In their objections to the atonement, the cross, the sacrifice and death of Christ, and the need for atonement; indeed the necessity of the atonement,
Muslims say:
“God is not hurt or harmed or His power or glory or holiness is not lessened by Him being able to forgive without a sacrifice of blood-shed (death). Allah just chooses to forgive. Allah does not need blood atonement or sacrifice.”
Analyze and discuss!
I think it makes God less than holy.
ReplyDeleteThen there is injustice with God.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is an affront to the holiness of God (and justice of God) and an insult to God as a holy God.
ReplyDeleteDoes this insult and blasphemy affect God?
That is, is His wrath just an "emotionless execution of His law"?
"without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness"
Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus chapters 1-7, 16-17.
or does it also show that God is a person who can be insulted and denigrated and "made less of" ?
I don't have time to go into this now, but God cannot be seperated from His attributes. The Muslim paradigm appears to do this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis immoral character of Allah also has its sinister flip-side (that Muslims themselves do not presumably like to much think about): just like Allah can forgive anyone he pleases, he can also condemn whomever he pleases, for NO necessary reasons at all. I understand pious Muslims would have to admit that Allah would have the perfect right to take people in paradise and fling them to hell, and also take people from hell and plant them to paradise.
ReplyDeleteAllah IS NOT BOUND EVEN BY HIS PROMISES that he can cancel any time he pleases. He is a Nietszchean deity of pure amoral power, beyond good and evil.
(Satan or Iblis is a lot less prominent character in the worldview of Islam than in Christianity, and no wonder: with god like Allah, who needs devil?)
I understand pious Muslims would have to admit that Allah would have the perfect right to take people in paradise and fling them to hell, and also take people from hell and plant them to paradise.
ReplyDeleteAllah IS NOT BOUND EVEN BY HIS PROMISES that he can cancel any time he pleases. He is a Nietszchean deity of pure amoral power, beyond good and evil.
That is correct1 That is what Abdullah Kunde admitted in his debate with Samuel Green: "Savior of the World: the Qur'an or Jesus" and he quoted one of the most respected Sunni Muslims in history to back that up, Al Ghazzali.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/01/saviour-of-world-jesus-or-quran.html
This shows the arbitrary nature of Allah's character - in fact Allah's will is more important than character, principle; Muslims are taught that they cannot really think about what Allah's nature is like.
There is actually some underlying truth to the comment. Ultimately, God doesn't need sacrifice or atonement, since such would preclude mercy. God only chooses those things as visible demonstrations of His mercy. For example, the OT story of the Bronze Serpent required no atonement or sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main problems here is that most Protestants don't know what the Biblical term "Atonement" means, and as a result, when the subject comes up, they end up speaking about Atonement in ways that are nothing more than Western concepts of "justice".
If you want to see what the Bible really teaches on this subject, see this Article. I have yet to find any Protestants address this subject on this level before, and it's my opinion that if they did, they'd become Catholic.
All the good things that we may see in Islam are mere pernicious HALF-TRUTHS. And half-truths can often be more poisonous than outright lies, as they allow evil ideas parasitically to leech off the good ones.
ReplyDeleteLike late-Victorian missionary St-Clair Tisdall put it:
http://www.archive.org/stream/religionofcresce00tisd#page/54/mode/2up
"It is the glory of Islam that it teaches that God alone should be worshipped, that it preaches Monotheism, and recognises God as Personal, Omniscient and Almighty, the Creator and the Preserver, the Master and the Judge of all creation.
But of a God of Holiness and of infinite Love, Muhammad had no idea whatever. Among the ninety-nine Titles or Names of God repeated by Muslims when they tell their beads, the name of FATHER does not occur. Not only so, but the very application of this term to God in any sense seems to the Muhammadan mind to be the most utter blasphemy. "He is our Master," a pious Muslim would say, "and we are His slaves. Far be it from Him — may He be praised and exalted — that He should have any children!"
Muhammad's conception of God was an altogether Deistic one, and it is perhaps for this very reason that English Deists have felt so much sympathy with him. He taught his followers to regard God as absolutely separated from His creatures, so much so indeed that no inference can be drawn as to God's actions from considering what our ideas of holiness and justice require.
In the whole Qur'an and in the whole body of orthodox Muslim theology we do not find even the very slightest approach to an acceptance of the doctrine that, as far at least as concerns the human spirit and mind, God created Man in His own image."
One might perhaps say that the Muslim view of predestination is basically what the worst slanders of Arminians make the Calvinist predestination look like:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.archive.org/stream/religionofcresce00tisd#page/66/mode/2up
"A Muhammadan tradition states that when God showed Adam the spirits of his descendants as yet unborn, He divided them into two bands, ranking one company on Adam's right hand and one on his left. Of those on the right God said, "These are for Paradise, and I care not;" while of the unfortunate shades on the left-hand side the Deity, who is so often in the Qu'ran termed "the Merciful, the Gracious," uttered these fearful words, "These are for hell-fire, and I care not."
Adam, tradition says, weeps even now in Paradise when he beholds so many of his children doomed, whole ages before their birth, to everlasting torture; but no feeling of pity touches the heart of the Author of their doom. The Qur'an itself represents God Almighty as saying, "Verily I will fill Hell with genii and men all together" (Surah xi., 120, and Surah xxxii., 13), and makes Him declare that He had created them for this very purpose."
If you want to see what the Bible really teaches on this subject, see this Article.
ReplyDeleteHi Nick,
Isn't that a bit of a bold statement? Since your Church has only infallibly defined a handful of verses I will assume your article hasn't received magisterial approval.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDeleteThere is actually some underlying truth to the comment. Ultimately, God doesn't need sacrifice or atonement, since such would preclude mercy.
That is an amazing 2 statements you make, Nick. God did “need” a sacrifice in order to be “just and justifier of those that have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:24-26) – and He Himself gave Himself as that one and only and final sacrifice. God Himself became flesh in order to become the atonement for our sins.
God has need of nothing; and He could have let every human die and go to hell and that would have been just; but God did need to provide the sacrifice, Himself, in order to save sinners. See the difference?
“Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:17
He “had” to . . . the Greek word here ὤφειλεν is strong, pointing to obligation and owing and being a debtor. Now God is not obligated to save anyone, but since He wanted to save some from all nations for His glory, He obligated Himself, it was necessary in order to save us. He needed to be incarnated and give Himself as an atonement (propitiation), in order to save anyone; otherwise no one would be saved.
ὅθεν ὤφειλεν κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηται καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ·
God only chooses those things as visible demonstrations of His mercy. For example, the OT story of the Bronze Serpent required no atonement or sacrifice.
I disagree, the incarnation and atonement are by nature true, not just “choosing something to demonstrate His mercy”. No. the bronze serpent was for healing from the snake bites, not atonement for sin; but it was an OT type of the one who would be lifted up on the cross and people need to look to that sacrifice in trust and faith as the substitute for sins in order to be saved from sin. John 3:13-16.
But it is interesting that even while promoting this ruthless predestinarianism, Islam does not bother to give its followers any real trust in the "Perseverance of the Saints" or eternal security.
ReplyDeleteIt really seems like "the worst of both world's" scenario, the most discomforting traits of Calvinism and Arminianism combined!
None Can Feel Safe From Allah’s Schemes
"This is why Abu Bakr wept over not knowing whether he was truly saved or not:
“Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’”
...
In fact, this report perfectly comports with the Muslim scripture since according to the latter it is only those who perish that feel secure from the deception or makr of Allah:
Are the people of the townships then secure from the coming of Our wrath upon them as a night-raid while they sleep? Or are the people of the townships then secure from the coming of Our wrath upon them in the daytime while they play? Are they then secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S. 7:97-99 Pickthall
What! do they then feel secure from Allah's plan? But none feels secure from Allah's plan except the people who shall perish. S. 7:99 Shakir
The implication here is that the believers know better than to feel safe from Allah’s schemes and deceit. Thus, since Abu Bakr was a believer who knew the Quran it only makes perfect sense that he would be deathly afraid of Allah’s tricks or plotting and therefore have serious doubts about his own salvation."
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteGod needed a sacrifice only in the sense that God chose to express His mercy in that format. Thus, there is nothing in conflict with Scripture of saying Sacrifice was necessary. There simply was no eternal principle that 'tied God's hands' requiring Him to do this to forgive us.
As for the Bronze Serpent *story*, my point was that God forgave here without sacrifice, only Moses' intercession.
James Swan said "I think it makes God less than holy". It also makes sin less deadly and horrible.
ReplyDeleteFrom Bishop Bo Giertz in "The Knights of Rhodes" in the Treasury of Daily Prayer, Concordia, p. 417.
ReplyDelete"Ibrahim?" [said the Knight to his Muslim servant.] "What are you thinking about?"
"Paradise, my lord...and God....He is one..... He is exalted, higher than the heavens, incomprehensible, glorious beyond all understanding, impossible to grasp.... If we could understand him, he would no longer be God. And if he could become like us, he would not be God either. We would never dare to say that the Infinitely Exalted would have a son with a woman, that the Gory and the Divinity, the holy, inexpressible whom we cannot find words for...that this one should be found in a miserable, sweaty, human body, which can get sores and colic, which must stuff itself with porridge and must relieve itself as we do. This is blasphemy. Therefore god gives us victory....
Injured, on his deathbed, and far from home, the Knight closed his eyes and...folded his hands. A great peace came over him. He know that he was not alone. He knew this without needing to clothe it with words. There was someone here who walked amid the hospital beds, just like in the streets of Capernaum. This one stopped and bowed down. His breast, too, had a large wound. His hands bled. One could tell that he know everything that those at home would never understand. He, too, had experienced it: cold and rain, filth and vermin, beatings and wounds, fear of death and defeat. The God who had come down into all this, he was very near. It was good to have such a God.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true Roman Catholic.
God is not holy and just. Nor does he hate sin and sinners.
He's just a kindly old bumbling fool in the clouds that means well so don't sweat it. Say a few Hail Mary's and take a couple of aspirin and you'll be well in the morning.
Not.
"We would never dare to say that the Infinitely Exalted would have a son with a woman, that the Gory and the Divinity, the holy, inexpressible whom we cannot find words for...that this one should be found in a miserable, sweaty, human body, which can get sores and colic, which must stuff itself with porridge and must relieve itself as we do."
ReplyDeleteThat's a great passage from Giertz, Brigitte. It shows that in this subject of utmost importance, Islam is a follower of the early Docetist heresy who could not swallow the idea that the infinite God would deign to soil himself in the filth of the material world... thus directly carrying the spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:3).
Muhammad even stole the idea that Jesus Christ had changed places with Simon of Cyrene in the crucifixion from Gnostics:
"It seemed to him to be derogatory to the dignity of Christ to have been crucified and put to death by His enemies; and Muhammad was all the more convinced of this when he found his own enemies, the Jews, exulting at having slain Jesus. Hence he gladly adopted the assertion of certain heresiarchs, with whose views in other respects he had little in common. Several of these had, long before Muhammad's time, denied the actual suffering of Christ. Irenaeus tells us with reference to the teaching of the Gnostic heretic Basilides, who flourished about A.D. 120, that, in speaking of Jesus, he taught his deluded followers "That62 He had not suffered; and that a certain Simon of Cyrene had been compelled to carry His cross for Him; and that this man was crucified through ignorance and error, having been changed in form by Him, so that it should be thought that he was Jesus Himself." This language coincides very closely with that of the Qur'an in this matter."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/Sources/chap4.htm
Islam seems like the Gnostic idea of God divested of its passive pacifistic attitude and combined instead with Judaizing legalism (avoiding pork, circumcision etc.) and barbarian Arabian warmongering.
Nick:
ReplyDelete"As for the Bronze Serpent *story*, my point was that God forgave here without sacrifice, only Moses' intercession."
Forgave only in bodily sense, allowing physical death to pass by Israelites. But only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can avert "The Second Death" (Revelation 2:11, 21:8), the spiritual death, the damnation.
It also makes sin less deadly and horrible.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly right, Jeannie!
Islam does not emphasize sin as a nature or an internal attitude. Lust is not a problem in men, it is natural. Cover up the women to protect the men from lusting. Lusting in the man's heart is always the woman's fault.
Anger? hatred? Those are not emphasized much either in Islam as sinful attitudes that would send one to hell.
Yet Jesus said they are roots of sin and make people guilty enough for hell. Matthew 5:22-30
Mark 7:14-23
Sin in Islam is mostly external things.
This is another great difference between Islam and Christianity.
But only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can avert "The Second Death" (Revelation 2:11, 21:8), the spiritual death, the damnation.
ReplyDeleteAlso the blood of lambs and such does not remove the sin. It is a foreshadowing of the real lamb of God who carried the sin of the world.
Nick is a typical Romanist espousing the false Romanist view of the Atonement. Let me clue my fellow Christians here in. And no I DO NOT consider Romanists (Roman Catholic Church) as Christian.
ReplyDeleteYou see what the Bible teaches about the Atonement is one key that destroys the Roman system. The Biblial teaching, which is what Reformed Christians believe, destroys the false man-made Romanist Dogmas of Purgatory and "making satisfaction for sin' whose guilt is forgiven. The whole Romanist system and teaching on the Atonement, Justification, Purgatory etc, is an insult to Our Lord Jesus Christ and what He did for us and and is a stink in the nostrils of God. May God have mercy on you Nick and youyr fellow Romanist "true believers, i pray that God the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to the truth. You see Nick I used to be like you a "true believing faithful Roman Catholic until the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the lies, falsehoods and deceits of the Roman Catholic Church
Nick;
ReplyDeleteYour link just may be the most-pathetic hermeneutical garbage I have ever seen linked to from this blog. (And I have linked to my own pathetic blog, too, so that says a lot.)
Basically, you assume that penal-substitution is not supported, and then you go on through the motions of failing to find support for it, and you declare penal-substitution unsupported.
For those who, sensibly, have no time for that link, consider this mock:
"Romans 8:1 says that there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. But I know that there could be condemnation even for those who are in Christ Jesus. After all, I am a clever, fair, and impartial exegete, and anyway the Roman Catholics maintain the same. So let us see where else condemnation occurs, where it could be indeed true that someone in Christ Jesus is condemned. Ah, look! Here, Peter is condemned by Paul in Galatians 2! So, you see, it is not true that there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus!" Too many bugs there. Assuming that multiple interpretations of one word implies that the Protestant interpretation is wrong, for example.
Your problem, Nick, is what you accuse your commenters of committing; where you accuse them (rightly) of presuming that penal-substitution holds before they argue for it, you, too, are accused (by me, rightly) of presuming that penal-substitution does not hold before arguing against it. You (both camps) are doing the stupid and pathetic thing of expecting that even your axioms should be proven; that your basic first principles should be proven.
Of course, since you are a Roman Catholic, you win the debate, in the same way that the epistemological sceptic will always win any other debate ("But how do you know that you know how you know what you know about how you know what you know that you know about how you know?" and so on). But you lose in the end, because God will not be approached by Fides et Ratio; God will be approached by sola fide. As the Hebrew wrote, "For without faith, it is impossible to please God."
And I was telling Ken this same thing, not long ago, that if he met a Sufi Muslim (like that non-trivial al-Ghazali, for example), he would be stuck, not because the reasoning of the Muslim would be bad, but because it has become a matter of faith, and faith is where everything begins; before reason was, faith is. What do you believe about God, even before any reasoning proceeds? You Protestants who have invested so much in honing reason, as though you are Greek pagans or Catholics, you have forgotten that faith is the point. Let go immediately of this Roman Catholic atavism, and throw yourselves into faith. "But when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the Earth?"
Ken, to respond to your post: what to do for such a Muslim? Well, I would pray for him, if I cared enough. It is what Paul did, when faced with an identical situation (Romans 9-10).
RPV,
ReplyDeleteYour comments can be taken as a compliment, though I'm sure you didn't intend that. Unfortunately, your thoughts about what 'justice' is supposed to be are not Scriptural and rather a construct of 'traditions of men'. (This explains why most Protestants here are afraid to interact with the Scriptural case I made on the Article I posted).
John,
I would say the same thing as I said to RVP. You simply have no idea what the Bible actually teaches on Atonement and are following traditions of men. Follow the link I gave and it will show who is really following Scripture and who is projecting man-made ideas over Biblical ones.
27th Comrade,
ReplyDeleteI never assumed PSub wasn't supported, I never found evidence for it in the first place! That's like a Mormon telling you that you assumed Jesus didn't come to America as you read the Bible, when the real issue is that you never saw evidence for that claim in the first place.
I want to emphasize how you yourself didn't even point to one verse that uses the term "Atonement" in your rush to condemn me!! Ironic, isn't it?
I'm amazed how you mock my work yet don't actually interact with it!
See, Nick, that is exactly what I mean. For you, penal-substitution is on the same ground as the claim that Jesus went to America. In such a case, it is those who think that there is enough agreement, enough shared axioms, between you and the Protestant for a meaningful debate to be had.
ReplyDeleteI could never be caught debating the finer points of whether or not Jesus went to America. That is just simply not part of what I consider worth thinking about. But for me, as for you, at some level, whatever you believe about where Jesus went or did not go, it will have to be based on faith. Axioms are not proven; they are just believed.
The foolishness is in thinking that we can discuss without sharing a language. The same problem Ken has with the Muslim in the post about is the same problem the one who holds to penal-substitution has with you.
Listen: penal-substitution, having been taught to Adam and his offspring in Genesis 3, can be found in well-nigh every pre-Christian culture. Because we all, in our Romans 1:19-20 way, believed in penal-substitution just as we believed in a Creator. We worshipped slugs in His stead, but then the light came. Anyway, I mean this: penal-substitution is axiomatic. Even the Bible presumes it to hold; so to think you will prove the axioms from the theorems is foolishness on your part. Your problem, and the problem of your Protestant interlocutors, is that they think that they have to find evidence for penal-substitution before it is valid. Au contraire, penal-substitution is the model in which to understand the rest.
"I never assumed PSub wasn't supported, I never found evidence for it in the first place!"
I never assumed there was an alternative to penal-substitution, I never found a reason to in the first place!
As for you, go and contort around phrases like "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." and "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
You will manage to contort around them; but then, I know that in a certain American slang, the word "bad" means "good", so you have a lot of room.
I should avoid long sentences. I messed up one of those, and I did not really proof-read. Here it is again:
ReplyDeleteIn such a case, it is those who think that there is enough agreement, enough shared axioms, between you and the Protestant for a meaningful debate to be had, who are being foolish and in need of a vigorous pat on the jaw.
(In other words, these Protestants have gone astray, just as you have, but they differently from you. They have erred in thinking that penal-substitution will be proven like a Euclidean theorem. What manifest foolishness! And you, you have erred in rejecting it. What alarming foolishness! And you say I do not interact with your argument: I do, but only with a disdainful chuckle. I shall not start having to prove that truth exists, for example. Some things are first principles, whether you like it or not. And in all things, Let God be True and every man a liar.)
The devil, in addition to deceiving men into believing that is no God, seeks to evangelize of a god who will accept them on the basis of their moral worthiness, as if God were not so holy and man so sinful as to preclude that, and or that He will forgive without justice being served. The former attacks God's holiness, and the latter His justice, and which is the case with Islam.
ReplyDeleteBut what saith the Scriptures? Having "before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (Rm. 3:9) - the former being sinners due to violating the Law, and the latter due to the rejection of the natural light given them - and thus are in need for a salvation they cannot merit or effect, he tells us that the elect are
"{24} justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: {25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; {26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. " (Romans 3:24-26)
Jesus Christ the Righteous scapegoat "suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God," (1Pt. 3:18) who "his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree," 2Pt. 2:24) God making Him to become "sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," providing the atonement for sin which God required, (Lv. 16) satisfyingly God's requirements of holiness and justice, and which Islam cannot - at God;s won expense and "credit," and to His glory. Amen
"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed." (Ps. 85:10)