Encounter (Point/Counterpoint, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1993)
Encounter (Point/Counterpoint, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1993)The web journal of Godsearch, Inc. (journal formerly entitled Point/Counterpoint).
The skeptic and seeker's guide for investigating religions and world-views through debate, interview, analysis, and discussion.
(6-8 pm, weekdays, MST)
Godsearch call-in phone line. Call in response to anything we have said on this web page or call to share your point of view. Call with your thoughts, arguments, questions, reflection, concerns, and intellectual contributions. (Note: if the lines get too busy and you just want to vent, you will have to call us back or we may be able to call you back.) You can even call if you just want to hear what we have to say. We think biblical Christianity is true and we'll tell you why.
Or email us at enc11@earthlink.net
When a Muslim Calls on Allah
Gary Miller Speaks for Islam
One of Islam's Most Articulate Scholars Debates Christianity
Isa's Death and Resurrection
Appendix
The Completion of the Above Interview with Gary Miller and a Critique of his Booklet, Missionary Christianity.
Some of the Topics in Appendix:
Evidence that the Qur'an does not deny Isa's death or resurrection.
Miller's argument that the New Testament does not affirm Jesus' deity.
The Qur'an's view of the New Testament.
The evidence for Islam: Is there any?
Miller's disproof of the Bible as revelation.
Persuasion by the sword? The problem of the wars of Islam.
Encounter
(Part 1) Mohammed's Story
ohammed Ali Ahmed was born in
Cairo, Egypt, and grew up as a very devout Muslim. Through a
friend in a high military position he had the opportunity to attend
an important ceremony in which he would be on the same platform with
Anwar Sadat. He had a strange feeling that he shouldn't go but his
ambition outweighed his misgiving. In his interview with Sid Roth he
picks up at this point in his story:
Ahmed: I stood at my window waiting for the military car. They came to pick me up and I found myself frozen; I just couldn't move. I said to myself, "What am I doing? This is weird." The driver patiently honked the horn and said, "Are you going?" I said no. He looked at me like I was crazy. As they drove off I came back to myself. And I said to myself, "What did I do?" And I was upset about it because I had lost a golden opportunity.
Roth: That was the day Anwar Sadat was assassinated.
Ahmed: Yes.
Roth: But did you realize that that, being frozen, actually saved your life?
Ahmed: Yes, I realized that, but I was taught in Islam that because of all the sin I had committed in my life that there was no way for me to avoid hell except by being martyred. So right away I got depressed about the matter, that I had lost my chance to skip hell.
I'm not speaking for the whole Muslim faith; I'm speaking for what I had been taught in Islam. We know that no one is going to go to heaven except the Muslim but I was taught that we'll also have to go through a cleansing period in hell to pay for our sins.
Roth: But wait a second now, it seems to me that you should have realized that your life was just spared.
Ahmed: But my life didn't mean anything to me. I wanted to be close to God. I had always sought God, I always loved Him. I know Adam had brought us out of heaven, and it upset me to lose and to trade the presence of God for an apple or because of pride.
I was not convinced that I should have to go through hell for a period of time before I would be finally reunited to God. I couldn't take that.
Roth: Did hell obsess your thoughts?
Ahmed: Yes, it frightened me.
Roth: Up until that point, did you know anything about Christianity?
Ahmed: The only thing I was taught was that Jesus was just a prophet and God gave him signs and wonders to confirm his ministry.
Roth: I understand that you emigrated to the United States and one day someone invited you to a Bible study.
Ahmed: I went to the Bible study and they started telling me that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ. Of course as a Muslim I started telling them that God does not have a son; you know, God does not get married and have children. [Ed.: The New Testament use of the terms for "Son of God" do not indicate biological descent but being related to God in likeness.]
Roth: Was there any doubt in your mind that you were right and they were wrong?
Ahmed: I did not have any doubt. I felt sorry for them that they did not even have my chance of avoiding hell. I said, "Let me tell you something from the Koran. God is a sovereign God and He can do anything He wants. I've loved God all my life. I've devoted my time to Him, my life to Him. I've served Him and sought Him with all of my heart. Therefore, if the way to Him was through Jesus Christ, I would have been a Christian long ago, because God says that those who seek Him find Him. And the only way I have found Him has been through Islam, so obviously you're wrong."
Then the most unusual thing happened. At that moment every face around me disappeared. And there was a mighty voice, a voice of love, a voice I've never heard in my entire life, and it penetrated through my entire being.
And it said, "I am meek and gentle, and I stand at the door and knock. If you hear me and open the door, I'll come in."
Roth: Wait a second, you're quoting scripture. Had you ever read the New Testament?
Ahmed: No sir. It was so penetrating. And I answered back, I said, "what door?" He said, "the door to your heart." I said, "How do I open the door to my heart?" I was absolutely melted emotionally. He said, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." It was a voice of love and I just wanted to be with Him. It bore witness with my heart that it was the voice of God speaking to me. And I said, "This beautiful voice, I want to hear it."
It came against every belief I had, confessing Jesus Christ. Believing Jesus Christ is Lord or the Son of God is an unpardonable sin in my old belief. But I wanted to obey that voice.
After this experience I discovered I have a heart I can perceive signals through. And I got in my heart an unction, or an intuition or a feeling: I've got to give Him my life a hundred percent.
The complete interview on audio cassette tape is available for $5 from Messianic Vision, 1414 Ellis Street, Brunswick, Ga 31520; tape C766. Printed by permission. Some parts of this account have been paraphrased.
Encounter
(Part 2) Nahead and Farhad's Story
ahead:
Just before the revolution my brother, Farhad, and I moved from Iran
to America. I was attending a college in Denver when a lady came and
knocked at our door. She told us about Jesus. She said she was going
blind and that Jesus healed her. She invited us to her church but
when I found out what the word "church" meant I became upset. I
didn't want to go but the lady just kept calling and inviting me. She
eventually became a good friend and after three months I agreed to go
with her to her church.
When I entered the church, I felt what I now believe to be the presence of the Lord. I liked the feeling and I kept going back to the church just to have that feeling. But I didn't know about the gospel, the Christian message. I never saw a Bible before in my life and I couldn't understand the preacher. But I kept going back because of this feeling: it was a happy feeling, like someone had taken everything off my shoulders, all my cares and worries.
Finally my Muslim friends found out I was going to a church and they asked me if I had become a Christian. I told them that I hadn't but that I was going there because I liked the church and it was helping me to learn English. They told me I would have to choose between them and Christianity.
That night I went to say good-by to my church. During the prayer time I prayed to Allah, asking Him, "Please take me away from this church. Please forgive me for coming to this church." Then I said to Jesus, "If you're real--I know you're not--but if there's a chance that you are real, please give me a sign. You have to prove to me that you are real."
Then my eyes became blurry and I saw a man coming toward me. I knew it was Jesus; I don't know how I knew but I did. He had the most beautiful smile and he had so much peace on his face. Anyway, what he said to me and what he did confirmed to me that it had to be Jesus or at least an angel or messenger sent from Jesus. He put his hand on my head and said, "My child, this shall be a sign for you." Then it felt like a light came over me and I felt what I know now to be the Holy Spirit coming upon me. I had the same kind of feeling come over me that I had before at this church, only now much more overwhelming and wonderful. Then I started speaking in what seemed to be a language, but it was a language I didn't understand. With these signs I came to know it was true and I committed my life to Jesus.
Now something very similar was happening to my brother at the same time. He had come with me and was now in another part of the church.
arhad: Previously I went with Nahead and visited the church just
to laugh at these Christians, but I found a joy and goodness in these
people that made me question all my old prejudices and beliefs. This
time when I went to the church I found myself asking Jesus to prove
himself to me, to show me whether he really is who these Christians
say he is.
The strangest, most overwhelming sensation came over me. I felt as if electricity were shooting through me from my head to my feet and I began shaking uncontrollably. I felt so light. I felt as if a great weight were lifted from my shoulders. I had asked Jesus to prove himself to me and now I had no doubt that it was true. He gave me an awareness, a certainty, that it is true.
(For questions Farhad may be reached at (719) 596-0010, or write him at P.O. Box 17206, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80935.)
Encounter
One of Islam's Most Articulate Scholars Debates Christianity
anadian scholar Gary R. Miller, a convert to Islam, has
come to be recognized as one of the most capable defenders of Islam
of our time. Point/Counterpoint's
interview/debate with Gary closes with an exchange between Gary and
Christian scholar R.K. McGregor Wright.
At the time of this interview Wright was co-director with Julia Castle of the Aquila and Priscilla House. An Evangelical study center in Lakewood, Colorado, its purpose is to relate the Christian faith to non-Christian thought and to equip students to develop a Christian world view.
Gary Miller is a mathematician, an accomplished writer, and an internationally acclaimed lecturer and debater.
The rest of the full text of this debate is
available in the appendix. (Point/Counterpoint is indicated
with ).
: Suppose we attempt to
resolve the fundamental religious differences, say, between Muslims
and Christians through sincerely seeking truth from God. Do you think
God would give us the answers we seek?
Miller: Well, I suppose. But I think a conversation I had had once would illustrate an important point here. Someone told me, "You'd see I'm right if you just ask God for guidance." And I pointed out to him, "Well, a minimum of seventeen times a day, I do." If a Muslim does the bare minimum of what is outlined for prayer, seventeen times a day, he asks God, begs God, "Don't leave me among those You are displeased with or those who have gone astray, but give me guidance." So if all it takes is asking, the Muslims are busy doing that, probably more than most Christians.
The danger is that a person can too easily confuse religion with magic. If he thinks certain words compel certain things, then he may ask for guidance and with the first thing he hears think this must be God answering his prayers. Rather, a person has an obligation to sort out all the data that comes to him, to say, "Which of these does come from God?" Because that is what you are held accountable for. How did you react to what was around you? People who act otherwise seem to be thinking more of magic where you say a word and you compel the powers that be.
So someone may say, "Get down on your knees and ask for guidance and (snap) it will come." Well, something will probably come but who is to say that it's guidance if you have, in your asking, promised that whatever you hear next you will not doubt. That leaves an opening for Satan among other things. For someone to think that because they've asked for truth, God has to make the next person who speaks to them or the next feeling that they have or the next idea that pops into their head be true, is just poor thinking. What God has got to do is bring forth the guidance. What man has to do is to take a hold of it for the right reasons.
As I've said before with other examples, two plus two is not four because the teacher says so. Two and two is still four even if the teacher says it's five. People who don't make that distinction are asking to be misled when they accept the first thing they hear because they asked God for guidance. Be careful of what you hear. Don't surrender your obligation to critically evaluate. You're given this faculty to use and not to set aside.
: I'm sure you're right that we should
be very careful not to accept without thinking just any impression
that might come along. But might there not be some experiences which
provide sufficient reason for belief?
Miller: Doesn't even one of the New Testament writers say to keep testing the spirits? Isn't that in one of John's letters? So even if you are really quite sure that it is God that just spoke to you, don't settle for that. Look into it for yourself and you might be surprised at what you find.
: This issue was raised during your
dialogue with Mr. Wright at the University of Colorado. Let me quote
what he said. I don't think you responded to this statement at that
time:
The essence, I think, of the gospel is that God had acted in history to save me. I am required as His creature to submit to God both in what He says and what He does. And when a person is in doubt he should seek. Jesus promised that if any person will seek, he will find. It just so happens that there is no promise in the Bible that everybody who finds the truth will accept it. It is my belief that there are a number of people who are seekers after truth, or at least they were. They found it, but they found it was a threat to them, to their family or job, and they turned away from it. God doesn't force anybody to accept His truth but He does give us enough to make it clear to us what the issues are. And if a person will not have faith in God and what He has done--for the Christian that includes the crucifixion of Jesus for sinners--he's turning his back on what God has done. That's the negative side of the Christian gospel. For the person who will put his faith in this, it becomes effective.
Anyone who has any doubt about that, read carefully what the Qur'an says about sacrifices and about Jesus and what he did, and read carefully the message of the Injil [the gospel] in the books of the New Testament. This is the Christian message. See if it doesn't resonate with your soul.
One lady in the audience was sitting among a group of other Muslim women, all wearing traditional shawls and dress. To this statement she stood and responded by saying that, "All of us who sit here are witness to the fact that one can submit to God without believing in Christ's death."
Mr. Wright did not respond to this statement but I think that some response might be made. We may ask if there might not be a difference between, on the one hand, submitting to God--even loving God--and, on the other hand, seeking God and whatever truth He would give. Would this lady's submission to God and His will make her willing to change her views if she felt that God had shown her that Islam is false? Would I be able to reject my Christian beliefs if I felt God were telling me to? Are either of us willing to seek God and His truth if, respectively, it would cost us that? What if it would cost the alienation of one's long time friends, family, even one's most cherished way of life?
In Muslim countries, rejection of Islam often results in persecution and even death. Submission to God must go beyond saying, "I will obey as long as you do not make me leave my present beliefs and social ties." Indeed, it must involve actively seeking truth from God. One needs to recognize that being born into a particular belief system, whether religious or secular, is not adequate reason to hold to those beliefs. If there is a God who is worthy of our adoration, surely He would want us to believe what He would give us, not what we may happen to be given by birth.
Some experiences must be able to justify beliefs. (If we were to deny that, we would have to deny that even sense experience can give knowledge.) So the trick would be to find an experience that does warrant a particular belief. We need an experience that an honest minded person would accept as justifying a belief. This issue of Point/Counterpoint includes several examples of such experiences and I can't see any good reason to reject any of them. In fact, I think we would have adequate reason to believe God has spoken to us on even weaker grounds.1 At any rate you did agree that, if asked, God does have an obligation to give this kind of guidance.
Certainly, just because we've asked does not mean that we can manipulate God to act; it isn't a magic potent. Ingmar Bergman disbelieved in God because he once called out to God and nothing immediately happened. It's that kind of naive presumption that needs to be rejected. Now if a person earnestly seeks truth from God and nothing eventually happens such that that person is led to spiritual knowledge, then nothing more can be asked of him or her. That person has fulfilled her or his spiritual obligation. But I think that if God is anything like Muslims, like yourself, and Christians maintain He is like, then He is by His nature obligated to respond to the earnest seeker. As you have stated elsewhere, given the same situation, God will always respond in the same way. It's not magic that God will always give truth to the earnest seeker. If there is such a God, He will cause us to either confirm or modify or reject their respective beliefs.
You suggest the possibility that deceiving spirits may give what at first might appear to be true guidance and that there is a need to test the spirits. Now if there were a God like the Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe in, He would have power to expose any false information given by a deceiving spirit, or anyone else for that matter.
So sooner or later the earnest seeker should arrive at the truth. If there is such a Revealer of truth, we should fear deception--deceiving spirits or self created psychological delusion--only if we fail to seek God as we ought to. This may be the closest we can get to something like a testing of the spirits, at least at this point in our inquiry. I think this should involve first a request, a calling upon God for truth, and secondly a self-commitment to One who deserves our adoration, our highest possible love and worship. Only such a God deserves our search. To seek any other god, any god who could be less than this, would very possibly be to end with belief in such a lesser god. The God who deserves our worship would have no reason to correct us and give us anything other than what we seek.*
: Both the Muslim and the Christian will
someday stand before Allah to be judged--on that we both agree. Yet
each of us consciously rejects the essence of what the other claims
to be a revelation from God. If one of us is right, the other is
wrong. One of us must face God's rightful judgment for rejecting as
false something God wanted us to believe to be true. Surely Allah
would have provided adequate evidence that anyone might be able to
discern the truth. It's either that or God would have provided such
evidence to anyone who would earnestly seek the truth from God.
(Perhaps only the seeker is given access to such evidence or the
ability to perceive this evidence. Wouldn't God be more concerned
about our attitude, our choice, our desire to seek God, than about
what we happen to know or think we know?)
At any rate, when we face God, one of us, possibly both of us, will have to say, "I haven't been concerned enough to honestly look into the evidence, even though I know that others had claimed that you had shown them these things I would not accept." And if even both of us can avoid such a confession, won't one of us have to at least admit that we haven't been concerned enough to seek God or to seek the truth from God? Will we find ourselves forced to confess that we just didn't want to face the disapproval of our family and friends, or the possibility of rejecting our heritage? How can I stand before God and say that I loved these things more than I loved God and truth?
If after honestly seeking God and seeking the truth from God, both of us remain with our old beliefs, then certainly we would have done all that God has required of us and neither of us should fear facing God, at least regarding this issue. But we have no right to presume that we will end up with our old beliefs until we do seek God.
My point is that we have an obligation to seek God and to seek truth from God and that we have no right to simply be content with what our culture and heritage have given us. We have to honestly seek and not merely to repeat memorized words without a willingness to change our views should God so direct us.*
*[We regret that we have not received Miller's response to some of Wright's and Point/Counterpoint's arguments (as marked here with *). We invite our readers to respond, particularly if the debate is perceived to be in any way one-sided because of this.]
: You've talked about how the notion of
relationship with God is found in Islam, as it is found in other
major religions. But again, the high theistic religions would say
that God must be perfect, holy, sinless--any God less than this would
not be worthy of our consideration. But the problem that arises is
that we are not sinless: we harm others, we live selfishly; we live,
act and think in such a way that God cannot accept us in order to
have the relationship with us that we need. God's goodness cannot
have part with our wickedness.
I'm aware that we can say that by keeping the law, the ordinances, etc., God has provided a means of salvation. But I don't see that that answers the logical problem. As much as we follow the law and do good, we still do and have done evil. How can we be close to this One who is holy when we are not? How can He accept us?
Miller: It seems to me that the answer may have to do with one's view of sin. People hear the word and they think different things. To a Muslim, if you've sinned, well, you did a bad thing. Sin, at least from some Christian perspectives, is a sort of thing that exists in itself. Sin is over here and it's over there and it's on all of us and all that. So that it's not a question of each individual thing, it's a question of some kind of problem like air pollution. The Muslim sees it rather as a very careful balance of accounts.
For instance, if you stole something from someone, you may try to replace it and repay any inconvenience it may have caused. It may be that you can offset, in that way, the wrong doing you started. If that's beyond your power, you look for forgiveness so that God offsets the wrong. If neither one of those happens, as the Qur'an says, on the last day a man will find himself surrounded by the bad things he did. And punishments fit the crimes, they are appropriate to the crimes.
The Muslims would also make the point made by the Socinians. They tried to point out that whatever God does in reconciling man, call it forgiveness or call it payment, don't call it both because these are different things. If you forgive a man something, then you didn't get paid for anything. If you get 'paid' for a crime, then you didn't forgive anything. When these two ideas are confused it becomes unclear exactly what is going on. Because God is both the judge and the offended party, He cannot simultaneously pardon you and punish you.
: I don't really see why you think there
must be this necessary distinction. One can pay a debt another owes,
but can we not also understand this as a forgiven debt? Perhaps God,
in this case the offended party, could pay for my crime or debt
Himself; or possibly a third party could pay for it. Why would it be
inappropriate for God to say that, on the basis of this act, I'm
forgiven?
You mention that the Muslim concept is that if one does not receive forgiveness for one's sins from God, one must in some way "pay the price" by receiving punishment appropriate to the evil done. The Christian simply suggests that the means or method by which we are forgiven is through God Himself (or some other willing and able substitute, if there is one) taking on the punishment we deserve to bear. He pays the price of His own life as a "ransom in the place of many," as Jesus said. God can be both the judge and offended party, pardoning and forgiving us by taking our punishment. We cannot be both pardoned and punished at the same time, but can we not be pardoned because another willingly takes our deserved pain?
Miller: One point you mentioned had to do with relationship. You were saying God is holy, man is sinful, how is there a relationship?
: Yes, how can there be a
relationship?
Miller: It seems to me that this is really a manufactured problem. People seem to carry an idea that God is so holy and I'm so evil, how could God stand to be near me? Whereas Jesus was supposed to have said that God is so close to you that He counts the hairs on your head. It doesn't seem to bother Him, the nearness.
: But it isn't hard to see that God
could be close to us in these ways, that in Him we live and move and
exist, and yet that we are spiritually separated from Him. God told
Israel that their sins had separated them from Him (Isaiah
59:2) and Jesus said that without repentance from sin
all would perish. Doesn't this indicate some kind of separation
between God and humanity, to say the least?
But as you have said, two and two isn't four because the teacher says it is. Likewise, whatever anyone else has said, the problem remains that evil is something God cannot have part in or condone, and we have done evil. Now that doesn't stop God from loving and caring for us, it just shows us that under these conditions we cannot have the relationship with God we need.
Miller: I'm thinking in terms of the Lord's Prayer as it is sometimes translated in modern language where it says to pray this way: "Forgive us our debts the way we forgive a debt [or our debtors]." That's what sin means. You have a debt, something you have to make right. Well, if someone owes me money and I forgive it, then that's the end of that; it means I never see my money. It doesn't mean that I pretend that the debt doesn't exist; I've canceled the debt. Because I say that that money you owe me, now it's a gift.
: If we see sin as just indebtedness,
still a price must be paid for forgiveness to occur. If I forgive
someone that which they owe me, then I suffer the loss. The money I
lent them I will never see again. An indebtedness changed to a gift
is still a loss to the giver. And if our indebtedness involves or
deserves our pain and punishment, wouldn't that pain be endured by
the one who removes our debt?
Seeing sin as a debt does fit the Christian and Muslim, and for that matter the Jewish notion of evil. This view is also intuitively right. As you do to someone else, so you deserve to have done to yourself.
But I think something is missing if we see sin as only this. For example, stealing becomes nothing more than a form of borrowing, albeit a much more expensive form. Restitution is just paying a debt, compensating for what is taken. The notion of a real offense against a person is missing. The ugliness, the moral outrage of a murder or a rape is missing. The mechanicalness of indebtedness misses the sense of nausea deep in the pit of your stomach; the anguished, inarticulate scream, "No, this must not be!"
The closest I can come to describing it is as a kind of ugliness. It's an ugliness that strikes us with mute and awed unbelief. It's the ugliness of the corpses of infants burning in a pit in Auschwitz. It's the Afghan child bayoneted by a Russian soldier as her mother helplessly looks on. It's an ugliness to which concepts like 'indebtedness' do not do justice. It's an ugliness that God cannot accept or be a part of or have relationship with. Any god who does is not worth our consideration. God would be evil if He could accept or condone such evil.
There is one sense in which God does "accept" evil; that is, in order that some greater good occur. But even then, evil is just something God allows for a reason.2 God's absolute holiness--His being "set apart" from moral evil--precludes His relating to sin which is a part of ourselves. Though God may love us, He cannot have relationship with us insofar as evil is a part of our being.
So sin is not just indebtedness, it's an ugliness, a stain that I cannot wash away. If I do evil, I stain myself with this ugliness. My paying the debt doesn't erase the fact that I, by my own free choice, initially chose to do this evil. When God looks at me, He sees someone who has chosen that which He can have nothing to do with. Even if I now repent of my past sin, this cannot erase the fact that my attitude was very different then. If God sees me as one person through time, then what I have done clings to me like a stain.*
: The big question is whether sin can be
removed and rightly forgotten by God's command alone or whether some
kind of substitution is needed. I can't help but feel that there is a
greater likelihood to the Christian view at this point. For God to
otherwise remove our sin, He would have to somehow go back in time
and erase what we have done and thought and to constantly change what
we are as our lives continue. With substitution it's as if God is
saying, "This is an offense against me, a price has to be paid for
the offense, and I'll endure that price and pain."
Certainly Isa's first followers believed substitution was necessary. Just fifteen years after the crucifixion, Paul said, in essence, that if there were any other possible way we could be made right with God, Jesus died needlessly (Galatians 2:21). If there were any other way, God never would have sent him to die.
It is as if, though separated by centuries, both Mohammed and Paul looked at Jesus' excruciating suffering and death and wondered how God could allow such a thing. Mohammed dealt with the problem by concluding it never happened (if he did actually say that3). Paul, following what he claimed to be God's revelation to him (Galatians 1:12) as well as the Messianic prophecies and Jesus' own words, and because he was so certain that it did happen, could only conclude that for some reason it had to happen: it was absolutely necessary or God would never have allowed it.
Miller: The first objection the Muslim might make is to say that whenever someone claims that this is the only way this can be done, they are saying something about God that doesn't suit God. When asked by Muslims why God can't just forgive sins, some Christians reply that He would like to but He can't. And the Muslim kind of stiffens up at that: "God can't?!" And then the explanation makes it sound like this is a banker who doesn't have enough funds. He'd like to do it but he'll have to make some arrangements. In Islam the attributes of God are 'alachme' and 'asamad,' which have to do with being the source, and being self-sufficient. By definition God never finds Himself in the position in which there is something He would like to do but doesn't have all that He needs to do it without making special arrangements.
"God does as He pleases," means that nothing prevents Him from doing the godly thing. He's not in the position of saying, "I'd like to do this but I can't, I'm only God." The only restriction God has is that He doesn't do ungodly things. He is not oppressive, he's not stupid, and so on. He's totally reliable. The Qur'an talks about His characteristic behavior being 'sunna avala' and it says it never varies one bit. That is to say, given the same circumstances, God will respond in precisely the same way every time. He is totally reliable, He's not capable of whim, there's not the slightest change.
: The Christian would agree with the
"Allahu Akbar," the Muslim proclamation of God's greatness. There is
nothing God cannot do unless it is meaningless or contradicts His
very nature. But herein we do have some things that God cannot do.
And this is exactly why Christians say that He cannot forgive sin
unless a price is paid.
Maybe this modifies our understanding of omnipotence but notice that we do the same thing in other situations. We modify it, for example, when we look at the problem of evil. If God cannot do the logically impossible (which might be the same as saying that it contradicts His nature), it may turn out that when we spell out the whole problem of evil, it's simply logically impossible for God to have the greatest possible good occur without allowing some degree of evil. If there is nothing God cannot do, why is there pain?
Miller: It's an old problem. The Muslim has been in and out of that same discussion but maybe not with the same viewpoint. The Qur'an simply says, "Where did evil come from? God made it," in the sense that, everything comes from God, all things. But evil and good are not equal. And the evil that continues is not put in place by God so much as it is permitted by God.
: I think the Bible says nearly the same
thing. It talks about God creating evil4 (Isaiah 45:7), though perhaps
this should be better translated "causing calamity." Scripture tells
of many ways God uses calamity: in judgment, in testing moral
choices, etc. What is certain in any case is that God has a use for
evil that the greatest possible good may occur.
This is not your banker who has to make arrangements to get something done. Does God's inability to make square circles put Him in a "position in which there is something He would like to do but doesn't have all He needs to do it," as you stated? Of course not. Likewise, the fact that God might have to use a particular means to attain a particular end does not limit His self-sufficiency. There may be only one possible way for God to do it. But God is still the Source of all things. He's the source of the means to any goal He desires.
Perhaps the Muslim's revulsion at the idea of God not being able to do some things can be eased once this is understood. The very existence of evil suggests that God cannot do some things which we otherwise might have easily thought He could do. God might have liked to have prevented there being any evil in the world, but He couldn't do that without also preventing the greatest possible good.
To get into what those greater goods might be would take us too far afield, except perhaps to suggest such things as you might find in the most ancient scriptures esteemed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims: writings like the book of Job. The basic idea in that particular book is that suffering is allowed in order to determine whether one will reject or cling to God. All endured evil is compensated for, so there's no question of God being evil. But while the pain is occurring it's fulfilling its purpose of testing human choice and commitment to the One who deserves our greatest commitment.
Maybe I did go too far afield after all. But the point I'm after is that some things might be impossible for God, perhaps even logically impossible. Some have suggested that for God to do the logically impossible, like making square circles, is just to do nonsense. So perhaps some things we think God ought to be able to do because of His omnipotence, He cannot do because they're just nonsense. With this thought in mind, we might begin to understand why Christians think that Jesus' death was necessary for reunion with God to occur.
As you said, God cannot do anything ungodly, He cannot contradict His nature. And if God's nature is absolutely good, He cannot say something is good if it isn't. There must be an actual removal of sin. But how can such a "removal" occur?
I could perhaps imagine that God could somehow "surgically" remove those points in my life in which I did evil. But if God could go back in time and actually remove a choice and event from my life, then that event never really occurred and, in fact, I never really made that choice. But that's no different than saying that God keeps us from facing these moral choices in the first place. This is just one example, but my problem is that anyway I look at it, I cannot come up with a way one's sins can be removed or forgiven without a substitute.
Now whether or not I or anyone else can come up with some way this might be done, the more important point remains that it might be impossible for God to remove sin without a substitute. Why can't God reconcile us to Himself without a substitute? Not because Christians think of God as having less power than Muslims do, but because for God to try to reconcile us in any other way would contradict His nature. So once you admit that there are some things God cannot do (the ungodly), you cannot object when the Christian says that God cannot bring us peace with Himself without a substitute, a sin-bearer. At least one cannot object on the basis of God's self-sufficiency, of His being alachme and asamad.
God's greatness does not consist merely in His unlimited power; it's also shown in His stooping to become a man and to die for us since only thus could we be saved. (Even a very minimal Christian view omitting Jesus' deity would maintain that all that Jesus endured, all that he gave up, God also endured and sacrificed.) God's greatness is shown in this self-emptying, in this demonstration of such an unimaginably great love He has for us.*
In the course of this interview Mr. Miller responded to a paper by Mr. Wright. Wright claimed that the deity and atoning death of the Messiah are clearly claimed in the Hebrew scripture we now have at hand. Because official Judaism would not have reason to change their texts to support such a belief, we must have in our hands what the Qur'an attests to be the original revelation of God to Moses and the Prophets. This is further substantiated by the fact that we know from archeological findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls that we have essentially the same text of the Hebrew scripture that was in use at the time of Jesus and earlier.
To the passages Wright cited, Miller responded by arguing that they do not at all claim Messiah's deity or death. One such passage Wright cited is from Zechariah 12:10.5 Here God says, "They shall look on Me whom they have pierced; . . . and they shall weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first born."
Another Hebrew prophecy he cited is Isaiah 53:5
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; . . . But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening of our well being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. . . . But the Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. . . . like a lamb that is led to slaughter, . . . He was cut off out of the land of the living, . . . But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, . . . He poured out Himself to death, . . . He Himself bore the sins of many.
Wright: The very clear description of Isaiah 53 could apply to nobody in Jewish history but Jesus.
Miller: What is in dispute is the interpretation of the words. It's all very nice to say that it perfectly fits Jesus and so on. But the Jews have various other ideas about the application of these scriptures. So what is in dispute is whether these passages do apply to Jesus. Certainly some of them do but the ones that do are not sufficient to establish his deity [or death]. They have no relevance to that.
P/CP: Another such scripture is Daniel 9:26. This passage says, "Messiah will be cut off." I understand the word for "cut off" indicates a violent death? Wouldn't that be reason to believe that the Messiah must die? I'm aware that some Muslims would respond to this passage by saying that Jesus did die but it wasn't at the crucifixion.
Miller: Lately, I have tried to emphasize that the crucifixion is not an issue between Christians and Muslims. The Qur'an addresses the Jews, telling them that the crucifixion was not what it appeared to be. And the Christian would tell the Jew that there is more to the story than the account of any eye witness. As to the details which indicate why the crucifixion was unsuccessful (unsuccessful because the victim was alive the following week) there are a half dozen variations. Of course his version of the details is important to the Christian, but the details are not given in the Qur'an.
In his reply to Miller's response Wright added another argument which we should touch on involving the authority of scripture:
Wright: The Qur'an has a very high view of the Holy Books of the Jews and Christians. In Suras 5:47, 5:68, 10:95, 7:169, 3:84, and a dozen other places we discover beyond any reasonable doubt that Mohammed believed the Taurat, the Zabur, and the Injil to be the same books that the People of the Book had in his day, namely, the Old and New Testament. He frequently claimed that the Jews or Christians whom he discussed religion with did not always tell him the truth about what was in these texts, but he never suggests that they had altered them. He insisted that they were the Word of God.
If, as the Qur'an makes perfectly clear, the Injil and the Taurat were once the words of God, when were they changed? If we say "before Mohammed, but after the first century AD," we are stuck with the clear words of Mohammed that the Jews and Christians of his own time had in their scriptures the very words of Allah. If we reply, "after Mohammed," we are stuck with such objective evidence as the Sinaiticus manuscripts, which shows that the text we have today is the same as that the church had since at least AD 350. But that means that the text Christians use today is the same text they used in the days of Mohammed, who stated in the Qur'an that it was the true revelation of God sent down to us by His Prophets.*
If this argument is sound, then the Muslim must accept the prophecies of Messiah's atoning death in the Hebrew scripture as well as Jesus' claim that he would die and rise from the dead to atone for the sin of the human race. Indeed, the entirety of the teachings of the New Testament would also have to be accepted.
Whether Isa and the Messianic prophecies did actually claim this in the Bible is considered in more detail in the full text of this debate. But the Muslim who has wondered what Jesus did teach, according to the New Testament, should first look into one of the gospels, such as the gospel of Luke. It is better to first investigate the basic evidence for oneself.
For Miller's response to this type of argument go to: The Qur'an's view of the New Testament
*Because Point/Counterpoint has not received Gary Miller's response to some of our comments, we invite the reader to continue the discussion by writing or calling us. We would like to print the best arguments we receive. Our phone number is (303) 363-7327 and email is enc11@earthlink.net. See information at our home page for our mailing address.
Notes:
1. I would claim that an intuitive awareness, a sense of certainty that something is true, is adequate reason to believe it (unless one has other good reason to reject it). I'd claim that this is our grounds for believing something as commonly unquestioned as sense experience--say, the fact that you're holding this paper in your hands at this moment. (For more on this aspect of the epistemology of belief see Dennis Jensen, "The Evidential Value of Religious Experience," [Master's Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1979]). This is not to say that anyone who has a justified belief can never discover that belief to be false. It's just that, at that time, that person has adequate reason for believing it. So, yes, it is conceivable that Satan can give an experience which you would have adequate reason to believe though in fact the belief is false. But as you continue to seek the truth from God, you'll find out that it is false.
In any case, our obligation is to seek the truth from God. As we do so we have to accept as true all that we have good reason to believe to be true until we find evidence that it's false.
2. It is necessary that there be what philosophers call natural evil though not moral evil. (Natural evil is pain not caused by persons, moral evil is.) And it is necessary that there be the true possibility of moral evil. God has not caused there to be moral evil, He has left that choice to us.
3. See the complete interview/debate with Miller for the argument that the Qur'an does not claim that Jesus never died on the cross.
4. Authorized Version (King James Version).
5. New American Standard Bible.
For Further Investigation
(1) C.G. Pfander, The Balance of Truth (Mizan-Ul-Haqq), is one of the strongest cases for Christianity for the seeking Muslim. Wright's second argument is from Pfander. Available in Arabic or English for $5 from Voice of Preaching the Gospel, P.O. Box 15013, Colorado Springs, CO. 80935.
(2) For the basic evidence that the New Testament we now possess is essentially the same text as it was originally written and that it accurately records Jesus' life and teachings, see F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable (Downers Grove, IL., InterVarsity Press). Reasons To Believe, an organization that specializes in the current scientific evidences for God's existence, has this available at P.O. Box 5978, Pasadena, California 91117; phone, (818) 335-1480.
(3) Josh McDowell's debate with Ahmed Deedat gives an excellent presentation of the resurrection and other evidences as well as opposing arguments.
(4) Gary Miller's Missionary Christianity (Abul Qasim Bookstore, Palestine St., Subaiey Center, P.O. Box 6156 Jeddah 21442, Saudi Arabia) is an excellent introduction to his thinking. Further discussion of this writing will be found in (4) above, the "Miller Debate." (We received Missionary Christianity too late to include any of this material in this issue of Point/Counterpoint.)
Addendum: (23 Feb 97) One work has come to our attention since this issue of Point/Counterpoint has come out that we think is better than anything else we have ever seen. This is Dr. William Campbell's book The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science (Arab World Ministries, 1986). It may be purchased from Reasons to Believe, address in (2) above, for $14 including postage (call to be sure no other charges apply).
Other than the Gospels (such as Matthew or Luke's Gospel) we recommend you read this if you never read anything else in this area.
One argument Gary Miller could not be contacted to respond to is so central to Christianity that it needs to be considered as well. This is the argument for Jesus' resurrection.
For the Muslim, there isn't usually much of a problem with accepting that Isa, or Jesus, was seen alive after his supposed death. Paul wrote less than twenty-five years after the crucifixion that some five hundred saw him alive after his execution and that most were then still alive at the time of the writing (1 Corinthians 15). This many claimed witnesses precludes not only the possibility of misidentification or hallucinations but also the possibility that Paul could be lying. His claims could too easily be proven false. Yet he very much wanted the church in Corinth to continue to accept his authority. He had too much to lose by lying.
But the obvious Muslim response would be that if he never died at that time, then of course, people would see him alive. So the real issue is whether we have good evidence that Jesus died by crucifixion.
The first thing we need to notice is the fact that all applicable historical records we have from this period, both secular and religious, maintain that Isa was publicly crucified by the Romans. Whatever the details, it was carried out by professional executioners who knew how to make sure their victims were dead. Four soldiers were normally involved to double check each other. The Roman military discipline for failure in such responsibilities was death. So they had very strong motivation for making sure he was dead.
The possibility of someone else being mistakenly executed in Jesus' place is precluded for several reasons. First, it was a public execution. His enemies knew too well who Isa was and watched the events from beginning to end. If there were someone who looked exactly like this popular teacher, this would have been well known. No switch could have been pulled off either before or after the arrest.
And can we seriously imagine that Isa, God's Anointed One, would have condoned letting someone else--even someone like Judas--be so excruciatingly tortured and executed in his place? It would have been very easy for him to let it be well publicized that he was still at large without allowing himself to be captured.
Josh McDowell asks, "Why [would] God allow an innocent man (one at least innocent of the alleged crime of [having part in the death of] Jesus) to suffer an agonizing death purely so that the people could be satisfied in thinking that they had crucified Jesus?"1 Or can we honestly believe that God would have allowed Isa's followers to believe this deception so that they could go on to proclaim a lie so that thousands of others would also believe it? Would God have let them proclaim it through persecution and death instead of telling them the truth before they started?
Another view (from the Qadiani sect) is that though Isa was crucified and assumed dead, he recovered to live many more years until he eventually died of a natural death in some distant land.
Like the substitution view just mentioned, this swoon theory cannot be a possibility if the earliest biographical accounts, those of the gospels, are accepted. The spear thrust in the heart, the soldier's reverification to Pilate that he was dead, the sealed and heavily guarded tomb, the huge boulder blocking the tomb, the long distance Jesus walked to Emmaus and then from Jerusalem to Galilee not long after the crucifixion, and the clear statements by Jesus and the historiographers that he would and did die make this impossible.
Whether or not the biblical account is accepted, some major problems with this swoon theory still remain. Isa would have had to explain to his followers that he had not died. If he were God's Prophet and Messiah, as Muslims believe, he certainly wouldn't have lied about the matter. And there surely would have been some explaining to do if they thought he had died. Indeed, there should have been little trouble for anyone to discern that he was recuperating from a near fatal crucifixion.
Suppose the witnesses were aware that Isa had not died. Remember first of all that they claimed to see Jesus alive after his death. So they did claim he had died. Now they couldn't have lied about Jesus dying and being resurrected because there were too many of them. No lie could have survived with this many witnesses.
Would all of these God-fearing Jews conspire to lie about a matter of such magnitude? Would they be willing to face God with this sin on their conscience? Would they be willing to continue a lifetime in their lie when faced with torture and death? And would they really be so easily enticed to contradict all that Isa had taught them concerning their moral obligations?
Another problem with the swoon theory also applies to the substitution view considered earlier. Isn't it amazing that the most intelligent opponents of this new Jewish sect never even considered the possibility that Jesus had survived the crucifixion or that they killed the wrong man? All they could say in response to the resurrection claim was that his disciples stole the body. If there were any possibility that Jesus had not died, they would have surely considered it. It wasn't until centuries later that the substitution and swoon theories were even conceived.
The fact that Isa was seen alive after his crucifixion is not proof that he never died, not when the evidence is this strong that he did die. The Muslim knows God has the power to raise the dead, so no prejudice against miracles can be invoked here. When we recognize that there is a God who can raise the dead, the unlikelihood of any other non-miraculous possibility necessitates that we believe in a miracle like the resurrection. (The probability against professional executioners botching a public execution is very great. On the other hand, it shouldn't be considered at all improbable that God should raise someone from the dead to vindicate to the world so great and unique an identity as one's Messiahship.)
Of course, it is possible that the wisest of Jesus' opponents never considered that he never really died because God confused their minds or caused somebody else to look like Isa, or miraculously revived the dying Prophet, etc., etc. Aren't any of these explanations as likely as a resurrection? Don't these all equally take into account the evidence that Jesus was killed by crucifixion?
Not quite. First of all, as we've already noted, why would God have allowed such a miracle to deceive Isa's opponents and followers? If Islam is true, God certainly didn't intend for this false belief to prosper that Isa died and was resurrected. Yet a miracle which deceived Isa's followers would have had precisely this effect.
So if God performed any miracle other than a resurrection, at the very least it wouldn't have been one in which Jesus' followers were deceived. But then, if we suppose that they were not deceived, we've already considered how unlikely it would be for Isa's followers to have lied about any natural events they had witnessed. It is even less likely that they had witnessed a miracle of God and then lied, saying that another miracle (a resurrection) had occurred.
Secondly, the possibility of other miracles does not take into account the evidence that Isa claimed he would rise from the dead. Since we've excluded the possibility of any non-miraculous explanation, we have to conclude with the miracle Jesus said would occur. This would be the case even if we did not believe Isa to be God's Prophet and Messiah.
(Gary Miller presented an argument against Jesus' death and resurrection that the reader might wish to consider at this point.)
Notes:
1. Josh McDowell and John Gilchrist, a debate with Ahmed Deedat, The Islam Debate (P. O. Box 1576, San Bernardino, Ca 92402: Here's Life Publishers Inc., 1983) 108.
- Editorial and Material Contributors:
- Mohammed Ahmed, Rich Bledsoe, Farhad (last name changed), Georges Houssney, Dennis Jensen, Jo Kadlacek, Nahead (name changed), Gary Miller, Sid Roth, R.K. McGregor Wright
- Some of the writers in this issue wish to remain anonymous.