suffering and forbearance of God! - are eager to dissolve and to set at naught the great, all-illumining and all-praised mystery of the orthodox worship of the Christians.

It appears that this is an alternative translation of the following:

For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly to the most holy church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendor of the fathers and the sacred dogmas, just as the divinely-inspired and sacred six synods have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For ever since the incarnate word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Savior, but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the Most High. For that which was founded and built by the creator and master of the universe himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, and his disciples and apostles, and following them the holy fathers and teachers and martyrs consecrated by their own words and deeds, and by their agony and sweat, suffering and bloodshed, and finally by their violent death for the catholic and apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they strive to destroy though two words [uttered] without effort and without death – O the patience and forbearance of God! –and [so seek] to annul the great ever-radiant and ever-lauded mystery of the orthodox worship of Christians.

(Opuscula 11, translation from The body in St. Maximus the Confessor: holy flesh, wholly deified by Adam G. Cooper, pp. 181-82)

The authenticity of this text is disputed (Cooper, p. 181) a fact that Mr. Bellisario fails to mention to the reader (presumably because he doesn't know). Moreover, what does the passage say that Bellisario can affirm? It says some nice things about Rome and the six synods - but wait. It refers to "six synods." People assume the means the first five major councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, and Chalcedon 451), plus the 649 synod of the Lateran. But Bellisario would not consider that last one to be an ecumenical council (nor did it have the characteristics of such a council). And if it refers to the ecumenical council that addressed the monothelitism controversy, then it definitely isn't from Maximus - he didn't live to see that synod.

Moreover, nothing in the passage about indicates that Rome is characteristically unable ever to fall into error for a time. It does seem to suggest a thought that Rome will not be "overcome by the gates of Hades" (a misuse of that passage), but would it be "overcome" if for a time it fell into error?

But as Cooper suggests (p. 187), whether or not the passage is authentic we should consider Maximus' mature ecclesiology, as seen in the Disputatio Bizyae discussing with Theodosius:

What kind of believer accepts a dispensation silencing the very words which God of all ordained to be spoken by the apostles and prophets and teachers? Let us investigate, reverend master, what kind of evil this summary blindly arrives at. For if 'God appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, and third teachers' (1 Cor. 12:28) 'for the perfecting of the saints' (Eph. 4:12), having said in the Gospel to the apostles and through them to those after them, 'What I say to you, I say to all' (Mark 13:38), and again, 'He who receives you receives me, and he who rejects you rejects me' (Luke 10:16), it is clearly manifest that whoever does not receive the apostles and prophets and teachers, but rejects their words, rejects Christ himself.

Let us also investigate the other passage. God chose to raise up apostles and prophets and teachers for the perfecting of the saints. But in order to oppose godly religion the devil chose to raise up false apostles and false prophets and false teachers, so that the old law was opposed, as was also the evangelical law. And as far as I understand it the false apostles and false prophets and false teachers are the heretics alone, whose words and train of thought are distorted. Consequently, just as the one who receives the true apostles and prophets and teachers receives God, likewise the one who receives false apostles and false prophets and false teachers receives the devil. So the one who throws out the saints along with the cursed and impure heretics -- mark my word! -- manifestly condemns God along with the devil.

If, in that case, in racking our brains to come up with new words in our own times we find those words to have descended to this extreme evil, watch out lest we -- whilst alleging and proclaiming 'peace'-- be found to be struck ill with apostasy which the divine Apostle said beforehand would accompany the coming of the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

I have spoken this to you, my lords, without holding back.... With these things inscribed in the tablet of my heart, are you telling me to enter into fellowship with a church in which these [other] things are proclaimed, and to have communion with those who actually expel God and, I imagine, the devil with God? May God -- who for my sake was made like me -- sin excepted -- never let this happen to me!

Notice how in this passage he makes individual conscience effectively supreme even over the apparent "apostles, prophets, and teachers" of his day - even to the point of hinting that he may be faced with the great apostasy.

The next quotation Bellisario provided was this:

"I don't have a teaching of my own, but the common one of the Catholic Church. I mean that I haven't initiated any expression at all that could be called my own teaching."

Before we continue, it's worth pointing out that it appears that Bellisario may have gleaned this and the previous quotation from Andrew Louth's article on Maximus's ecclesiology (which can be found here). In that article, it is cited as "Relatio," and is a portion of the transcript of his trial.

The point that Maximus is making here, though, is simply that he has not expounded a novel doctrine. He believes that he is just teaching what the church has universally held. His reference here to "the catholic church" is not a reference to the Roman Catholic church but to the universal church.

Likewise, Bellisario's third quotation (also found in this article) is as follows:

"No, he (The emperor is not a priest) isn't, because he neither stands beside the altar, and after the consecration of the bread elevates it with the words. Holy things for the holy, nor does he baptize, nor perform the rite of anointing, nor does he ordain and make bishops and presbyters and deacons; nor does he anoint churches, nor does he bear the symbols of the priesthood, the omophorion and the Gospel book, [as he bears the symbols] of imperial office, the crown and the purple."

(Relatio 4, as cited in the article)

This has nothing really to do with Mr. Swan's thesis. It's not clear why Bellisario thinks it's important to this topic (he makes a comment in his post that seems to try to tie this quotation to a point of contrast between Luther's liturgy and Maximus' liturgy - something rather tangential at best). Louth thought it was important because the relationship of Emperor to church was one that was going to be significant in coming centuries.

Shortly after presenting that quotation, the article from which Bellisario appears to have been drawing goes on to point out that in fact Rome did succumb to imperial pressures:

A precious document for Maximos' doctrine of the Church is the last writing we have from his hand, a short letter written on 19 April 658 to Anastasios, his disciple and spiritual child of by then forty years' standing, who was exiled apart from his master. (18) By then, Maximos and his few followers were on their own, Rome - in the person of Pope Vitalian - having succumbed to imperial pressure and entered into communion with the other patriarchal sees. In reply to the question - or taunt - 'What Church do you belong to? Constantinople? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? See, all of them are united, together with the provinces subject to them'. Maximos says he had replied, 'The God of all pronounced that the Catholic Church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him'. The Petrine foundation of the Church is Peter's faith, which even his successor can abandon, as Maximos had just learnt.

(18) The letter can be found in Allen-Neil, pp. 120-3

(Louth, p. 118)

What an interesting omission from Bellisaro! You see, the hypothetical posed to Maximus turned out not to be a hypothetical. Vitalian did cave to imperial pressure, and this was communicated to Maximus. His response, in his final letter, Maximus recognized that it is the confession of faith that defines the church, not the church that defines the confession of faith. And with that, Maximus cannot be said to be Roman Catholic, no matter how high an esteem he had for Rome at certain times (especially right after the synod of the Lateran of 649, when Rome had repudiated monothelitism).

I'm sure more could be said, but we'll leave it at that. Swan's thesis has been adequately demonstrated, and Bellisario's seemingly plagiarized material has been replaced into its proper context and given proper attribution.

-TurretinFan

P.S. In the comment box at Mr. Swan's blog, I provided a short walk-through of the original quotation, which it may be useful to include here:

Walk through the quotation.

1) "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union."

They pose this as an argument that it is going to be just Maximus against all the major churches.

2) "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is."

But, you see, Maximus is too clever. He points out that the mere communion of the legates is not enough to show that the Roman church is in agreement with Constantinople, because they don't bear a letter to that effect addressed to the patriarch.

3) "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?"

They set this aside, and ask what if the church of Rome does join with the other churches?


4) "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"

Maximus refuses to assent, even under that circumstance.

Does Allah Preserve His Words?

Since I am on James White's blogging team, and am friends with him, I was sure to carefully read an article posted with the alarming title, "Exposing James White’s Deceit and Ignorance of Islamic Scripture," from the "Calling Christians" website.

The title wasn't supported by the body of the piece. "Deceit and Ignorance" turned out to be, at most, a difference of opinion between the author of the piece and my friend, Dr. White. The article begins thus:

In a recent twitter exchange with James White, I found him proposing such an absurd view of Islamic ‘aqidah that I simply had to write an article to correct his misinformation. In the field of academia, we try our best to uphold certain standards, however Alpha and Omega Ministries as missionary zealots don’t have to appeal to this high standard of intellectualism. So what exactly is James’ problem this time around? Let’s see:

[twitter post images here, in which Dr. White states: "How do you explain such texts as 5:47, 5:68, and 10:94 if you affirm (as you have) tahrif il-lafzi?"]

In essence, James White is appealing to the fallacious argument of appeal to ad ignorantium. Summarily, he’s trying to expound the concept that Muslims believe in a self contradicting tenet. This being, that in Islam, while we believe God’s word cannot become corrupted, we also believe that “God’s word” did come corrupt. For example, we say the Qur’an is the word of Allaah and therefore it cannot be changed or corrupted, yet in the same voice, supposedly we claim that the Injil and Tawrah, which are also the words of Allaah, have been altered. The terms which James is trying to use are, Tahrif ul Lafzi (corruption of written words) and Tahrif ul M’anavi (corruption of meaning).

What James White and his missionary zealot friends try to assert is that Muslims have not only a contradicting belief, but because of this belief it is the Qur’an which is wrong and the Bible is the true word of God.

There is a lot of baggage mixed in there, but the author of the piece is correct that we think that it is inconsistent to hold to the ideas that (1) Allah preserves his word, (2) the Old and New Testaments are the word of Allah, and (3) the Old and New Testaments are corrupt.

We are aware that the way Muslims attempt to hold these two ideas is by limiting (1) to simply saying that Allah preserves some portion (or all) of the Qur'an and/or by denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel.

This particular author begins his response, following the introduction above:

The Islamic belief is that God protects His revelations from becoming corrupt, altered and interfered with. In this regard, we do not hold the belief that God’s words can succumb to corruption, alteration and human interference.

Thus, this particular author has made a more general statement, akin to our (1) above.

The author continues:

Therefore we must correct James’ assertion that we believe God’s words can be corrupted by man, the Qur’an is clear that God would not allow this. It is the belief of all Muslims and if one did not know this belief (you now kn0w) that it is impermissible for a Muslim to believe that God’s words can become corrupted.

Clearly, the author has misunderstood Dr. White's point. Dr. White was not arguing for corruption of God's word, but simply noting a contradiction within Islamic views.

The author proceeds:

With that in mind what about the verses in the Qur’an which mention the corruption of the previous scriptures such as the Injil, Tawrah and Zabur?

The author then sets forth the basic gist of the points about corruption:

There are many verses in the Qur’an which indicate to us that God’s wahy (revelation) has been skewered by the hands of man, both literal words changes and contextual alterations (interpretations):

يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِمَّا ذُكِّرُ‌وا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِي
They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. – Qur’an : 5 : 13.

وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِ‌يقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. – Qur’an : 3 : 78.

مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ‌ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَ‌اعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْ‌نَا لَكَانَ خَيْرً‌ا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّـهُ بِكُفْرِ‌هِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, “We hear and disobey” and “Hear but be not heard” and “Ra’ina,” twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], “We hear and obey” and “Wait for us [to understand],” it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. – Qur’an : 4 : 46.

We seemingly have arrived at a theological impasse. On one end, we read above that God would protect His revelations and now we’re reading that God’s revelations were altered by men, corrupted, their meanings and letters distorted. Yet, before we jump to conclusions, we have to analyse what we have attained so far:

(1) God’s words cannot become corrupted.
(2) God’s words did become corrupted.

There seems to be a clear disconnect here.

So far, the author seems to have provided a reasonable presentation of the position he is arguing against, although we would say "God's word" rather than "God's words."

The author then attempts to identify a solution to the disconnect:

Something’s missing from this puzzle and we know what it is. Context. Did God’s word in itself become corrupted? And this is a question we must take seriously into consideration. What we see from the above verses is that there are two cases for God’s word apparently becoming corrupted:

(1) Interpretative alterations.
(2) Textual alterations.

With this in mind, let’s examine both cases.

We certainly have no objection to contextual consideration of the Qur'an, despite the seeming possible futility of applying a contextual method to what amounts to a posthumous topical collection of recalled sayings.

The author then posed the argument based on context:

It is true as we read from the Qur’aan: 5:13, 4:46, 3:78 that God’s revelations were reinterpreted. These interpretations followed the folly desires of men, in some areas to abrogate God’s law to suit material wants and desires, for power, even for illicit pleasures:

Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour, part of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).

Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet {saw} and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic law, while at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishses, they would leave it at that.- Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages 164- 165.

However, God did guard the message (risalah) of the revelations (wahy). God sent messengers, prophets to correct the wrong interpretations by these pseudo religious scholars:

إِذْ أَرْ‌سَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُمْ مُرْ‌سَلُونَ
When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, “Indeed, we are messengers to you.” – Qur’an : Suratul Yasin (36) : 14.

In fact, the New Testament, confirms that Messengers were sent to the people who tried to alter His message through new interpretations:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. – Bible : Matthew (23) : 37.

So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).

Regarding the author's conclusion, the solution he is offering is a qualification on the protection of "until newer revelation was sent." That solution is not actually found in the materials he has identified.  In other words, the context has not substantiated his charge.

It seems that (for part of the argument) the author is trying to argue that the Qur'an's references to corruption relate to attempted corruption of the meaning, but that this attempted corruption was essentially ineffective.  This approach might make sense, but would imply that the meaning remains intact.  That solution implies that the Old and New Testaments are intact in their meaning (within the context of Dr. White's criticism).

But the author of the article is not finished.  He continues:

However, now we’ve arrived at the crux of the matter, textual corruption. As Muslims we assert that God’s message is preserved by God (as seen above, contextually), but what about textually? We read earlier that God protects His message in totality, that is, textually and contextually (meanings, interpretations). However as Muslims, we also do say that we do not believe in the Old Testaments of the Jews and Christians nor do we believe in the New Testaments of the Christians as being valid, because we assert they are not the words of God. Since they are not the words of God, they can indeed become corrupted and God did not promise to guard the works of man, but only His words.

This is the approach mentioned above of denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel. But is this feasible? Let's consider how the author of the article tries to defend this approach:

For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an says that a scripture (Injil) was given to Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him):

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِ‌هِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْ‌يَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ‌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِي
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’an : 5: 46.

However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:

(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.

Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself.

As for the last argument, this argument is only relevant to the Gospels, not to the Torah or the Zabur (Psalter, book of Psalms). Moreover, this argument presupposes that it is true that the Injil was given as a revelation to Jesus. However, this assertion itself is not correct. Indeed, it is simply another error of Mohamed's teaching.

This point is also something of a red herring. Even if there were a different book called the Injil that was allegedly given to Jesus, where has this been preserved at all? In other words, the situation is much worse for the Muslim who tries to avail himself of this particular argument. Instead of simply small textual variants in the New Testament, now the Muslim must account for the seeming complete destruction of the whole book and any record of its existence. After all, there is no record before Mohammed of any book given to Jesus.

There is a similar problem with respect to the argument about the Torah. So, the Muslim is claiming that the Torah which has been preserved is not the Torah referenced in the Qur'an. But then the lack of preservation is much worse than the Muslim has contended - the original Torah is completely gone if the one we have is not the original Torah but some new fake Torah.

Moreover, there is another problem, the Koran seems to suggest that the Torah and Injil are in the possession of the people of Mohammed's day:

وَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ كِتَابٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ وَكَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ يَسْتَفْتِحُونَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم مَّا عَرَفُوا كَفَرُوا بِهِ ۚ فَلَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. Qur'an 2:89 (Yusuf Ali translation)

If the Torah and Injil are something that were with Christians and Jews in the 7th century, then they weren't destroyed. Moreover, we know what the Old and New Testaments looked like in the 7th century - in fact we have even older copies than that.

So, it seems that the problem hasn't really been addressed. But let's consider how the author tries to wrap up this argument:

They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:

(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2) Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.

Secondly, since they have made significant distinctions with what the Muslim concept of revelation is and what their scripture is actually comprised of, then they have shown that the Bible (New Testament) is not the Injil and as it follows, the Injil is not the Bible.

Most of this argument is already addressed above. Some people who call themselves Christians may not believe that the Bible is the very word of God, but verbal plenary inspiration is an important part of orthodox Christian belief. We do not believe that only the ideas but not the words are inspired. Our view of the mechanism of inspiration may differ from that of Muslims (we don't believe that the words simply are spoken, as it were, in the ears of the prophets), but that difference seems to be irrelevant to this particular argument.

The author of the article then provides a section designated as "conclusion":

Therefore, we must come to a logical conclusion. When missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White, along with their propganda team at AI, state that the Qur’an is wrong for saying the Bible is corrupted because Muslims believe the word of God can’t be corrupted, we must educate them. It is in this light, that our response should be, as such:

• Muslims believe the word of God cannot be corrupted.
• We believe the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God.

We do not believe it is the word of God because:

• Christians do not believe the Bible is the verbatim word of God, but inspired ideas from God through the words of men.

In conclusion:

• Therefore the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God and as such Muslims do not believe in it.

What was wrong with James White’s missionary belief, is that they think the Bible is the word of God and therefore we should accept this belief and as a consequence adhere to it, however as displayed above they don’t believe in the kind of scripture we do, they make a clear distinction between the Injil which we believe God revealed to Isa (Jesus, may God be pleased with him), while they believe in a scripture inspired by God, worded by the minds of men, which manifested after Jesus had walked the earth.

May God guide those who appeal to the fallacy of ad ignorantium.

As noted above, however, this doesn't really solve the problem - it just makes it worse. The Torah and Injil are now not merely somehow obscured through textual variation, but instead are completely destroyed. Under this theory, they are preserved much worse than if the Old and New Testaments are the Torah and Injil.

Moreover, there is no good argument provided for the assertion that the Torah and Injil do not correspond to Old and New Testament. Regarding the Injil, the argument that it cannot be the New Testament because of the mode of transmission (a) makes the problem even worse for the Muslim and (b) assumes both the reliability of the Qur'an on this point and the reliability of Christian accounts of how the gospels were given.

As for the fallacy of ad ignorantium, it has not been substantiated by the author of the article, and so we may leave our response at that.

-TurretinFan

Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?

Rome insists that she is an authentic interpreter of Scripture.  We can easily provide an example, within a document defining a dogma, of Rome making a clear blunder.  But let's leave that aside for a second, and consider the effect of Rome's claims on a conversation.

Christian: We should reject Marian devotion because the Bible teaches us to trust in God alone.
Roman apologist: You have wrongly interpreted the Bible.  Only Rome can authentically interpret the Bible.
Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood.  Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others.
Roman Apologist: No, you cannot understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic church.
Christian: That's not so.
Roman Apologist: Look, it says so right here in Matthew 16:18.

Pause

Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion.  But behind that appearance lies a question about what this Roman hermeneutic entails.

1) Is it like special decoder glasses?

Is the Bible simply incomprehensible on its own, and one needs the Roman church to provide spectacles to make the incomprehensible, comprehensible?  If that were true, then it would make no sense to appeal to Scripture to anyone not already looking through the spectacles.

2) Is it like the answer key to a Rubik's cube?
Is the Bible simply highly complicated, and one needs the Roman church to show the map of the way through to get the solution?  If this were the case, the appeal to Scripture might make sense.  This is just the first breadcrumb along a trail that eventually leads to Rome.  In fact, though, all of Rome's attempts to prove her distinctive doctrines from Scripture fail.  When you get an answer key to a Rubik's cube, you can see the parts all come together to form the solved puzzle, even if you couldn't have done it on your own.  But with Rome, you don't get satisfactory answers like that.  You get alleged solutions, but even knowing the supposed solutions, one cannot arrive at these solutions from Scripture.

3) Is it like the person who showed you how to look at "Magic Eye" 3D pictures?
Sure, at first it was just a weird bunch of lines and patterns, but once you were taught how to change your focus, suddenly the beautiful stereoscopic patterns emerged.  Some of Rome's converts stories make it sound like they feel Rome's hermeneutic is similar to this.  The two problems are - first, they don't seem to be able to teach us how to see the butterfly amidst the squiggly lines - and second, until we see the butterfly, appeals to Scripture are just appeals to squiggle lines, and consequently futile.

4) Is it like Humpty Dumpty?
In Alice Through the Looking Glass, she encounters the character Humpty Dumpty who insists on making words mean what he wants them to mean, even when that meaning is quite distant from any conventional sense of the word.  Some of the arguments from the Roman side favor this interpretation.  After all, some Roman apologists try to approach the Bible as though it were the creation of the Church, rather than being God's word delivered to the churches (and CCC 111 and 113 seem to encourage them to take this approach).  If the Bible were the product of the Church, then the authorial intent behind the words becomes important, and we need to let Humpty Dumpty use words like "only mediator" in a far from conventional sense.  One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance.  Matthew 16:18 might as well teach the papacy as it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary, so long as Rome says that is what it means.  The fact that we don't see it in the actual meaning of the words doesn't matter.

Ultimately, no matter what we liken the Roman hermeneutic to, we should realize that the Roman hermeneutic boils down to sola ecclesia: what Rome says goes.  If the Bible appears to say the same thing, and that convinces someone that Rome is right - great.  If the Bible appears to say the opposite, the Bible's apparent meaning should be subordinated to what Rome teaches.

But if that's Rome's hermeneutic, then the appeals to Scripture as an authority are really disingenuous.  Honest Roman apologists shouldn't argue that we should believe them because (to use their lingo) we interpret the Bible the same way they do.  After all, when we interpret the Bible differently, we're supposed to just set that aside, no matter how clear the Bible is.

Yet, I welcome comments from Roman apologists, clergy, and even laity.  To what do you liken the Roman hermeneutic, and to what shall I compare it?  And when you try to quote the Bible to me, do you think I'm just unaware that your church teaches that "all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God"  (CCC 119, quoting Dei Verbum 12, 3rd paragraph)?

-TurretinFan

P.S. Oh, and by the way - the alternative is that the Bible is the very word of God, and that God made it clear enough to serve as a rule of faith and life for his church.  Not all parts are equally clear, however, and sin blinds the minds of some men so that even the most clear parts become dull.  Nevertheless, core doctrines (like the contents of the Apostles' creed, for example) are plainly and unmistakeably set forth in the Scriptures, without the need for any special glasses, tricky eye techniques, or authoritative lexicography.

How Many Mediators?

The Vatican Information Service reports (3 February 2012), referring to Benedict XVI:

In conclusion he quoted some words of Blessed John Paul II, calling on the Virgin Mary to intercede with the Lord, so that "all who have received the gift of following Him in consecrated life may be enabled to bear witness to that gift by their transfigured lives, as they joyfully make their way with all their brothers and sisters towards our heavenly homeland and the light which will never grow dim".

In response to our criticism that Rome makes Mary another mediator and encourages her people to pray not only to God but also to Mary, we are frequently told that those in the Roman communion are just taught to ask Mary to pray for them.

Leaving aside the absurdity of asking a foreigner who doesn't speak your language and whose ears have long ago returned to dust for anything, we can still see that Marian devotion as advocated by the current and immediately previous popes is not just asking Mary to pray, like we might ask our friends.

Instead, Mary is being asked to intercede on behalf of a class of people.  It is true that this particular request is actually a request for Mary to pray for that class of people.  Thus, it bears some parallels to the description we are given.

The prayer is described as particularly intercessory.  The reason, implied but not stated, for the request is the presumed great power of Mary to obtain those things for which she intercedes.  Yet Scripture suggests that Mary is not especially important in the kingdom of God.  In fact, in response to:

Luke 11:27  And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.


Jesus said:

Luke 11:28  But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.


And in response to Mary trying to get an audience with Jesus in this case:

Mark 3:32  And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Jesus said:

Mark 3:33-35 
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

So why, dear reader, would you follow the example and teachings of the most recent two popes and seek out Mary's intercession, despite Jesus' teachings?

1 Timothy 2:5  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

So, if you must pray for those in "consecrated life" then why not pray directly to the Father by the intercession of the Son?  Surely you do not think that Mary is a better intercessor than the Son.

-TurretinFan

P.S. Perhaps it will occur to someone, "But then why ask our brethren here on Earth to pray for us?"  One reason we do that here on Earth is that we have a reciprocal duty to bear one another's burdens.  We can't bear Mary's burdens, because she doesn't have any.  Moreover, no matter how Rome's apologists may try to dress it up, we all know she's not being asked as just another sister in Christ, but as a perceived woman of great power and influence.

Disintegration of Families ...

James Jordan has a new post in which he criticizes churches where families sit together for worship (a practice that has at least hundreds of years of practice in the Americas).  He claims:

The simple fact is that for 2000 years, the Holy Spirit moved the church to have men and women sitting separately during divine worship.

I can easily guess where he gets this idea.  Among the Eastern Orthodox, particularly the "old believers" there is a tradition of separating males and females to different sides of the church during the service.  The women go on the side with the large icon of Mary, whereas the men go on the side with the large icon of Jesus.

There's no compelling reason to think that those practices go back 2000 years.  Moreover, among the old believers, the practice is not to sit on separate sides, but to stand on separate sides.  So, if this really were a movement by the Holy Spirit, Jordan should be advocating for standing, not sitting.

But let's consider his justification for the practice:

This is because in heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. There is neither male nor female, bond nor free, child nor parent. Hence, ascended worship, taking place seated in the heavenlies, involves an affirmation of God’s Family and a setting aside of the earthly family. 

This justification would make sense if he left out "neither male nor female."  Once that is included, the rationale for segregating the sexes during worship falls apart.  If there is no male or female, there is no justification for segregation based on that principle.

Jordan also hurls accusation against Vision Forum for advocating the importance of families worshiping together:

Functioning beneath the surface with such groups as Vision Forum and the like is a form of idolatry. We read that the family is the foundation of civilization. That is a fairly ridiculous notion, since the family is a highly temporary social unit. The Bible commands that a child leave his father and mother when he marries (Genesis 2:24). 

 This is another example of Jordan's arguments not following.  The fact that a family is - to some degree - a temporary social unity does not prevent it from being the foundation of civilization.  The very passage Jordan cites is one in which a member of a family is setting out to create his own family.  That passage only reinforces the role that family plays in this life.

Jordan goes on to claim that Wes White and others are "opposed" to "reformation theology," which is just one more ridiculous claim, like Jodan's claim that "the notion that husbands should serve their wives and children the Lord’s Supper" was "a capital offense in the Bible; Exodus 35:2-3; Numbers 16."

Given all the ridiculous claims in the post (from beginning to end) one may wonder why I would bother responding.  It seems that James Jordan is one of the leaders of the Federal Vision.  If those in the Federal Vision movement consider him one of their leaders, then presumably they will be glad to hear responses to him.

-TurretinFan

Whom Should We Invoke? How do we Get Spiritual Water?

As reported today (30 January 2012) by the Vatican Information Service, Benedict XVI is reported yesterday to have stated:

Let us trustingly invoke Most Holy Mary that she may guide our hearts always to draw from the well of divine mercy, which liberates and heals our human condition, filling it with all grace and benevolence, with the power of love.

Notice the problems.

1) Rather placing our trust in God alone, Ratzinger wants us to trust Mary.

2) Rather than ascribing the highest degree of holiness to God alone, Ratzinger calls Mary "Most Holy"

3) Rather than ascribing guidance of our hearts to the Holy Spirit, Ratzinger ascribes it to Mary.

I suppose we should, on some level, be thankful that the remainder of the sentence relates to divine mercy and its consequences.  It's small conciliation, however.

Moreover, also notice the synergism of the description - the object of the trust and invocation is not simply to receive grace from God, but rather to receive Marian guidance for us to use our own abilities to "draw from the well."


By contrast, Jesus says:

John 4:14  But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

The gifts that the Father gives us, promised to us by Jesus, are greater than those promised by the leader of the Roman communion and sought by those in communion with him.  Whereas they have to draw from a well, our well springs up to us.

We also have a better mediator to invoke than Mary.  Our mediator encouraged us in this way:

John 4:10  Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

You see, we don't have to just ask Jesus for guidance to the divine well - if we ask water of him, he will give it to us!

Dear readers, drink from the rock!  Not from Peter the apostle but Jesus Christ the Righteous.  As it is written:

1 Corinthians 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

-TurretinFan

Love Jesus - Not the Cross?

So you say you love Jesus but not the cross
You think Christians are wrong and Allah’s boss
Did Jesus say he’s God? You think certainly not.
But there’s a few things you seem to’ve forgot.

You see, Jesus was asked by the Pharisee
About Abraham How it could be – How could he see?
When he answered “I am” he wasn’t conjugating “to be”
He was claiming divinity – capisce?

Jesus is the Word – the Unique Son of God
That Word made the World He was always with God
Then that Word became man – two natures in one
The Monogenes became Mary’s first son

He came to die so that we could be free
The divine took on humanity to redeem
Because God takes sin seriously

You can just deny it
Try to hide from it
Claim that forty Arabic words decide it
But consider history – his disciples died for it

And they worshiped him – Thomas called him God and got the nod
But important than that – consider the very word of God
Who told his angels “worship him”
And now you’re going to try to spin
And tell me that it’s too thin
Because it’s not Jesus himself saying to worship him?

You forgot about prophecy too
What Isaiah said was true
The son of the virgin was the son of God too

That’s what Immanuel means – God with us
God in humanity nailed to the cross

In humanity raised to life by the divine
Ascended on high – he will come in the sky

To judge living and dead on the very last day
Will you worship the Son – for this I will pray.

Christian Liberty, the Roman Communion, and Inerrancy

As Christians, we have a lot of liberty.  We can eat meat or abstain from eating it.  We can drink or abstain from drinking.  Moreover, in things about which Scripture has nothing to say, we have the Christian liberty to have a variety of opinions.

In theory, Rome's communion has a similar policy.  They have more rigid rules about eating (sorry guys, it's Friday, can't have the bacon cheeseburger), but in theory they have a lot of leeway in theology.  If there is no "defined dogma" then those in Rome's communion are (generally speaking) allowed to believe whatever they like.  Moreover, if there is no "official teaching," those in Rome's communion are (again, generally speaking) allowed to express their opinion.


So, it is with some amusement that I have been watching a certain e-pologist for the Roman communion who has been spending his time in an extended blog war with one of Rome's actual apologists over the latter's promotion of some video.  The video speculates about whether the NASA footage of the moon landing is genuine.

Let's be clear about something - Rome has no official teaching or dogmatic definition regarding whether the moon landings happened, or whether the footage of them is real.  So, in theory, members of Rome's communion should be free to hold various opinions about the subject.

I feel a little sorry for the real apologist who finds himself at the receiving end of the abuse from e-apologist over his views on the moon landing.  The only apparent motivation for the abuse from the e-pologist is to make the real apologist look bad for holding views that a lot of people will think are kooky.  Maybe the views are kooky, but he's supposedly allowed to hold those views.

What's amusing is that this same e-pologist claims that it's "not liberal" for people to hold the documentary hypothesis! ("Is it liberal to adopt the documentary hypothesis? Dogmatically, I don't think so, from a Catholic perspective." source)

Whether the documentary hypothesis is correct isn't something that we Christians have liberty about - it touches on and denies inerrancy.  But what is Rome's view on inerrancy?

In summary, the following can be said with certainty: ... with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11)

(Nikola Eterovic, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church" in an Instrumentalis Laboris form, 2008)(but note that this portion of the working paper was not ultimately approved, as per this report)

Of course, previously, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had stated without qualification that "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts" (15 July 1998) was something to be believed De Fide on a par with "the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff."  Of course, "without qualification" is the way that a traditionalist would view it.  "Without clarification" is how a modernist would view it.

I understand that the CDF has been given the task of further clarifying the Roman position on inerrancy, but whether they adopt the modernist view espoused in the working paper above, or the orthodox view of full inerrancy, it's truly remarkable that Rome's e-pologist(s) (I understand Mark Shea has added to the pile of abuse as well) find it appropriate to bash one more noble than themselves for holding views that are perfectly acceptable within their own communion.

It seems like a classic case straining at the gnat (holding to an unusual view of America), whilst swallowing the camel (the documentary hypothesis).

- TurretinFan

Discussing the Bible with Roman Catholics

John Lollard (which I presume is a psuedonym) has provided the following dialogue between a hypothetical truthseeker and a Roman Catholic:

Roman Catholic (RC): "Here, this book came from God. Read it and believe it."

Truth Seeker (TS): "Okay! Hey, this book says X is true."

RC: "What? Give me that!"

TS: "Right there, 'X is true'."

RC: "It doesn't actually mean that. What it means is that X is false and Y is true."

TS: "But, you said this book came from God?"

RC: "It did. But you should just listen to me, and not worry about what this book says."

TS: "What? Why should I listen to you?"

RC: "Why, it says right there in the book, 'the true believers' - meaning me of course - 'will never teach falsely'."

TS: "But this book teaches X and you teach Y. Doesn't that mean you do teach falsely?"

RC: "Look, I'm the one who gave you the book in the first place."

TS: "Then thank you very much for the book that you claim came from God, please read it yourself and obey it."

I have one criticism of this dialog, though. How many savvy Roman Catholics would suggest to a truth seeker to read and believe the Bible? Reading the Bible is not going to lead you Romeward, and I think most RC proselytizers realize that.

-TurretinFan

To Whom Should we Entrust Baptized Infants?

I realize a lot of my friends who read my blog are baptists.  For the sake of discussion, assume with me that infants of believers are to be baptized.  Benedict XVI recently baptized XVI babies in the Sistine chapel.  Vatican Information Service (VIS) reports (January 9, 2012) that:

The Pope concluded by entrusting the newly baptised infants to the Blessed Virgin, "that they may grow in age, wisdom and grace, and become true Christians, faithful and joyful witnesses of the love of God".

There is a gnat and a camel here.

The gnat first.  Aren't newly baptized infants "true Christians" already?  What sort of theology does Benedict XVI have, in which newly baptized infants are not true Christians?  This is a gnat because it may be simply a slip of the tongue or a translation glitch.

Now, the camel.  What is Benedict XVI doing entrusting them to Mary?  On what basis does Benedict XVI suppose that Mary can have any influence on their ability to

• grow in age
• grow in wisdom
• grow in grace
• become (remain?) true Christians
• become faithful witnesses of the love of God; or
• become joyful witnesses of the love of God?

What this looks like is just more Mariolatry - treating Mary as though she were a goddess, capable of doing what only God can do.  Does Benedict XVI use the word "goddess"?  No.  Functionally though, where a Presbyterian minister would entrust a child to God or a Baptist might "dedicate" the child to God, Benedict XVI is entrusting the babies to Mary.

-TurretinFan

Do Muslims Have the Whole Koran?

The punchline is this - "a goat ate it."  In discussions regarding Qur'anic preservation, the following hadith is sure to come up:

Reported ‘Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

(See also, Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359, if you don't like the chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah)

Notice the following about that hadith.

1) Shortly after Mohamed's death, a goat came into Aisha's sleeping area and ate the paper that she had placed under her pillow.

2) The paper had "the verse" on it.

3) This verse was about (a) stoning and (b) suckling an adult ten times.

While the Koran that the Muslims have today mentions stoning, there is no verse regarding suckling an adult ten times, much less any verse about both together (both suckling and stoning).

Sometimes the authenticity of the above hadith is challenged.  Perhaps more needs to be said about that, but it is not the only relevant hadith.

Here is another hadith that has more attestation (these three ahadith are related, as you will see):

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Book #008, Hadith #3421)

'Amra reported that she heard 'A'isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she ('A'isha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings). (Sahih Muslim, Book #008, Hadith #3422)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Amongst what was sent down of the Qur'an was 'ten known sucklings make haram' - then it was abrogated by 'five known sucklings'. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur'an." Yahya said that Malik said, "One does not act on this." (Malik's Muwatta, Book #30, Hadith #30.3.17)

Notice that in these accounts, it is again stated that the "ten sucklings" were in the Qur'an.  There is a claim that this was then abrogated in favor of five sucklings.

But there is more!

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar informed him that A'isha umm al-muminin sent him away while he was being nursed to her sister Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and said, "suckle him ten times so that he can come in to see me." Salim said, "Umm Kulthum nursed me three times and then fell ill, so that she only nursed me three times. I could not go in to see A'isha because Umm Kulthum did not finish for me the ten times." (Malik's Muwatta, Book #30, Hadith #30.1.7)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd told him that Hafsa, umm al-muminin, sent Asim ibn Abdullah ibn Sad to her sister Fatima bint Umar ibn al-Khattab for her to suckle him ten times so that he could come in to see her. She did it, so he used to come in to see her. (Malik's Muwatta, Book #30, Hadith #30.1.8)

This seems to be an example of the application of the "ten sucklings" principle.  Why would Aisha suggest that an adult go be suckled ten times?  Doing so would, in her mind, make the person a foster relative.  And a foster relative (while prohibited from marriage) would be permitted to see her unveiled.

It seems clear that all this testimony provided above regarding the missing verse of the Qur'an is linked back to Aisha.  Was she lying or mistaken?  Perhaps she was.  If Muslims want to insist she was lying or mistaken, how can I prove she was telling the truth?

On the other hand, why assume Aisha was lying?  From a historical standpoint, is there any record of anyone challenging Aisha's claim during her lifetime?  She was one of Muhammad's wives.  If she was lying, wouldn't one of Muhammad's companions be able to say so and have that testimony preserved amongst the ahadith?

In short, why isn't the above historical evidence - as such - credible?  Do you accept that your Koran is short at least one verse, or do you reject that idea based on presuppositions that have nothing to do with history?

-TurretinFan

P.S. Incidentally, there is at least one attempted Muslim response to the issues above (example).  That response relies on questioning the authenticity of the narration.  However, the response is honest enough to admit that there is an alternate chain of narration that does not have the flaw above.  Moreover, the response highlights the existence of other narrations with different words (presumably referring to some of the second category I identified above).  These other narrations, however, just highlight the problem.

Secondly, the response suggests that Mohammed said that the verse about stoning couldn't be written.  It's not clear what this is supposed to prove.  It seems to further support the idea that the written Qur'an is not complete.

Thirdly, the response points out that in some of the narrations, the verse is described as abrogated.  However, why should the abrogated verse be omitted from the Koran?

The response's conclusion is even more puzzlingly odd:

Moreover ‘Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Usman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Usman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting ‘Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered reliable.

What is odd is that the respondent thinks this helps his case. Aisha is deemed by Usman as a reliable authority on the Qur'an during the period of compilation, yet her uncontested testimony is that part of the Qur'an was lost.  To say she "never raised the issue" begs the question at best - more to the point there is a record of her raising the issue, and supporting evidence that she really believed it to have been revealed, or at least really claimed to believe it to have been revealed.  Her testimony also explains why she couldn't hand over the verse to Usman during the period of compilation.

Why I Love Jesus and Keep His Commandments

I understand that my friend, Dr. James White, may be preparing a better response to "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Muslim Version," but I want to chime in now, while it is fresh on my mind (rather than waiting 24 years - just sayin').  I'll respond in chunks to the lyrics.  The production quality was pretty good - though (in my opinion) not as impressive as the production quality of the original video. I've taken the liberty of spelling out words that are abbreviated in the rap, especially words ending in "ing."

Look, what if I told you there was something you were missing
What if I told you that Jesus doesn't really fit into your description
What if I told you that "follower of Christ" doesn't automatically mean "Christian"
And just because you believe in Faith doesn't mean Jesus didn't believe in submission and conviction

The brief answer is that a Christian does mean a follower of Christ.  The term "Christian" was coined in the first century in Antioch to describe the disciples (followers) of Christ.  

Acts 11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

And this name caught on, so that even King Agrippa knew and used the term.

Acts 26:28  Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Regarding submission and conviction, James (Jesus' brother) teaches us explicitly to "Submit yourselves therefore to God" (James 4:7).  But submission doesn't mean Islam, even if Islam means submission (as some have suggested).

Listen, you say that Jesus was God and that God had descended
We say that Jesus was man, for Jesus was dependant
Our god is all great and cannot be comprehended

You say that God was murdered or do you believe that he pretended?

Jesus was (and is) both God and man in two distinct natures and one person.  Jesus did descend:

Ephesians 4:9-10  (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

That descent (which we call the descent into hell, meaning the descent into the place of the dead) is not quite the same as the descent from heaven.  John describes that descent this way:


John 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


And this is not unique to John, of course.  Paul says the same:

Romans 1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;


Perhaps the most concise explanation is this:

Philippians 2:6-8
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus Christ, you see, has two natures: God and man, but he is one person.  That person submitted to death on the cross.

We recognize that some Muslims may think that Jesus only pretended to die on the cross, or that Allah simply made it appear that Jesus died on the cross.  Nevertheless, the Scriptures inform us that Jesus died on the cross.

See god gave us brains and god gave us logic
But I guess god wanted us to use them in everything else except for this topic
It's like wearing a cross and proclaiming that you love Jesus
When if God was murdered on the cross, the cross really shouldn't please us
I mean would you be wearing an axe if it was used to chop your mother up into pieces?
See this is what happens when you believe in faith, but fail to believe in reason.

Of course, the Reformed churches have traditionally frowned upon wearing crosses, but for a completely different reason.  Likewise, some fundamentalists object to wearing crosses and make essentially the exact argument posed above in terms of comparing it to some object that killed one's mother.

Of course, there is a major difference.  The death of one's beloved mother brings sadness.  The death of Christ brought sadness at the time, but Christ did not stay dead.  He rose from the dead and ascended up into heaven.

The death of Christ now brings joy - because by death Christ conquered death.

Hebrews 2:14  Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The Paschal Troparion has a powerful way of expressing it:

Christ is risen from the dead, 
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!

This was indeed prophesied:

Hosea 13:14  I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

The death of Christ is something valuable and precious.  It's not a tragedy, though it was very upsetting (of course) to Christ's followers at the time.

See, we used to worship the creator until Satan turned us to the creation
We began to worship the people and neglect the one who made them
We began to believe that god had died, but how could a god even be created?

Jesus has two natures - one divine and uncreated - one human and created.  We don't worship Jesus because he is man - we worship Jesus because he is God.  He is the only begotten son of God:

Mark 1:1  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
John10:36  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

but he is also the son of man

John 8:28  Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Moreover, Jesus was not created - he is the Creator.

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

A miraculous birth and therefore the son of God was begotten,
You see the creation of Jesus was easy, but you seem to have forgotten,
That God says "be" and it is, just like with Adam
A concept to complex for the church to merely fathom

Jesus was miraculously born, but Jesus existed before then.

Colossians 1:13-16
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The Son always existed, you see - but became flesh by taking on the flesh of Mary in her womb.

John 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Romans 1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Romans 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

1 Timothy 3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

You see, Jesus himself confirmed both his divinity and the fact that he existed before Abraham:

John 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

But he was the creator of the universe (for all we know even more)
And so what if we can't see him, I mean what you acting like our universe is small
I mean there's still so much we still yet to explore
I mean there's still so many things as human beings we still haven't seen touched heard or saw
Our eyes can't even handle the sight of the sun, so how can we possibly handle the sight of our lord

The Father created all things by Christ.  As it is written:

Ephesians 3:9  And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Nehemiah 9:6  Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Colossians 1:16  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


But yes - it takes something miraculous for anyone to see God and live.  So, this objection is a reasonable one, though mistaken. 

Genesis 32:30  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Judges 13:22  And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

Exodus 3:6  Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

And the Jews could not even bear to look at Moses face after he had talked with God.

Exodus 34:29-35
And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai. And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

But Jesus, who is both God and man, bridges this gap.

John 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

You see Jesus used to pray, but in your opinion who'd he pray to?
I mean if Jesus was God, surely prayer would be of no use.

Jesus prayed to the Father.  Why should such a prayer be no use?  The Father loves the Son. As Jesus taught:

John 3:35  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Or did he only require it when he needed to know the truth
Like when god wasn't sure whether it was the season of the fruit

 Jesus, as to his divinity, knows all things:

John 21:17  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


Of course, our Muslim rapper is referring this occasion:

Mark 11:13  And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

And the rapper seems to think that this implies that Jesus was ignorant.  Yet, Jesus is both God and man.  Not all of God's divine knowledge is imputed to Jesus' humanity.  Moreover, a person with more understanding will read the passage and discover that Jesus had a purpose in going to a fig tree that was leaves only - the purpose was to illustrate the spiritual state of Jerusalem when he came to them.  They were leaves only.

Remember that they had just done this:

Mark 11:8-10
And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the way. And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.

But soon enough they were going to kill him.  They were leaves only - no fruit.  Therefore, like the fig tree, they were destroyed.  The fig tree, therefore, portrayed the destruction of Jerusalem, which was soon to come.

Or maybe he prayed when there was something he couldn't do
Like when he said, "I of myself can do nothing," but you took it as there's nothing he couldn't do

Our Muslim rapper has not properly understood Jesus words.  Look at what Jesus said:

John 5:19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 5:30  I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 8:28  Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

You see, the point is that Jesus is not alone - he is doing what he was sent by the Father to do.  Notice that here Jesus prophesied his own death by being lifted up (on the cross).  Of course, our Muslim rapper denies that Jesus was crucified, but that's just because he does not follow even the prophecies of Jesus.

See no one used to worship Jesus, so ask yourself why do you?
A concept so straightforward, but has left so many confused

When exactly did no one worship Jesus?  It seems our Muslim friend is unfamiliar with parts of the Bible that are not quoted by deceptive people like Deedat.

He was worshiped both at the time of his birth:
Matthew 2:2  Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Matthew 2:11  And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

During his earthly ministry:

Mark 5:6  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,


Matthew 8:2  And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Matthew 9:18  While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Matthew 14:33  Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 15:25  Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Matthew 20:20  Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

John 9:38  And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.


And even after the Resurrection, before the ascension:

Matthew 28:9  And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.


Matthew 28:17  And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.


Luke 24:52  And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

You see, Jesus preached one god, but the church has failed to practice
And I mean you don't have be that dumb to know that 1 + 1 + 1 equaling 1 isn't necessarily going to give you a pass in mathematics

Three persons is not the same as three beings.  It's easy to misapply mathematics.  After all, there are many molecules of oxygen and hydrogen in a glass, but how many "water"?  I'm not saying that the three persons are atoms making a molecule of divinity, but I am saying that if you want to have "three gods" on the right hand side of your mathematics equation, you can't get it from merely showing that there are three persons who are all the same God on the left hand side of the equation.  An apple plus an orange does not yield two pears, even though 1 + 1 = 2.

But yes, Jesus preached one God, and so do we.

You see the church said "three" and Jesus said "one"

We also say "one" (in fact, isn't that what the Muslim rapper was dissing us for in his misapplication of mathematics?)

1 Corinthians 8:6  But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

but the three persons were identified by Jesus himself:

Matthew 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 

Jesus said "God" and the church said "Son"

Jesus actually said that all men should honor the Son the same way that they honor the Father, and that if they don't honor the Son they don't honor the Father.

John 5:23  That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 

Jesus never said "worship me" rather he said "pray" 

 John 5:23 (just above) is awfully close.  It's not the exact words "worship me," but how does one honor the Father?  Besides all that, in all the cases where people worshiped Jesus in his presence, when did he ever correct them?

Moreover, what difference does it make if Jesus himself did not say that, when the Father commanded the angels to worship Jesus?

Hebrews 1:6  And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Remember that when John made the mistake of worshiping a mere angel, the angel corrected him:

Revelation 22:8-9
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

But Jesus accepted the worship of his disciples.

But you've chosen to worship Jesus, despite everything he used to say

One of the problems for our Muslim rapper is that he doesn't seem to have a very complete knowledge of what Jesus used to say.

You began to think with your emotion and forgot to think with your mind
I guess you didn't pay attention when Jesus says "our father" yet never says "mine"

Who is not paying attention?
Matthew 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 10:32-33  Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 11:27  All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Matthew 12:50  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Matthew 16:17  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew  18:10  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 18:19  Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 20:23  And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Matthew 24:36  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Matthew 25:34  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Matthew 26:29  But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Matthew 26:39  And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Matthew 26:42  He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Matthew 26:53  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Luke 2:49  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Luke 10:22  All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
Luke 22:29  And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

Luke 24:49  And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

John 2:16  And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

John 5:17  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

John 5:43  I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 6:32  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

John 6:65  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 8:19  Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

John 8:28  Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:38  I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

John 8:49  Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

John 8:54  Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

John 10:17-18  Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 10:25  Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 10:32  Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

John 10:37  If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

John 14:2  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

John 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:12  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John 14:20-21  At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.  He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:23  Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

John 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 15:1  I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

John 15:8  Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

John 15:10  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

John 15:15  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

John 15:23  He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

John 15:24  If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

John 16:10  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

John 18:11  Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

John 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Revelation 2:27  And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 3:5  He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Revelation 3:21  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

You claim to be a follower of Christ yet you still choose to eat swine

Jesus taught, during his earthly ministry:

Matthew 15:11  Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Moreover, a vision was given to Peter:

Acts 10:13-16
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

And finally, the apostles at Jerusalem recognized that the gift of the Holy Spirit had come to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and therefore did not place an onerous burden on them:

Acts 15:28-29
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


Moreover we are expressly told that we do not have to adhere to the clean/unclean distinctions in foods any more:

Colossians 2:16  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


Likewise, people like Mohamed were prophesied to come:

1 Timothy 4:1-4  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

So, you can refuse the swine - but while we dine, keep in mind that the old dietary laws came to the end of the line.

And call yourselves Christians, but in your churches you're busy drinking wine

Wine was never even forbidden to the Jews, much less to the Christians.  In fact, that was Jesus first public miracle.


John 4:46  So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.


Referring to this:

John 2:1-11  And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

You see, Jesus manifested his glory in making water into wine.

And just to clarify, I do love Jesus.
Matter of fact, I love him more than you.
Because when Jesus says do something, I actually do

You don't do this:

Matthew 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And you don't do this:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


So, no - Muslim rapper - you don't do what Jesus says.  That would show love for Jesus, who taught:

John 14:15  If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21  He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

However, I'm not connected with the church nor with the Bible

Indeed you are not.  But the church is the body of Christ.  You can't very well have a severed-head Christ with no body.

Ephesians 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.


Likewise, the Bible is His Word.

2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

See, I love Jesus as my prophet, but refuse to worship him as an idol
Just like he wants it and proclaimed it as sin

Jesus never proclaimed that worshiping him was a sin - and Jesus (the true Jesus) is not an idol.  There are many idols given the name of Jesus, but those are not the true Jesus.  The true Jesus is at the right hand of God the Father, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.

And while you claim to love Jesus as your prophet, you reject what he said about himself.  You do not honor him the same way you honor the father (John 5:23, quoted above).  You don't love his teachings but reject them as shirk - as polytheism.  You don't baptize as he commanded and you don't commune as he commanded.  You are not his followers - we are.

So it doesn't really matter if they don't let him in
Because Jesus wouldn't even want to be in the presence of people worshiping an idol of him.

I completely agree. Jesus would break down the idols of him that many churches have erected, just as he drove out the money changers from the temple.  But Jesus did accept the worship of his disciples and the title of the Son of God.

Before I move on, there's something I need to mention
The worshiping of Jesus is a man-made invention.
He never asked for your worship so he can grant you protection
rather he asked you to alternate your prayers towards another direction
to god and god only and pray that he accepts them
and know that just because you love Jesus, doesn't mean he feels the same way about your affection
see what you believe in is exactly what he resented
matter of fact its everything he despised
see the worship of the creation goes against the very message he supplied
see you began to follow a religion and called it love in disguise
because love can be good, but love can be blind

The worshiping of Jesus is an explicit divine ordinance (Hebrews 1:6, quoted above).  Jesus did not pray towards Mecca. Indeed, while during Jesus earthly ministry, people prayed toward Jerusalem, Jesus prophesied that this directional prayer would end.

John 4:19-26
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

You see, now we worship in Spirit and Truth.  Jesus, the Messiah, has told us all things.  We did not and do not await some greater prophet. 

Colossians 2:8-10
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

So, dear Muslim rapper - will you submit yourself to the word of God?  Will you kiss the Son? or will you in refuse to obey the Father?

Psalm 2:12  Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Therefore, listen - take heed to yourself - and trust in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, while there is still time.

-TurretinFan