Jesus Does Not Believe in Homosexual Marriage...Really!

Genesis 2:18-24- "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said,

 “This is now bone of my bones,

 And flesh of my flesh;

 She shall be called Woman,

 Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Today we'll actually be discussing the validity of the phrase "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The phrase, when used, usually gets a roll of the eyes or possibly violent reaction. Most people just write it off completely and act like it has no logical validity. How wrong they are.

One of the things that is important to a few different issues is the order of creation. Topics involving the creator/creature relationship, husband/wife relationship, man/animal relationship, and idolatry, all are founded on the actual order of how things were created. Paul makes specific reference to it in 1 Corinthians 11 in God's authority over man, and man's authority over women. Paul infers it in Romans 1:18-32 in talking about sin and man's fallen nature, a text which we'll get to eventually. In the case of Genesis 2:20-24, Jesus actually is its interpreter in regards to the definition of marraige. We'll get to that in a second, let's look at the passage itself first.

First off, this passage is almost never referred to in conversations about homosexuality by homosexuals. Most discussions go only to passages that directly refer to it, and pass over what is probably the most important passage on it in the Bible, and more so because Jesus interprets it in Matthew 19. The importance of this passage is to the topic is that there is a reason for why homosexuality is defined as a perversion, because God did not create man or woman to operate that way. So, homosexual marriage advocates won't reference it due to the fact that it is the pivotal argument about even the plain old existence of homosexual marriage.

So, let's get started.

“It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

What does it mean to be "a suitable helper" for man? We need to look at Man in creation first. When God created Man, He created him as he was supposed to be. The fact that God looks down on creation as "good" means that the order of the cosmos is exactly as God intended it. Man, before the fall, was exactly as he was intended to be, in the perfection of creation. The homosexual agenda will start off any conversation on this subject with the assertion that Eve was a suitable helper because Adam was heterosexual. Well, of course. On the other hand, they will state that if Adam was created homosexual, a man would have been a suitable helper, not a woman. Right here is where we need to put on our thinking caps. While it is good to sometimes look at what may have been from a hypothetical viewpoint, when it comes to things that have already occurred, you cannot ignore the plain facts. The fact of the matter is, God created Adam heterosexual and declared it as "good." The word "good" in Hebrew is the word "tob" and has the idea of "pleasure." When something is pleasing in the eyes of God, it means that the pleasing thing correlates to God's very nature. What that means is that heterosexuality in itself is holy, and is the proper order for nature.

Back to "suitable." Why was Eve "suitable?" Look at the animals. God doesn't create a male first, then a female out of the male. He creates each "after its own kind" and all at the same time. This is the context. When the animals are brought before Adam for a name, what is the inference? It is that there are two kinds of each kind, a male and a female. They are able to reproduce. Look at the birds and fish, for instance. In 1:22, God tells them "to be fruitful and multiply." Obviously, they can't reproduce without male and female, and they're created before man. So, in 2:19 when man sees them, the sexes were distinguished. So, if 2:18 is the beginning of the paragraph, then 2:19 is the context. Why weren't the animals suitable helpers to man? Because he couldn't mate with them. Why was Eve suitable? Because only with her could he "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Even if Adam was created homosexual, he would not have been able to mate, and therefore a male still would have been unsuitable.

Let's stop and think about contradicting arguments. It has been levied against homosexual apologists that they like to pile arguments on top of each other without thinking through the fact that the multiple arguments are all in contradiction to each other. The argument they usually use in reference to Romans 1:24-26 is that the people there were naturally heterosexual, but were taking part in homosexual activity, and therefore were "against nature." But let's think that through in this case. If Adam was created homosexual (hypothetically), and he could only multiply with a female, then wouldn't Adam be sinning if he were to be fruitful and multiply as a homosexual? Its an odd scenario, but I think it proves my point. Let's jump down a bit.

“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Why will the two become one flesh? Remember hermeneutics- context. What does the context say? "For this reason." What reason? "This is now bone of my bones... she was taken out of Man." So, the all-important question when it comes to homosexual "marriage"- Can a man and a man become "one flesh" with each other? The answer is an abounding no. The reason that homosexual marriage is a complete farce is because man did not come from the very flesh of man. Only woman holds that claim. Woman is meant for man because she is his compliment; she works with him because she is from him. When a man and a woman are united in sexual intercourse as the result of a marriage, they become one flesh because the rib is reunited with its body. This all sounds good, but is it accurate? Let's look at what Jesus Himself has to say.

Matthew 19:3-9- Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now, look at how Jesus interprets this passage. A slightly different take than mine, but to the same point. He directly uses the creation order as the reason for male-female marriage. In the original passage, the reason that "they shall become one flesh..." is that "She was taken out of man." Jesus instead ties it to the larger context, that God "made them male and female." So, coming full circle, we ask the question: "Why is homosexual 'marriage' unbiblical and a sin?" Because God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Its kinda amusing to look at it that way. Such a trite statement, and yet so theologically accurate. Jesus cites the creation order as the reason marriage is defined as "a union between one man and one woman for life."

So, Christian, what is your stance on homosexual marriage politically? Do you wish to see homosexuals happy? Do you wish to bring homosexuals together in loving relationships? Then you are directly going against what Christ taught about marriage. You are defining it differently than how Christ did, and are standing in direct opposition to the teachings of our Lord and Savior on the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is God-instituted, and therefore only He is qualified to define it.

I want to add, on a personal note, that I'm not coming up with these interpretations. They've been around for a long time, much longer than I have. There are men much smarter and more competent than I am that use these same arguments ably. That said, the homosexual position is nothing new. There is nothing said that hasn't already been said. The position has always been the same- stand against homosexuality or throw away your Bible. The homosexual position has been proven time and time again to be unbiblical, and therefore, those who support it stand against their own Scripture.

Simply put- there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. If it doesn't exist, then you can't support it. So don't.

Keep up the fight,

Mike

Homosexuality: How Should We Read Our Bible?

Having a method to how we study our Scripture is a lost art form. From the person who believes in tongues because they’ve ‘experienced’ it to the pastor at the local Church who believes Jesus turned water into grape juice, the name of the interpretational game today is ourselves. The most common method of interpretation is to read the Bible in a way that only relates to experience, feelings, and tradition. The idea of reading the Bible according to rules and guidelines is almost foreign to most people today. This is one of the major reasons why the homosexual agenda is allowed into our Churches. They set the stage for us by first talking about their feelings, their emotions, and the difficulty of living life as a homosexual. They talk about how their desire to have a lifelong, committed same-sex companion has been denied them based on a Bible that doesn’t address what it is they have experienced. And thus, they set the interpretational guidelines.

There is however, a science to interpreting Scripture. We call it ‘Hermeneutics.’ The word comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was a messenger for the gods, and has the idea of relaying Biblical knowledge to the reader. It’s a broad and deep subject and has all kinds of applications, but we’ll only be going over the basics, as that is all that is needed for our discussions.

Why do we need a systematized method of interpreting our Bible? Basically, because we (ourselves) are poor guides. We are arbitrary. We change our minds, our experiences are vast, and our backgrounds are varied. Thus, our experiences are poor interpreters. Let me give you an example. I was once teaching on Genesis a few years back and got into a discussion with a woman on the interpretation of Gen 3:16, “…Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” I was teaching that the word “desire” (which is only found here and one other place in Scripture) meant a “desire to dominate,” due to the fact that the interpretation here was impossible based on context and the only other occurrence of the word has a connotation of domination. Her argument against me was, “I’ve never experienced this,” and went on to say that she has always viewed her husband as her head, the way she should. So who’s right? Well, I’m not going to emphatically state I am (even though I believe that interpretation is the only one that makes sense). But, what I can say is that her guide is flawed. What concrete reasoning is her experience based on, and does that base have any intrinsic value to the text? The obvious answer is none and no. She was a Christian, and so my answer was simply that her feelings were irrelevant to the text, and that if she didn’t feel that way toward her husband then it simply meant that she was living the Christian life properly. Pretty simple.

            We could say the same thing about the other two examples I mentioned above. When someone says, “I believe in tongues, because I’ve spoken them,” our minds (if we disagree with the tongues movement) naturally go crazy because there is no reason to assume that they are lying to you. But, they don’t need to be a liar to be wrong. It is a matter of asking the right question. Instead of asking, “Are they making it up?” we should be asking, “Was what they experienced the same as what the Bible speaks of?” It has been well proven that the answer is “no.” The “tongues” of the New Testament are “known languages” (a debate for another time :D). The other example, of Jesus turning water to grape juice at Cana, is an example of tradition, or culture dictating Scripture. It is obvious that there are certain Christians that have grown up believing that alcohol is the drink of the devil, and that if you even taste a drop of it, you’re on your way to alcoholism. Thus, there is “obviously” no way that Jesus would have changed the water to actual fermented wine. I mean, let’s ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew, he was serving other Jews at a Jewish wedding, Jews commonly drank wine, and that the word the headwaiter uses for “drank freely” is the Greek word μεθύω (methuo), which means “to be drunken.” We can once again see that when we base our interpretations of Scripture on ourselves, we end up with less than perfect outcomes.

            So, how should we read our Scripture? When I teach hermeneutics, I teach that there is essentially only one rule- context. This can require next to no effort on the part of the reader, or it can require a scholar’s accuracy. It all depends. Nonetheless, it is the best guide. It requires us to ask questions of Scripture in relation to how it was written. Here are some examples.

1)    When was it written?- This can be pivotal for interpreting some portions of Scripture. Sometimes it is a guide for knowing what cultural situation the author is talking about and sometimes it can even affirm or negate an entire theological position.

2)    Who wrote it/ who is speaking?- We believe in plenary inspiration. Therefore, we believe that the author’s style and intent is preserved within God’s Word. So, it is vital to know a little about the authors and in the case of stories, who is speaking. For instance, it is really important to know that Paul was a Pharisee, as it gives his theology more flavor and gives background to some things he teaches.

3)    Who is the intended audience?- Here is the big trip up for most people. Christians, rightly so, tend to internalize Scripture. We make Scripture to be about us. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. When done correctly, it makes the Bible a living document that transcends time and culture. Done incorrectly, and we turn the intended audience into 21^st century people with all their cultural nuances. For instance, look at how Wiccans react to Levitical teachings about magic. They'll counter by saying that there are different types of magic, and that the Bible only condemns certain kinds. This throws out the perspective of Jews at the time of Moses, and when taken in the appropriate context will show that the Hebrew understanding is that all magic is of the same nature, and is an abomination. Without context, we are led to an incorrect interpretation.

4)    What is the grammatical context?- This could mean an array of things. What language is being spoken? What is the grammatical construction being used? Where else is the word used? How is this word used in the immediate context vs. the larger context? Lots could be said here, but I think you get the idea.

So, as we get into interpreting, let’s remember context. Experience is a poor guide. We, in and of ourselves, are not a good basis for judgment. We need to allow Scripture to speak for itself, and base our beliefs and ideals from what Scripture actually says, based on its own contexts.

In stating this, I’d also like to state that this is indeed a refutation of the homosexual position. Instead of making up a quotation that represents the homosexual position, I’ll use an actual quote. This comes from Matthew Vines, whose speech given on March 8 of this year was really what prompted me to get into this (and even more so, James White’s commentary on Vines’ presentation). Vines states,

It’s because [gay people] have a sexual orientation that we’re able to fall in love with someone, build a long-term, committed relationship with them, and to form a family.

First off, I want to state that this is in the introduction to Vines’ presentation about homosexuality in the Bible. This is his foundation for the interpretations he’s about to address. This isn’t some random gay person stating this, but is someone who intends to Biblically defend the homosexual position. That’s why I’m using it as an example. As we look at this quote, remember all I’ve said about experience, and about how poor of a judge it is in determining the meaning of Scripture, and as you’re reading the quote, think about how loaded the words are. Instead of taking him at face value, let’s ask a few questions about his quote pertaining to Biblical viewpoints.

1)    “…we’re able to fall in love with someone…”- “with someone” obviously meaning “someone of the same sex.” Is what he’s experiencing actually love, as the Bible depicts it? Is it even Biblically possible for a man to love a man in the same exact way a man loves a woman, according to what Scripture says about relational love?

2)    “…build a long-term,  committed relationship…”- What is the Biblical depiction of a relationship? Is what Vines sees as a relationship the Biblical definition for a relationship?

3)    “…to form a family.”- Is how Vines defines “family” the same as how the Bible defines “family?” Is it possible for two people of the same sex to form a Biblical “family?”

By asking these questions, rather than just listening to him and letting his feelings and emotions that he expresses impact our own, we can see that he is allowing those feelings and emotions to define certain words within the Bible. He’s taking for granted that there is a possibility for his definitions to be legitimate, based on what he’s experienced. Back to hermeneutics. We have two words pertaining to this, exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis comes from the Greek word ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai), which means, “to lead out.” In theological language, it means “to read out of Scripture.” Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis (εἰς- into), and means “to read into Scripture.” We’ll see this as we get into Genesis 2. The homosexual position will state that Eve was suitable because Adam was a heterosexual, and not a homosexual, in which case a man would have been a suitable partner. This is eisegesis. The plain meaning of the text, which we’ll go over, is that there is only one type of suitable partner for any man- woman.

I’m not going to answer the above questions now, I’ll answer them as we continue, as my intention is to exegete every text in Scripture that deals with homosexuality. In the midst of that, I’m also going to write a post addressing the health risks inherent in homosexual activity- it is not analogous to heterosexual sexual activity and comes with sometimes very serious consequences. I’ll also be doing a few posts on understanding specific contexts, namely, the Christian view of Levitical Law, understanding Jesus’ teachings based on who he was, and understanding Pauline thought. So, much more to come!

Peace be with you,

Mike

Homosexuality

I think I'm going to try to tackle this. This could go on for a while, I'm going to be as comprehensive as I possibly can.

Well, for starters, I'd like to say that what I'm going to do is talk about homosexuality as it relates to Scripture. Trying to tell unsaved people that its wrong doesn't go too far. Society is their guide, and it has always proven to be a loose cannon in the morality department. What I'm going to do is show what the Biblical perspective is on homosexuality and homosexuals. So, this will be more aimed at Christians, since it is entirely from a Biblical perspective. If you're unsaved, please feel free to keep reading, and understand that our position is entirely logical, and not based on bigotry or hate. I may sprinkle a few topics in to lighten the load, things that are more social in nature.

Why? What's the importance? Why do some Christians seem to make such a big deal about homosexuality as opposed to other sins?

First, culture is making it a big deal. It is a big deal right now. Not only that, but we are standing on the edge of possibly watching churches being dictated to stop preaching against it.

Second- the big reason- it stands alone as an 'embraced' sin in the Church. No other sin- murder, envy, strife, adultery, hate, lying, etc., etc.- ever gets tagged onto a person as defining him or her. When someone says, "I am a Homosexual Christian," they are taking the name of a sin and defining themselves by it. I commit a lot of sins. I do not embrace any one of them. Never in my life will I ever say, "I'm a Liar, that's just how God made me, please accept me as a Lying Christian." The idea in and of itself is utterly ridiculous. With homosexuality, it is viewed as a norm. If you experience the temptation of homosexual sins, you are told that you are a homosexual. To me, this is utterly preposterous. There are Christians who struggle with homosexual sins, there are Christians who give in to homosexual sins, there are Christians that have given themselves over to homosexual sins, but there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual. Romans 6 makes it clear that our sins have been nailed to the Cross, we have been crucified with Christ, and that we are now free from sins. When we define ourselves by our sins, we are stating that Romans chapter 6 never happened. This is the problem with homosexuality, and why it gets singled out.

I'll be looking at a number of topics along the way, many that have to do with Biblical perspective in general, so that you can understand how the Bible was written also, not just what's in it. This debate is a very deep one from the conservative position. It is a challenge in itself to Christians as to how well they understand their Scripture. I guess in light of my last blog article, this really fits in. Understanding the Old Testament law, understanding who Jesus was, understanding the relationship between Biblical authors, overcoming apparent contradictions in Scripture, understanding the mindset of Second Temple Jews, understanding Greek phrases, understanding Hermeneutical practices, and on and on and on. There is quite a lot that is going on here, and it is more than just quoting 1 Corinthians 6:9 and ending it there.

So I invite you to keep reading! Also, if you have a question or disagreement, please comment! I'm looking forward to a time of good study!



Peace be with you,


Mike

Why Study the Bible?

In the 1930s, Lewis Sperry Chafer, president of Dallas Theological Seminary said,

Systematic Theology, the greatest of the sciences, has fallen upon evil days. Between the rejection and ridicule of it by the so-called progressives and the neglect and abridgment of it by the orthodox, it, as a potent influence, is approaching the point of extinction. It is a significant act that of the upwards of two score accredited and notable works on Systematic Theology which have been produced in this and other countries, an exceedingly small portion is now in print and the demand for these works is negligible.

That was in the 30s. Back when Christians were supposedly “more Christian” and less worldly than they are today. What would Chafer think if he saw the Christians of today? The fact is we’re looking at a steep academic decline in Christianity amongst the laypeople. Pastors are pastors, theologians are theologians, and seminarians are seminarians. I’m not addressing them. I’m addressing the average “Joe Sunday School.”

What does your study life look like? I don’t hear the term “daily devotions” too much anymore, but when I was growing up back in the 90s I heard it all the time. We were basically force fed the idea of sitting down for 15 min and reading the Bible everyday. There’s nothing wrong with that, its perfectly healthy. The problem is, we were never encouraged to take it beyond that (I’m referring to the Christian culture I was surrounded by, I’m not talking about my parents). And well, it’s a no wonder people don’t really know Scripture anymore besides what’s on the surface. Most Christians can partially defend themselves by just quoting Scripture, but they seemingly can’t exegete. Quoting Scripture is good, but if you don’t know how Scripture works, how can you use it to its fullest?

Let me make two examples of this, so you don’t get the wrong idea about what I’m saying. First is the idea of a sword in the hands of a novice. Sure, he can cut, he can block, he may even kill, but is that sword being used to its utmost? No. Picking up a sword does not make one a swordsman.

Second, think about how the Jewish Rabbinical system worked in Jesus’ time. At the age of 4, children were entered into seminaries. Until the age of 12, they did nothing but memorize the Torah. They were not taught application, only memorization. If they chose to continue the Rabbinical path, they then spent their life from their 12^th until their 30^th year memorizing the rest of the Old Testament, and also learning how to apply Law.

Now lets take those two perspectives and set them against our own lives. How many of us are stuck in the 4-12 year old range? How many of us are novices with our swords? Sure, we can swing it around, but can we wield it? To the one who picks up a sword with interest, he trains, and trains, and trains. This doesn’t mean picking up a sword and swinging it wildly day in and day out. It means practicing, working with skilled teachers, and just straight-up hard work. There is an interest, a drive, a passion to become the most he can become, to become the most skilled with his weapon. To the Jew, memorizing the Torah wasn’t enough. It was about learning how to use it, bonding oneself with a Rabbi for daily instruction, and reading the Targums and Midrash to familiarize oneself with perspectives on Scripture.

How well do we mirror these practices? One of the big issues in today’s society is people’s perspective on homosexuality. If someone were to confront you on this issue and say that Paul in Romans 1:26-28 was speaking of Greek pederasty or of heterosexuals performing homosexual acts, how would you respond? Are you familiar with five simple Greek words that would disprove the entire position? If not, why?

One opposition to this idea is that of being opposed to doctrine itself. In Rob Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis, he puts forth the idea that doctrine is like a brick wall, keeping people out instead of inviting them in to jump on the trampoline. He maintains the perspective that Christianity is about the experience, not about doctrine and facts. But, can I ask you one thing? What does it take to be considered a “mature” Christian? Can you give one qualification? The fact is, the Bible only gives one. Just one. In Hebrews 5:9-6:2 the author states that his audience is unable to understand the teaching of Christ’s priesthood through Melchizedek. It is solid food, for the mature Christian. He states that his audience is immature, only able to handle milk, but not meat. What is his point here? His point is that only through knowledge comes maturity. You cannot become mature by only drinking milk. He then gives a list of “elementary teachings:” “repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.”

Now think about your own personal study. Think about what your pastor preaches, and what your Sunday School teacher teaches. How much of your intake is made up of these three things? We should instead be “pressing on to maturity,” by taking in more than just milk. How do I suggest you do that? Here’s some ways I think can help you.

1)    Partner yourself in someway with someone more knowledgeable than you. A person, not a book or a video. Someone who went to Bible college, at least. Develop a mentoring relationship with that person, and through their guidance, develop your understanding of God’s Word.

2)    Pick up a book that’s a tad too hard for you. Its like lifting weights. If you lift the same amount all the time, your muscles will condition themselves only to lift that much, and won’t grow. By reading things that are harder than the usual, you force yourself to understand them, even if the progress is slow. Don’t lean on pastoral books, either. Pastors like John Piper and Tim Keller are certainly great influences, but they didn’t get where they are by only reading men who write like themselves. Aim for scholarly works, not [only] Christian living.

3)    Get yourself a “starter set” of Christian study materials. For starters, I would look at a Bible dictionary, a good Strong’s Concordance (not the mini ones), and a book on doctrine or theology (Wayne Grudem’s Bible Doctrine is a good start). If you want to push a little harder, some must haves are an interlinear Greek- English New Testament, and an unabridged Systematic Theology. If you want to kick it into overdrive, subscribe to a theological journal. These are usually published by seminaries, and are rough sailing (some examples are Bibliotheca Sacra, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society or JETS. Master’s seminary, Trinity, and Westminster all have their own as well).

4)    Start collecting commentaries. A lot of good ones out there from very easy all the way to completely unreadable :D. If you’re doing daily devotions, add a commentary. If you want to push yourself add two- one that is more focused on grammar and one that is more focused on application. If you’re one of the many people that don’t often read your Bible, then get a commentary to follow what your pastor is teaching. It’s a good way to prepare yourself for each Sunday. (Also, start reading your Bible!)

Those should be some good starter steps for you. My urge for you is to not be wholly satisfied with just reading Scripture. The Bible is a living, breathing document, not just words on a page. It requires thought and striving on the behalf of the reader. Never be fully satisfied with just reading the Bible daily, but have a thirst to grow stronger, smarter, and more mature in the handling of what God has given us.

Peace be with you,

Mike

Ps. Just so you don’t think I’m talking down to you, for those of us that are mature, I’m urging you to not become an old kung-fu monk. I love kung fu movies, and every one seems to have an old man that lives in the mountains with a long white fu-manchu who has reached some kind of kung-fu enlightenment. And what’s he always doing? Training his butt off? Nope, he’s always sitting around drinking or meditating. Or both. The idea here is that he’s gotten to some kind of invincible stage where he doesn’t need to train anymore, so he just meditates all day and then beats up people who come to bother him for training. Lets not be like that. We should never get to the point where we say, “I’ve done my work, let me rest.” While our minds are still intact, we should always be training, lest we become rusty. I have trouble with this. I get to points where I say, "Man, I've been studying a lot lately. What else is there to learn right now? Not much, let's take a break." And, things go downhill from there. So, don’t become an old kung-fu monk. :)

Understanding the use of Circular Reasoning in Islam

Hello again! Tackling a bit of a different issue this time.

I’d like to start off by talking about Christianity actually, which may seem odd, but it is our worldview, and sometimes we like to read our worldview onto other people’s worldviews when we shouldn’t. This is what sometimes happens with Islam and with people’s understanding of it.

Let’s talk about what we believe about our Scriptures. When we describe how the Bible was written, we use the term verbal, plenary inspiration. Here’s a short definition of the two:

By Verbal inspiration is meant that, in the original writings, the Spirit guided in the choice of the words used. However, the human authorship was respected to the extent that their own characteristics are preserved, their style and vocabulary are employed, but without the intrusion of error.
            By Plenary inspiration is meant that the accuracy which verbal inspiration secures, is extended to every portion of the Bible so that it is in all its parts both infallible as to truth and final as to divine authority. This, as has been stated, is the traditional doctrine of the church and that set forth by Christ and the Apostles. This teaching preserves the dual authorship in a perfect balance, ascribing to each that consideration which is accorded it in the Bible. (Chafer, Lewis S. “Bibliology.” Bibliotheca Sacra: Accordance Bible Software Edition 94:376, Oct 37. 407- 408.)

So this is the view typical of conservative Protestant Christianity. Basically, we believe the Holy Spirit worked through the Biblical authors in a way that what was written was sincerely their own words, from their own perspective, but done under the inspiration of the Spirit so that the words can be stated to be His own, and thus perfect and infallible. The Bible was not simply handed to the authors by an angel, nor did God dictate it to them.

Ok, so now let’s talk about Islam. It is easy for us to look at Islamic references that make incorrect portrayals of Christianity (Ohh… we’ll get to that in a second) and say, “Look, Mohammed got it wrong, he was a false prophet.” The problem is, they don’t view the Qur’an that way. They do not believe in inspiration. What Islam teaches is that the Qur’an was handed to Mohammed by Allah, and has existed as Allah’s word from all eternity. Therefore, what you read in the Qur’an is not at all influenced by Mohammed, but is indeed the very word of Allah.

Now, of course I couldn’t talk about this without bringing up the inconsistency therein. Islam has the problem of circular reasoning when trying to defend itself. Islam works by dictation. What is commanded, what is told, that is Law, and you cannot question. The Qur’an states that it is from Allah, therefore you are not allowed to question its authority or its veracity. This is why the level of scholasticism within Christianity (which is the basis of scholasticism in the Western world) is much, much more developed than in Islam. I can think of one debate between a Christian and a Muslim where the Christian apologist continued asking the Muslim cleric questions concerning the Greek constructions in the New Testament. The Muslim man’s response, more than once was that it didn’t matter, because “Jesus didn’t speak Greek,” he spoke Arabic! How does he know this, apart from all historical sources and scholastic research? The Qur’an says so. According to them, Jesus was a Muslim, no different than the man speaking. (If you wish to view the debate, it is James White vs. Jalal Abualrub, do a YouTube search.)

Christianity, on the other hand, is filled with people asking questions of the Bible. It is the reason we have very developed systems of Bibliology, Hermeneutics, as well as all kinds of Creeds, Synods, Councils, and Confessions. It is the reason we have archeology backing up our claims. It is the reason we have all kinds manuscript testimony, along with scholars who know the manuscripts inside and out. We want to authenticate our beliefs, as well as the Scriptures themselves. For Islam, this is not a choice. The Qur’an says it is from Allah, therefore they do not discuss manuscript diversity or theological continuity issues the way we do. So lets look at a couple examples of Islamic circular reasoning.

Q) How do we know Mohammed existed if there is no record of him outside of the Qur’an?

A) The Qur’an says he existed.

Q) Why are we to trust the Qur’an’s testimony?

A) Because it is from Allah.

Q) How do we know it is from Allah?

A) His Prophet, Mohammad, peace be upon him, delivered it to us from Allah.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. There is no real hard evidence for the existence of Mohammed outside the Qur’an. Now, to be sure, I’m not trying to say he never existed, I’m just simply saying that we have no evidence of him outside the Qur’an, from his contemporaries. His existence is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and oral traditions (some contradictory) contained in the sira and Hadith. The proof that the Qur’an is from Allah is based on him, and so on and so forth. This is circular reasoning. The evidence cited is the very thing that is brought under question.

Now for the second circular issue, taken from the first one.

Q) How do we know the Qur’an is from Allah?

A) His Prophet, Mohammad, peace be upon him, delivered it to us from Allah.

Q) How do we know he received it from Allah, since no one witnessed it?

A) Because the Qur’an says so.

First, we attacked the historicity of The Prophet. Now we attack the historicity of the Qur’an. Both fail to circular reasoning. Now, I do want to address an issue that pertains to the Bible, that if you’re reading with a discerning mind, you’ve already picked up on. “We believe in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and have no evidence of them outside of Scripture. How is this any different?” The difference between us and them has to do with the origin of our Scriptures. That is why it is so vitally important to understand inspiration, as well as why our doctrine is so beautifully rich. Yes, we take the works by faith. No doubt. There is no true evidence of the historical nature of several books, particularly Genesis. But when we cite oral tradition, we cite the inspired nature of the Bible. When Jesus or one of the Gospel authors cite Genesis, or Isaiah, or Ruth, we can draw a line back through them all and see how they are connected, one to another, and understand that because the historical value of one is assured, so are the others. Because our Bible is inspired, not handed down. Whoever wrote Genesis, probably Moses, received it by oral tradition, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down. The other authors of Scripture are authenticating the words because their words are also inspired. When Jesus said that God created them “man and woman,” we can know that there really was an Adam and Eve, because we know who Jesus was, and what he did. With Islam, they do not have that authentication. One Prophet, one source, one eyewitness, and they are all the same person. And when a mistake is made, the Prophet is not to blame, it is Allah himself. Let’s look at that now.

Before I get into the last circular problem, let’s once again talk about Christian doctrine. As Christians, we believe that God is triune. That is, He is three Persons within one Godhead. Christians are Monotheistic Trinitarians. We have been since the council of Nicea in 325 (only in reference to history; in reality you can’t be a Christian without being Trinitarian, and the true Church has always been Trinitarian, even if they didn’t systematize it). Muslims are Monotheistic Unitarians. They believe in one God who is only one Person.

Now remember what we said in reference to dictation. You do a search on YouTube of debates between Islamic and Christian scholars and listen to what Islam says of Christianity. They will consistently assert we believe in three Gods, not One. Why?

Surah 5:72-

They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

Now let me explain; what is meant here is not a denial of the Trinity as we understand it. What this is saying is that they deny God is Three (hence “third of three”). This Surah is declaring that Christians believe in three gods. They do not believe that Christians are Trinitarians in the sense that we believe we are. They do not understand that there is a difference between “One Essense (homoousia),” and “Persons.” The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each three individuals distinct from one another, but one essence, and hence one God, coequal with one another.

I hope you see what I’m getting at.

Q) Why are Christians (“People of the Book”) considered infidels?

A) Because they believe Allah is Three, not One.

Q) How can you say that if their history says otherwise?

A) Because it is impossible for God to be Three and One. They believe that God is Three.

Q) But they say they believe God is Three in One. How can you say otherwise?

There is no answer at this point. The supplied answer is that the Qur’an says so. So, here we find the final breakdown in Islamic theology: Allah himself was wrong about what Christians believe. If Muhammad was the writer, we could simply say that Muhammad misunderstood Christians, but that isn’t the case; he did not write the Qur’an. If the Qur’an was delivered during Muhammad’s time (570ad – 632ad), and Allah was writing to the people of Muhammad’s time, then he would have accurately portrayed what Christians believed at the time (remember Nicea?). Why would he address a people that didn’t exist? If Christians didn’t believe that God was Three, then why address them as if they did? The error is on the part Allah.

In conclusion, according to the circular reasoning of Islamic apologists, as well as their doctrine of the passing down of the Qur’an to Muhammad, we can say that Allah either got Christian doctrine incorrect, or that he did not know what Christians believed.  Both facts point to the probability that, of course, Muhammad wrote the Qura’an. Most likely, he did not have access to the whole of the Christian Bible, and was unfamiliar with the Council of Nicea. His access to Christianity would have been the scant conversations he had with them as he traveled the merchant trails.

I hope this has been helpful to you. If you wish to listen to Islamic apologists yourself, and hear their reasoning first hand, visit “Dr. Oakley” (Dr. James White) on YouTube. On his channel, you can find many of his debates with Islamic apologists on various subjects.

Study hard,

Mike