By Sherene Khouri
Islam and Christianity claim to be monotheistic religions. They both believe in one supreme God; however, their concept of the nature of the divine being is different. The Islamic understanding affirms in a strong sense the absolute oneness of God through the doctrine of tawhid (Surah 4:171). Allah is one, and he has no partner, rival, or equal. The Christian understanding, on the other hand, upholds the trinitarian nature of God. “God is one (Deut 6:4), while including in that unity of the Father, who sent his Son; the Son, who is sent: and the Spirit, who is sent by them both.”[i] God is an eternal co-inhering community of equals. While the Qur’an portrays the Trinity in terms of a holy family—Holy God, Holy Mother, and Holy Son (Surah 6:101; 5:116), there is no historical evidence that orthodox Christianity ever described the Trinity in this way. This article discusses the biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical understandings of the Trinity to help Christians explain and discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with their Muslim friends.
The Biblical Explanation
The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible because this doctrine was formulated in the fourth century during the ecumenical council of Nicene. The later formulation, however, does not mean that this doctrine is fabricated or unbiblical. On the contrary, God being trinitarian in nature is a biblical concept that is deeply rooted in Scripture. For example, the concept of God being a father is not a foreign concept to Jews. It was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:2 NIV), and Jesus’s teachings emphasized the personal aspect of the fatherhood of God by using the term “abba” to portray his intimate relationship with God. “[W]hen [Jewish] men addressed God as Father,” as Arthur Wainwright explains, “they would use the more formal ‘abuna’ (our father), but one’s own father would be addressed by using the absolute state of the noun, which is ‘abba’.[ii] Jesus used this term to introduce the Father to the Jews and to explain the Father’s relationship to himself.
God, the Father is distinguished from Jesus (God the Son) in the New Testament. This distinction is clear in Jesus’ prayers before the crucifixion. Jesus prayed to the Father and asked him to “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you … this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Jesus was not praying to himself, but to another person (the Father), distinguishing himself from the Father. In the same way, the Apostle Paul makes a similar distinction between the Father and the Son, explaining that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Eph 4:6). God the Father is not the mediator, but Jesus is the mediator between God and men.
In addition to Jesus being distinguished from the Father, the Holy Spirit is introduced to the divine Godhead in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is often described in a personal way, which suggests that he is a person, and can speak to men (1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7). Jesus tells his disciples about the παράκλητος (paráklētos), who is the third person of the Trinity, whom God will send to dwell with believers after the ascension of Christ. He states, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). Jesus, in this verse, distinguishes between the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.
In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as a mere state or power because He acts in his distinct personhood. He grieves (Ephesian 4:30), speaks (Mark 13:11-12), teaches (John 14:26), leads (Rom 8:14), and cries (Gal 4:6). Additionally, the Johannine writings call the Spirit παράκλητος (paraklētos), which means the “one who helps, advocates, or comforts someone on behalf of another.”[iii] A “something/someone” who speaks, leads, teaches, and advocates cannot be a mere state or power. On the contrary, he is the One who gives power; therefore, he is a person.
God is revealed in the Bible as one divine being, yet there are distinctions (persons). He was not revealed as a single divine being, as traditionally had been conceived. God is one being in one sense and three persons in a different sense. He is one God who created the universe in one sense and three persons who share the same essence in a different sense.[iv] There are three persons denominated: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God. The scene of the baptism depicts a clear picture of God as Trinity. When Jesus was in the water, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This scene shows that the Christian God is one divine being in three persons.
The prologue of the Gospel of John has the strongest argument for the Trinity. John says in the first verse of the book: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here is an indication of the divinity of the Word. There is a clue that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet there is fellowship between them. As Wayne Grudem suggests, “the preposition pros (“with”) does not connote merely physical proximity to the Father but an intimacy of fellowship as well.”[v]
Jesus is described as the word and the spirit of God in the Qur’an (Surah 4:171) as well. Most Muslims believe that the word of God is eternal; however, they do not believe that Jesus is eternal with God.
A Historical Explanation
Believing in the trinitarian God does not mean believing in three separate gods but believing in one divine being who is revealed in three persons. Since the doctrine of tawḥid implements numerical meaning, it is hard for Muslims to understand the word Trinity in a non-numerical sense—a metaphysical sense. This is the reason that pushed the Christian Arab apologists to use the word اقنوم (pl. اقانيم) (Uqnoum, pl. Aqanim) to convey the idea of the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). The word Aqanim is never used in the Arabic language, except in the doctrine of the Trinity to covey the idea of the divine persons and illuminate the similarities with the concept of the human person. According to Imad Shehadeh, who is a leading contemporary scholar on the subject of the Trinity in Jordan, “the only benefit from using this word [Uqnoum] in Arabic language is to distance the word ‘person’ from God and substitute it with a foreign and an unknown word that conveys its meaning.”[vi] In other words, dedicating a special terminology to the divine Person indicates a special meaning and illuminates the confusion with the human/physical meaning of the word person. In my opinion, this term should be used in conversation with Muslims to avoid the tritheism confusion that might arise from the human concept of a human being as individual consciousness. The divine Aqanim (persons) are three in a way that does not apply to human persons and cannot be read off from human experience apart from revelation.
A Philosophical Explanation
Muslims believe that Allah is an eternal divine being and the creator of the world. In other words, there was no time before Allah, there was nothing that existed before him, and there was no time in history when Allah did not exist. However, this explanation does not make Allah the greatest conceived being because it does not show the relational nature of Allah before creating the universe. Allah has to be relational in nature because he listens, communicates, and receives worship. This is to say that Allah has a relationship with his creation, he did not create the world and left it to face its own destiny. However, if Allah is truly unipersonal and relational with his creation, what about his relationality before the creation? Who was Allah hearing, seeing, and watching before the creation of the cosmos? To whom was he showing kindness and love? All these divine attributes/names require either otherness in the inner being of Allah or another person/creation external to him. Before creation, there could not have been co-communion, mutual recognition, or altruism in Allah because there is no external differentiation to him or internal diversity in him. This limitation makes Allah dependent on his creation. He needs it in order to be the Hearer (as-Sami’), the Seer (al-Baṣir), the Kind (al-Laṭif), the Watcher (ar-Raqib), and the Loving (al-Wadud.) These attributes were disabled before creation. They were not actualized until Allah created the cosmos.
In Christianity, this problem does not exist because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God lives eternally in an intra-relationship (not alone) within himself, and in an inter-relationship with humanity after creation. The three Aqanim are united by their common divinity or whole generic essence. “The persons are also unified by their joint redemptive purpose and work,” says Cornelius Plantinga, “Their knowledge and love are directed, not only to their creatures but also primordially and archetypally to each other. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. . . The Trinity is thus a zestful community or divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.”[vii] The divine richness is understood in terms of relationality, with a communion of unity among the three Aqanim. The terms Father and Son are relational terms. One cannot be a parent without having a child and vice versa. Hence, by referring to God as Father, Christians conceive God as being eternally in relation to Himself; this relationship of fatherhood is, in the eternal sense, with the Son.[viii] God is not three separate persons/beings, such as in human person/individual. Instead, He is a unity in diversity.
The belief that God is one divine being and three Aqanim is not self-contradictory because the supposition that “God is either one or three” is logically fallacious. This belief represents the false dichotomy or, what is called, a false dilemma or the black/white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices are presented yet more exist.[ix] Suggesting that God is either one or three, ignores the option that Christianity presents. The Trinity is a divine, transcendent community of three divine Aqanim: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologians tend to be very careful about how to use analogies to explain the Trinity because many of the analogies that were historically used conveyed a form of modalism or tritheism. The following analogy is not meant to be literal, but it is intended to answer the question: “how can God be one and three without any contradiction?” Every man/woman is made as one human being and one person. Beethoven, for instance, is a human being because he belongs to the human race, and he is a unique person because of his musical skills, talents, DNA, personality… etc. His personhood is what makes him unique from Mozart or other musicians. He is a human being in one sense and a unique musician/person in another sense. In other words, he is both without a contradiction. In like manner, Christians believe that the Trinity is not a self-contradictory argument because while God is a divine being, He is also three Aqanim. He is a divine being in one sense because He belongs to the divine realm (not to the human race), and he is three Aqanim—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in a different sense because He belongs to his own realm Sui generis, where nothing is like him. It would be considered a contradiction if God is one divine being and three persons in the same sense.
Bibliography
Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6. Accessed April 30, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm.
Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 3rd ed. MI: Baker Academic, 2015.
Holland, Richard, jr. and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking. Baker Academic, 2017.
McCall, Thomas H. “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective.” In Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Edited by Sexton, Jason S. MI: Zondervan, 2014.
Plantinga, Cornelius, jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.
Shehadeh, Imad. Al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness]. Al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009.
Wainwright, Arthur. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975
Footnotes
[i] “Trinity,” s.v. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Baker Academics, 2017).
[ii] Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975), 45.
[iii] “παράκλητος (paraklētos),” s.v. Lexham Theological Wordbook, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2014.
[iv] Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6, accessed April 30, 020,
[v] Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3rd ed., (MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 112.
[vi] Imad Shehadeh, al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness], (al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009), 31. The original Arabic renders as: “الفائدة الوحيدة في استخدام هذه الكلمة في اللغة العربية هي ابعاد كلمة ’الشخص’ عن الله واستبدالها بكلمة اجنبية غير معروفة في معناها.”
[vii] Cornelius Plantinga jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 31.
[viii] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective,” in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Sexton, Jason S. ed., (MI: Zondervan, 2014), 133.
[ix] Richard Holland Jr, and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking (Baker Academic, 2017), 39.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sherene was also involved in her local church among the youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen.
Sherene is an assistant professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. She holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and a B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. She is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and an M.A in Arabic and Linguistics from PennWest University.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3udDybq
Is Every Bible “New Age”… Except the King James?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Melissa Dougherty
Some people see the King James Bible as far superior to other translations. They believe other translations are heretical, full of redactions with verses purposely and vindictively taken out. Any attempt to “modernize” the language is seen as compromising the very Word of God. Some people in this group see the 1611 English King James Version as even far superior to the Greek copies themselves! Some also believe that the Bible that might be on your shelf is actually… New Age.
I know this because I used to be a King James Onlyist. A KJO.
I want to clarify two things. First, I think the King James is a fine version, and I don’t believe that everyone who prefers the King James is a KJO. Second, I understand that there’s a spectrum of beliefs within the KJO community. I’m going to share what I would consider the most common claims people make on why they believe the King James is superior. I still read this version sometimes. If you like it, that’s great. But some elevate it to an idolatrous level. I want people to know this information, especially the ex-new agers. Many are afraid to read a modern version because they’ve been told the KJV is the only true version and have scared them by saying these other versions are New Age when they’re simply not.
In my time as a KJO, I noticed there are spectrums to this position from the extreme where even putting the King James on the floor is a horrendous sin to the more passive. But, in general, this group basically believes that the true word of God is the King James Version of the Bible, and all others are corrupt and are infiltrated by the New Age. Some are so extreme that they believe the English King James corrects the Greek!
In other words, the King James Bible is the Word of God, not the Greek and Hebrew that it was copied from. This is one reason you see extra verses in the King James and don’t see it in your Bibles, but more about that later.
I personally took more of a middle road in the spectrum and used to believe that the King James Bible was the most reliable and complete, and the rest of these other versions were either missing verses or were compromised somehow. I looked down on people who used different versions, which only furthered my misconceptions about how we got the Bible and how it was translated. When I came out of the New Age, one of the first things I did was research how we got the Bible, and I was amazed by what I learned. The fancy word for this is called “Textual Criticism.”
Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:
1.) Conspiracy to Deceive.
One of the arguments from the KJO camp is that there’s a New Age conspiracy to deceive people into preparing the way for the antichrist. This is done by creating other Bible translations that they claim take essential doctrines out of the Bible to deceive millions. They say the deity of Christ is taken out and the Gospel itself. This is demonstrably false. First of all, a conspiracy is a pretty terrible one if virtually everyone knows about it. Second, it’s ironically a conspiratorial mindset someone has to be in even to claim there’s a New Age conspiracy. In other words, many KJOs believe this out of a fear-based mindset rather than a factual one. The misinformation that is out there on this is staggering and only hurts the people that promote this as they seem to take a more “cultish” position on this than an academic one. One of the biggest issues they bring up is that the King James is “complete” because it has verses other Bibles don’t. This brings me to my second point.
2.) Supposed missing verses.
This is one of the most significant claims from this camp. They pride themselves in owning a “complete ” version, while we have these second-class versions that are demonic and belong in the garbage. This was probably the #1 reason I ascribed to the King James as superior. For those that might not know, if you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will see that several verses seem to be missing from the newer translations. We usually see these passages or texts in the footnotes in other versions. Along with these supposed missing verses are many words and phrases that are “missing” from newer translations. Why are these omitted? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, in a grand New Age conspiracy, as some claim? No. Not at all. When I researched this a long time ago, this part of my research was startling, but in a good way.
I learned that there are no Bible verses. What I mean by that is that the King James translators added the chapters and verses to help the reader navigate the text, and this is not a bad thing. This is helpful. But it’s important to know that the original authors never wrote like this. It was intended to be read as a letter or book. And second, the real game changer is that these newer translations are striving to present what the biblical writers originally wrote correctly, which means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. In other words, any content that’s supposedly “missing” in newer translations? Is believed by most scholars not to have been in the Bible to begin with.
It’s important to mention that the King James translators in 1611 used the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, and that’s when the King James Version was written. Since then, older manuscripts have been found that don’t have these verses. Over 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, intentionally or accidentally. So “missing verses” are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Also, there’s a fancy word called “expansion of piety.” This is a desire to fiercely protect the sacredness of Jesus, which led people to expand the titles of Jesus, possibly even without meaning. It’s ironic because the accusation is that the modern translations removed them when the actual situation was that they were added. This does NOT downgrade the King James Version. Again, I think it’s a fine translation to use.
3.) This brings me to my last point. Why are there so many translations, then? This is easier to answer than you think! Again to someone who holds a King James only position, it’s because there’s a New Age conspiracy, and all the older manuscripts have been infiltrated and compromised. For them, this only holds more reason why the King James is the most authentic version. The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So all these partial and complete manuscripts we find scattered everywhere are copies, but the good news is that they match. This can be a bit divisive when we talk about it being translated into English because there are so many different ways to translate a word sometimes. For this reason, it’s beneficial to compare translations. I think some versions are to be avoided, such as versions with only one translator or loose paraphrases. An example of this is the Passion Translation or the Message. Because Greek and Hebrew aren’t English, you will have different words translated differently in different versions. The King James Version is a testament to how language can change over time. Following this logic, if the King James truly is the very Word of God, then in another few hundred years, people would practically have to learn another language to read it. Language evolves and changes over time, and this includes English. Nobody speaks Old English today.
For these reasons, there are trustworthy modern translations that are not New Age. They are excellent to read and study and compare to one another.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
How To Explain the Trinity to Muslims
Islam, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Sherene Khouri
Islam and Christianity claim to be monotheistic religions. They both believe in one supreme God; however, their concept of the nature of the divine being is different. The Islamic understanding affirms in a strong sense the absolute oneness of God through the doctrine of tawhid (Surah 4:171). Allah is one, and he has no partner, rival, or equal. The Christian understanding, on the other hand, upholds the trinitarian nature of God. “God is one (Deut 6:4), while including in that unity of the Father, who sent his Son; the Son, who is sent: and the Spirit, who is sent by them both.”[i] God is an eternal co-inhering community of equals. While the Qur’an portrays the Trinity in terms of a holy family—Holy God, Holy Mother, and Holy Son (Surah 6:101; 5:116), there is no historical evidence that orthodox Christianity ever described the Trinity in this way. This article discusses the biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical understandings of the Trinity to help Christians explain and discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with their Muslim friends.
The Biblical Explanation
The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible because this doctrine was formulated in the fourth century during the ecumenical council of Nicene. The later formulation, however, does not mean that this doctrine is fabricated or unbiblical. On the contrary, God being trinitarian in nature is a biblical concept that is deeply rooted in Scripture. For example, the concept of God being a father is not a foreign concept to Jews. It was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:2 NIV), and Jesus’s teachings emphasized the personal aspect of the fatherhood of God by using the term “abba” to portray his intimate relationship with God. “[W]hen [Jewish] men addressed God as Father,” as Arthur Wainwright explains, “they would use the more formal ‘abuna’ (our father), but one’s own father would be addressed by using the absolute state of the noun, which is ‘abba’.[ii] Jesus used this term to introduce the Father to the Jews and to explain the Father’s relationship to himself.
God, the Father is distinguished from Jesus (God the Son) in the New Testament. This distinction is clear in Jesus’ prayers before the crucifixion. Jesus prayed to the Father and asked him to “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you … this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Jesus was not praying to himself, but to another person (the Father), distinguishing himself from the Father. In the same way, the Apostle Paul makes a similar distinction between the Father and the Son, explaining that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Eph 4:6). God the Father is not the mediator, but Jesus is the mediator between God and men.
In addition to Jesus being distinguished from the Father, the Holy Spirit is introduced to the divine Godhead in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is often described in a personal way, which suggests that he is a person, and can speak to men (1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7). Jesus tells his disciples about the παράκλητος (paráklētos), who is the third person of the Trinity, whom God will send to dwell with believers after the ascension of Christ. He states, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). Jesus, in this verse, distinguishes between the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.
In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as a mere state or power because He acts in his distinct personhood. He grieves (Ephesian 4:30), speaks (Mark 13:11-12), teaches (John 14:26), leads (Rom 8:14), and cries (Gal 4:6). Additionally, the Johannine writings call the Spirit παράκλητος (paraklētos), which means the “one who helps, advocates, or comforts someone on behalf of another.”[iii] A “something/someone” who speaks, leads, teaches, and advocates cannot be a mere state or power. On the contrary, he is the One who gives power; therefore, he is a person.
God is revealed in the Bible as one divine being, yet there are distinctions (persons). He was not revealed as a single divine being, as traditionally had been conceived. God is one being in one sense and three persons in a different sense. He is one God who created the universe in one sense and three persons who share the same essence in a different sense.[iv] There are three persons denominated: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God. The scene of the baptism depicts a clear picture of God as Trinity. When Jesus was in the water, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This scene shows that the Christian God is one divine being in three persons.
The prologue of the Gospel of John has the strongest argument for the Trinity. John says in the first verse of the book: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here is an indication of the divinity of the Word. There is a clue that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet there is fellowship between them. As Wayne Grudem suggests, “the preposition pros (“with”) does not connote merely physical proximity to the Father but an intimacy of fellowship as well.”[v]
Jesus is described as the word and the spirit of God in the Qur’an (Surah 4:171) as well. Most Muslims believe that the word of God is eternal; however, they do not believe that Jesus is eternal with God.
A Historical Explanation
Believing in the trinitarian God does not mean believing in three separate gods but believing in one divine being who is revealed in three persons. Since the doctrine of tawḥid implements numerical meaning, it is hard for Muslims to understand the word Trinity in a non-numerical sense—a metaphysical sense. This is the reason that pushed the Christian Arab apologists to use the word اقنوم (pl. اقانيم) (Uqnoum, pl. Aqanim) to convey the idea of the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). The word Aqanim is never used in the Arabic language, except in the doctrine of the Trinity to covey the idea of the divine persons and illuminate the similarities with the concept of the human person. According to Imad Shehadeh, who is a leading contemporary scholar on the subject of the Trinity in Jordan, “the only benefit from using this word [Uqnoum] in Arabic language is to distance the word ‘person’ from God and substitute it with a foreign and an unknown word that conveys its meaning.”[vi] In other words, dedicating a special terminology to the divine Person indicates a special meaning and illuminates the confusion with the human/physical meaning of the word person. In my opinion, this term should be used in conversation with Muslims to avoid the tritheism confusion that might arise from the human concept of a human being as individual consciousness. The divine Aqanim (persons) are three in a way that does not apply to human persons and cannot be read off from human experience apart from revelation.
A Philosophical Explanation
Muslims believe that Allah is an eternal divine being and the creator of the world. In other words, there was no time before Allah, there was nothing that existed before him, and there was no time in history when Allah did not exist. However, this explanation does not make Allah the greatest conceived being because it does not show the relational nature of Allah before creating the universe. Allah has to be relational in nature because he listens, communicates, and receives worship. This is to say that Allah has a relationship with his creation, he did not create the world and left it to face its own destiny. However, if Allah is truly unipersonal and relational with his creation, what about his relationality before the creation? Who was Allah hearing, seeing, and watching before the creation of the cosmos? To whom was he showing kindness and love? All these divine attributes/names require either otherness in the inner being of Allah or another person/creation external to him. Before creation, there could not have been co-communion, mutual recognition, or altruism in Allah because there is no external differentiation to him or internal diversity in him. This limitation makes Allah dependent on his creation. He needs it in order to be the Hearer (as-Sami’), the Seer (al-Baṣir), the Kind (al-Laṭif), the Watcher (ar-Raqib), and the Loving (al-Wadud.) These attributes were disabled before creation. They were not actualized until Allah created the cosmos.
In Christianity, this problem does not exist because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God lives eternally in an intra-relationship (not alone) within himself, and in an inter-relationship with humanity after creation. The three Aqanim are united by their common divinity or whole generic essence. “The persons are also unified by their joint redemptive purpose and work,” says Cornelius Plantinga, “Their knowledge and love are directed, not only to their creatures but also primordially and archetypally to each other. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. . . The Trinity is thus a zestful community or divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.”[vii] The divine richness is understood in terms of relationality, with a communion of unity among the three Aqanim. The terms Father and Son are relational terms. One cannot be a parent without having a child and vice versa. Hence, by referring to God as Father, Christians conceive God as being eternally in relation to Himself; this relationship of fatherhood is, in the eternal sense, with the Son.[viii] God is not three separate persons/beings, such as in human person/individual. Instead, He is a unity in diversity.
The belief that God is one divine being and three Aqanim is not self-contradictory because the supposition that “God is either one or three” is logically fallacious. This belief represents the false dichotomy or, what is called, a false dilemma or the black/white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices are presented yet more exist.[ix] Suggesting that God is either one or three, ignores the option that Christianity presents. The Trinity is a divine, transcendent community of three divine Aqanim: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologians tend to be very careful about how to use analogies to explain the Trinity because many of the analogies that were historically used conveyed a form of modalism or tritheism. The following analogy is not meant to be literal, but it is intended to answer the question: “how can God be one and three without any contradiction?” Every man/woman is made as one human being and one person. Beethoven, for instance, is a human being because he belongs to the human race, and he is a unique person because of his musical skills, talents, DNA, personality… etc. His personhood is what makes him unique from Mozart or other musicians. He is a human being in one sense and a unique musician/person in another sense. In other words, he is both without a contradiction. In like manner, Christians believe that the Trinity is not a self-contradictory argument because while God is a divine being, He is also three Aqanim. He is a divine being in one sense because He belongs to the divine realm (not to the human race), and he is three Aqanim—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in a different sense because He belongs to his own realm Sui generis, where nothing is like him. It would be considered a contradiction if God is one divine being and three persons in the same sense.
Bibliography
Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6. Accessed April 30, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm.
Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 3rd ed. MI: Baker Academic, 2015.
Holland, Richard, jr. and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking. Baker Academic, 2017.
McCall, Thomas H. “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective.” In Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Edited by Sexton, Jason S. MI: Zondervan, 2014.
Plantinga, Cornelius, jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.
Shehadeh, Imad. Al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness]. Al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009.
Wainwright, Arthur. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975
Footnotes
[i] “Trinity,” s.v. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Baker Academics, 2017).
[ii] Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975), 45.
[iii] “παράκλητος (paraklētos),” s.v. Lexham Theological Wordbook, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2014.
[iv] Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6, accessed April 30, 020,
[v] Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3rd ed., (MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 112.
[vi] Imad Shehadeh, al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness], (al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009), 31. The original Arabic renders as: “الفائدة الوحيدة في استخدام هذه الكلمة في اللغة العربية هي ابعاد كلمة ’الشخص’ عن الله واستبدالها بكلمة اجنبية غير معروفة في معناها.”
[vii] Cornelius Plantinga jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 31.
[viii] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective,” in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Sexton, Jason S. ed., (MI: Zondervan, 2014), 133.
[ix] Richard Holland Jr, and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking (Baker Academic, 2017), 39.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sherene was also involved in her local church among the youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen.
Sherene is an assistant professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. She holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and a B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. She is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and an M.A in Arabic and Linguistics from PennWest University.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3udDybq
The lies that are killing us: A conversation about suicide | with Jon Noyes
PodcastAfter four years of speaking to rooms overflowing with young people at Reality conferences across the country, Jon Noyes from Stand to Reason has some powerful insights to share on the topic of suicide. Incredibly, over half of all suicides occur among people who have no diagnosed mental health issues. This indicates a couple of things:
So why is it happening? In this revealing discussion, Jon Noyes speaks with Frank about the most common reason people (churched and unchurched) lose hope today and what we can do about it.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST for either of these interviews, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
The Disrespecting Marriage Act
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy John D. Ferrer
Marriage is under fire… again.
The red wave in November might have helped put out the fire, but not when the wave is just a trickle. Unless something wild happens in Arizona and Georgia, the Democrats will retain the Senate majority. Republicans will gain a slight majority in the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t start till January. That leaves a one-month window for a democrat-majority House and Senate to cram everything they can into law before New Year’s. One of those cram jobs is the “Respect for Marriage Act.”[i]
Following Senate majority leader Chuck Shumer, Democrats are expected to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The bill briefly mentions interracial marriages, which no one is disputing. that’s been legal in every state for decades now. That’s not the contentious part. This bill is written in direct opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act[ii] (1996), and intended to build on the momentum of the Obergfell decision (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Broadly speaking, the Respect for Marriage act would guarantee that any type of marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in every state. If you stop and think about that, it can get pretty absurd pretty quickly. Here’s the official summary of the bill.
Democrats seem to have a winning issue here though. The “marriage equality” rhetoric plays well to progressives, the LGBT lobby, and many libertarians. That means more publicity, votes, and money. As legislation, the bill already passed the House, and it has the votes to pass in the senate. It should have stalled out in the senate, for missing the 60 votes needed for cloture (ending debate/filibuster). But the 50 democrat votes are now joined by 12 Republicans supporting the bill.
This means, the Respect for Marriage Act can be put to a final vote, passing with a simple majority (51 votes). It will become the law of the land unless something drastic happens like senate democrats changing their vote, or a state election being overturned.
WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
Those 12 republican votes are a little surprising, because republicans have mostly opposed redefining marriage. Plus, an earlier version of the bill raised concerns about religious freedom. The bill looked like it would force people to violate their conscience or their religion. Even the most liberal republicans and RINOs would have to reject that. Remember the cake-baker case[iv]? What about the flower-shop case[v]? Or the wedding-planner case[vi]? Without a doubt, there are left-wing legal teams determined to force Christians to violate their conscience and their religion (not to mention sacrifice free enterprise and freedom of speech). So, no matter what lobbyists may say, religious freedom is a live issue facing active threats.
That, however, was the old version of the bill. A new version[vii] was amended to protect religious freedom, at least for individuals and communities. With that revision in place, those 12 republicans were free to dissent from Republican ranks.
But does it protect religious freedom? A little, but not nearly as much as it may seem. It protects religious freedom at an individual and community level (like churches), but only generally, and only when it doesn’t include the state. It says:
“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”
One big problem with this amendment is the squishy phrase: “In General.” It refers to a general principle, and since the principle applies only generally, that means many times it doesn’t apply. Simply put, “generally true” means “often false.” In legal terms, squishy words like that tend to become escape clauses. They’re loopholes, so litigious activists can get around basic rights.
Plus, you can’t build much on squishy words. They aren’t absolute, universal, or even easy to clarify. So, it’s not a strong foundation for legal protections. Anyone who’s life and livelihood is on the line (cake-bakers and wedding planners included), they have only a cold reassurance that “maybe federal law will respect your religious freedom.”
Another liability with squishy legal terms is they can squishify and dissolve whatever they touch. Whatever follows from “In General” is only generally true, so there can be exceptions. Would your case be an exception? Who knows? Instead of clear, firm, and absolute statements protecting people’s religious freedoms, this amendment offers only a generality, a great big “Maybe?!” That’s little reassurance for the next small-business owner facing a class-action lawsuit with the full-force of the LGBT-lobby against them. A squishy fortress is no fortress at all.
IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS
Another big problem with the amendment is that there’s not a single word protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in the form of state laws and elections. Voting is free speech. You can’t be legally forced to vote against your conscience. If the people across the state were to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment or a particular law, that’s an expression of free speech. The Respect for Marriage Act threatens to strike down any competing state-level constitutions or laws, never minding the voice and conscience of the people who voted that legislation into existence.
Suppose for example, Iowans were to pass a law, across the state of Iowa, reflecting their deeply held beliefs about adoption practices and gay couples. If that law ran head-on into the Respect for Marriage Act, then the federal law would have right of way in the collision. The federal law would be violating people’s freedom of speech (in voting) and freedom of religion (in voting their conscience).
IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE
Setting aside the shaky amendment, there’s a deeper problem with the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a glaring misnomer. It’s not respecting marriage at all, not unless we abandon the standing institution of marriage from the start of human history till about five minutes ago. Al Mohler calls it “Orwellian” because it hides a profound disrespect for marriage behind a sneaky politispeak title: “Respect for Marriage Act” (see, Al Mohler, The Briefing[ix], Nov. 17, 2022 – 23:42)
This Act treats marriage as merely a social construct that people can define and redefine at will. It’s as if states can create a new category of marriage, at will. But that framing runs contrary to human history, natural law, not to mention Scripture. Marriage isn’t a social construct, it’s more like a natural law, or even a force-of-nature. It’s built-in. It’s something we discover as a facet of God’s creation. We didn’t create marriage. God did (Genesis 2:19-25; Matthew 19:4-6). It’s also a gracious gift from God. We’re in no place to take God’s gift of marriage and say, “God, you didn’t design it right; here let me fix it up for you.”
Ethically speaking, we’re playing God if we think we have the authority to redefine marriage according to trending fashions. It’s pretty disrespectful towards God and towards marriage, to invent other partnerships that history, nature, and God never called “marriage” and think we have somehow expanded the institution of marriage to include them. We can play around with words all we want, but the institution of marriage precedes us. It’s bigger than us. And it comes from God. So, it isn’t subject to our language games. We can’t redefine marriage any more than we can replace the wings of a plane mid-flight.
IT’S OPEN-ENDED
It’s been said that people should be careful they’re not so open minded that their brains fall out. The same applies to an open definition of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act fortifies an open view of marriage to where any state can change their definition and all other states would have to accept it, no matter how ridiculous that redefinition may be. Imagine if Utah reinstated polygamy. Or, if Texas lowered the age of marital consent to 12 (no offense Texas). Or, if California approved bigamy (2+ marriages at once). Or New York granted marriage status to any two roommates seeking tax benefits. Or if Florida granted dolphins “person” status so people can marry them. Or if Oregon allowed twelve different people to “identify” as just two people in marriage – every other state would be forced to accept any or all of these arrangements.
Bear in mind, marriage is what it is, regardless of terminology. Every state would have to affirm a lie, accepting as “marriage” what, in reality, is not a marriage. Every state in the union would have to adjust their health codes, family laws, child-protective services, domestic abuse laws, employment ethics, tax codes, health insurance, medical standards, adoption laws, housing and real-estate categories, and everything else impacted by these alternative “marriages”. All that because a federal law is demanding that everyone in every state: “Obey, or else.” Even if we set aside the religious, and ethical problems with this legislation, it’s so monstrously impractical it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY
To be clear here, I don’t think society should prevent two mentally-fit unmarried adults from marrying each other. Even if they’re gay, bi-, or trans, they have the same natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. No one is stopping gay people from participating in their equal right to marry; and marriage is with someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage has meant for thousands of years, across all cultures, and all established world religions, to where it’s been a cultural universal and a common-sense admission by everyone everywhere till about 5 minutes ago. It’s redundant to even call it “traditional marriage.” It’s just called marriage. We’ve had to clarify in recent years that we (Christian conservatives) mean the same thing by “marriage” that almost everyone across history has meant by “marriage.” We mean it in the traditional sense. We don’t mean it in the recently revised socially-constructed sense. We’re talking about the long-tested and well-proven institutional bedrock for societies across every remotely successful civilization in history. We’re talking about the sacred social institution whereby women are protected, men are disciplined, and children are raised more effectively than any other family model. Even polygamous cultures treated marriage as one-man plus one woman; they just allowed the wealthier citizens to have more than one marriage at a time.
We already had marriage equality before worldly forces began playing language games with the term “marriage,” and before subversives began launching an open assault on the nuclear family. Not only did we have marriage equality, we had civil protections and privileges for marriage, we had respect for marriage, we even had healthier marriages and stronger families before all this.
If we Christian conservatives were willing to do the hard-work to protect and preserve the better parts of family-friendly faith-based culture, we might not be in this predicament. But there’s no sense in bemoaning past mistakes. we can’t change them. We can however learn from our mistakes, so we don’t have to repeat them.
At this point, the Respect for Marriage act is Exhibit Z in a long line of evidence proving how worldly forces are dead-set on subverting institution marriage and with it the nuclear family. Fellow believers and social conservatives have an upward hill to climb here. But God is still sovereign. And there’s still time for your state representative to take courage and do the right thing. Pray hard folks. Get the word out. And maybe write your local representative and tell them to vote against this Disrespecting Marriage Act.
What follows is the text of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). Accessed 20 Nov 2022 at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=947&s=6
Footnotes
[i] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
[ii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396/text
[iii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404?r=947&s=6
[iv] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
[v] https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/91615-2-0.html
[vi] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-10/303-Creative-cert-stage.pdf
[vii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf
[viii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf
[ix] https://open.spotify.com/episode/08Prpo2UN4zXtOTROWJBZY
[x] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter115-front&num=0&edition=prelim
Recommended resources related to the topic:
4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek
Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3EYkP9O
Scribes & Scripture: How We Got the Bible | with John Meade & Peter Gurry
PodcastAtheists and skeptics such as Bart Ehrman have enflamed fear and doubt regarding the reliability of the Bible for years by mentioning staggering numbers such as the roughly 500,000 variants found in the Old and New Testament manuscripts. The goal behind these statistics (usually provided without any context) is to undermine our confidence in the Holy Book. Textual critics and scholars, Dr. Peter Gurry and Dr. John Meade are here to set the record straight in their fantastic new book, Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible.
In this week’s episode Frank gets down to the tough questions like; How many variants are there really? How much do these variants change or compromise the reliability of today’s Bible? Should we be concerned about people intentionally changing the original texts? How much of this field is simply guesswork? and Can we still believe our modern-day Bible is both inspired and inerrant? Plus, you’ll get a quick overview of the canonization of the Bible we have today. Why were some books included and others excluded? To hear the answers to these important questions make sure you listen to this fascinating interview. To dive deeper into this topic make sure to order your copy of Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible HERE, or consider inviting Dr. Gurry & Dr. Meade to your church for their Scribes & Scripture: A Conference on the History of the Bible.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST for either of these interviews, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Cómo “mantenerse alerta” hasta que regrese Cristo
EspañolPor Jason Jimenez
Según el Discurso del Olivar (Mateo 24-25; Marcos 13; Lucas 21), Jesús profetizó que el mundo se oscurecería antes de regresar por su Esposa, la iglesia.
Vemos el incremento de engaño y confusión que consume al mundo y las consiguientes amenazas de los países enemigos.
Jesús advirtió: “Se levantará nación contra nación, y reino contra reino” (Mateo 24:7). Jesús predijo que sus seguidores experimentarían una intensa persecución e incluso la muerte para algunos (Mateo 24:9). Pedro advirtió a sus lectores que vendría una severa persecución y que en los “últimos días vendrán burladores, con su sarcasmo, siguiendo sus propias pasiones” (2 Pe. 3:3). Pablo escribió enérgicamente que “en los últimos días vendrán tiempos difíciles.” (2 Tim. 3:1), y que en los “últimos tiempos algunos apostatarán de la fe” y que incluso “prestando atención a espíritus engañadores y a doctrinas de demonios” (1 Tim. 4:1).
Por ello, no debe sorprendernos que las cosas se vuelvan progresivamente más oscuras e inquietantes en nuestra cultura.
Pero aunque las cosas parezcan sombrías, eso no significa que los cristianos deban tener una visión “pesimista” de la vida o ignorar los tiempos que vivimos hoy.
Todo lo contrario.
La Biblia nos dice explícitamente: “Estad alerta, velad” (Mc. 13:33) hasta que Cristo vuelva. Eso no suena a alguien paranoico o que eluda su responsabilidad.
En Mateo 25:14-30, Jesús comparte una parábola de un amo que da una parte de sus talentos para ilustrar el significado de trabajar y esperar su regreso. A su regreso, el amo se encontró con que dos de sus siervos habían aportado rentabilidad a su inversión. Por desgracia, el otro siervo había enterrado su talento, sin producir nada (25:24-25). El amo respondió diciendo: “Siervo malo y perezoso, sabías que siego donde no sembré y que recojo donde no esparcí?” (25:26).
La comprensión de la parábola es muy clara. Jesús te ha dado dones y talentos específicos para que los inviertas en un mayor rendimiento. No debes perder el tiempo o tomar lo que el Señor te ha dado para tu beneficio egoísta. Estás llamado a ser “sal y luz” en la cultura y aprovechar cada oportunidad para reinvertir lo que Dios te ha dado para su gloria y honor.
Pero quizás tu perspectiva de la vida está un poco gastada. Tal vez te resulte difícil tener una mentalidad de “trabajar duro” y “mantenerse preparado” mientras vives el día a día.
Sea lo que sea lo que te hace tropezar o lo que te hace ser ineficaz en tu fe, aquí hay tres preguntas de autorreflexión para reavivar una preparación en tu espíritu para vivir tu vida cristiana con gran anticipación.
¿Anhelas ser santo como Dios?
Dios no te ha llamado a conformarte con el mundo, sino a ser transformado por su perfecta voluntad para tu vida (Rom. 12:2). ¿Y cuál es la voluntad de Dios para tu vida? Ser santo como Él es santo (ver 1 Tesalonicenses 4:3; 1 Pedro 1:15-16).
¿Y tú? ¿Estás demasiado envuelto en las comodidades de la vida que apenas anhelas la santidad de Dios?
En su clásico libro, Pursuit of Holiness, Jerry Bridges expresó esta sensata verdad: “A medida que nos volvemos blandos y perezosos en nuestros cuerpos, tendemos a volvernos blandos y perezosos espiritualmente”.
Sin duda, al reflexionar, descubrirás vetas de pereza en tu vida, muchas excusas que has puesto por razones egoístas, y pecados “respetables” que has justificado, pero que ahora podrían hacerte avergonzar.
Pero no dejes que el peso de tu pecado te arrastre. Juan escribió: “Hijitos míos, os escribo estas cosas para que no pequéis. Y si alguno peca, Abogado tenemos para con el Padre, a Jesucristo el justo. Él mismo es la propiciación por nuestros pecados, y no solo por los nuestros, sino también por los del mundo entero.” (1 Jn. 2:1-2).
Cuanto más diligente seas en confesar el pecado y buscar la santidad, más se usará tu vida para Dios.
¿Qué grado de madurez tiene tu fe?
Un querido amigo me dijo una vez: “La salvación es igual para todos, pero el crecimiento cristiano es diferente para todos”.
Eso es muy cierto.
Entonces, permíteme preguntarte, ¿cuánto tiempo dedicas a leer, estudiar y memorizar las Escrituras?
La Biblia es como cualquier otro tema. No sabrás mucho de ella si no dedicas tiempo a aprender de ella.
Para tener una fe madura, es necesario estar en la Palabra de Dios.
Estar en la Palabra de Dios diariamente agudizará tu fe y te dará la sabiduría necesaria para tomar decisiones sabias. La Biblia te promete que si creces en tu fe, no serás “ocioso ni estéril en el verdadero conocimiento de nuestro Señor Jesucristo” (2 Pe. 1:8).Pablo le dio este encargo a Timoteo, y lo mismo se aplica a ti y a mí: “ Procura con diligencia presentarte a Dios aprobado, como obrero que no tiene de qué avergonzarse, que maneja con precisión la palabra de verdad.” (2 Tim. 2:15).
¿Estás viviendo una vida fiel?
Todo cristiano debe caminar en fiel obediencia a Dios y cumplir la Gran Comisión (Mc. 16:15).
Un gran ejemplo de alguien en la Biblia que vivió una vida fiel es Daniel. Dios llamó a Daniel a resistir un ambiente hostil en Babilonia y a liderar un ataque contra sus falsos ídolos y adoración.
Daniel no rechazó el llamado de Dios sólo porque se sintiera fuera de lugar o superado en número. La Biblia dice que Daniel “resolvió no contaminarse” (Dan. 1:8), sino que permaneció fiel a la ley de Dios.
La valiente lealtad de Daniel a Dios demuestra un deseo implacable de no comprometerse ni ceder a la presión mundana. Su respuesta, que honra a Dios, en medio de la presión y la hostilidad extremas, es el tipo de ejemplo que debes emular en el mundo actual.
Aquellos que desean vivir vidas fieles deben estar dispuestos a entregar sus vidas por el bien del evangelio.
¿Es algo que estás dispuesto a hacer?
Recuerda, amigo mío, que cuando llegues a tus límites y empieces a preocuparte, es Dios quien es fiel y te amará pase lo que pase.
Así que, mientras persigues la santidad, la madurez y la fidelidad, pídele al Espíritu Santo que llene tu vida con más amor, pasión, convicción y hambre de Él.
El Espíritu Santo lo hará si lo pides simplemente con fe.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jiménez es presidente de STAND STRONG Ministries y autor de Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. Para más información, visite www.standstrongministries.org
Fuente del blog original: https://bit.ly/3cOA8GA
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Elenita Romero
Whether Christians Should Study Philosophy
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy JD Kline
Question: I am curious whether Christians should study philosophy.
Answer: At some point, you may have heard it said, “Christians should not study philosophy because the Bible warns believers to beware of philosophy.” Colossians 2:8 describes it as “empty deceit” and of the “traditions of men,” or “worldly” and not of Christ. Some believe the very nature of its discourse will talk its followers right out of belief in God. Therefore, it is believed, that not only is the study of philosophy unbiblical. It leads one to skepticism. I was once told, “All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” Or “just have faith.”
However, this is not biblically accurate nor is it necessarily true. In the wrong hands, philosophy can be dangerous. But, in my experience, philosophy has brought me into a closer relationship with God. As the giver of wisdom (Proverbs 2:6, James 1:5), I can know Him more deeply and shed whatever intellectual barriers of reluctance obscuring a head-to-heart connection.
God is not anti-philosophy. God says, “Come, now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). Furthermore, the Scriptures teach us to love the lord, God, with our minds (Luke 10:27); and to destroy lofty arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). The Scriptures, in other words, command us to develop our God-given rational faculties and use it to live our lives wisely in pursuit of Christ. We learn from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to persuasively answer for the hope that is in us. Believe it or not, this is the task of philosophy. Listen, now, to the voices of our past.
Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy
The late Norman Geisler states that “We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy”[i] Furthermore, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”[ii]
C.S. Lewis states, “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were educated. But a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[iii]
Puritan, Cotton Mather once said, “Ignorance is the Mother not of Devotion but of Heresy.”[iv] This may not be about philosophy, specifically, but it is a charge against the anti-intellectual movement within the Church for all time. Therefore, the Church cannot afford to be ignorant regarding philosophy because philosophy leads to knowledge of God while the snake of heresy lies waiting to prey on the ignorant and twist the spirit of our devotion (truth)– for confusion and lies. Beware of those who try to reason you out of philosophy because their philosophy on Philosophy is philosophically ignorant. In their piety, they lead one not into devotion but heresy. Philosophy is a handmaiden for the truth about God.
The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy
Notice, the very question itself demands the use of what it intends to refute. At its core, “why should Christians study philosophy?” is a philosophical question in nature. To answer a philosophical question, then, would require the use of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, to deny the use of reason would require the use of reason to successfully deny it. That is self-refuting. It is like saying, “never say never,” but only, “The reason we ought not to use reason is that there is no biblical reason for it.” False. In fact, we should study philosophy because philosophy informs readers of the Bible on how to interpret and understand the Bible. Have you ever considered the rules for interpreting literature? Philosophy guides the principles and methods we use of interpreting the Biblical text – a discipline called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a philosophical enterprise. We couldn’t do theology, or any of the sciences for that matter, without philosophy. It is foundational to knowledge. Indeed, philosophy permeates every aspect of our lives and how we live it. Even if we don’t realize it, each of us has a philosophy about philosophy and whether Christians ought to study it. So, what is philosophy?
Defining Philosophy
Quite simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom. In other terms, philosophy is learning how to think rightly and logically about what is, such as: what is real, what is true, what is beautiful, and so on. It is the pursuit of truth. Jesus, who is God, is the truth (John 14:7). Therefore, in my view, when one studies philosophy, they are in pursuit of God. What we decide about Him then becomes a matter of faith – to believe or not to believe.
Conclusion
I can go on, but the truth is that much has been written about whether Christians should study philosophy and why. I would be remiss not to direct you to some prominent voices of our own time and allow their work to guide you.
For Further Study
J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with All Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).
Norm Geisler. Why Christians Should Study Philosophy.
Bibliography
Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.
Lewis, C.S. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.
Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).
Potter, Doug. Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/
Footnotes
[i] Norman Geisler. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.
[ii] Doug Potter, Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/
[iii] C.S. Lewis. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.
[iv] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012). 16
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Kline (aka, JD Kline) is an experienced chaplain and former pastor. Jason earned his Master of Divinity degree from Liberty University and completed Clinical Pastoral Education training through Atrium Wake Forest Baptist Hospital. Jason’s area of interest is on issues pertaining to moral injury and spiritual hurt. By his personal admonition, he notes that he does not write as a scholar but as a friend. His desire is to pass along what he has learned, as he contends earnestly for the faith. Jason works as an adjunct professor at Carolina Bible College and was trained through NGIM (Norman Geisler International Ministries).
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3EtJphi
Who Created and Fine-Tuned the Universe? | With Dr. William Lane Craig
PodcastIn this mid-week bonus episode of the, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist podcast, Frank sits down with legendary philosopher, Dr. William Lane Craig, for a fascinating discussion on the beginning of the universe. Dr. Craig is perhaps best known for his work on the Kalam Cosmological Argument which offers an excellent philosophical foundation (supported by physics) for a theistic creator. What type of theistic creator might that be? Only one meets the criteria! Listen to this great conversation between Frank and one of his greatest influences, recorded at the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting in Denver, CO. Then go subscribe to the Reasonable Faith podcast to hear more from the brilliant mind of Dr. William Lane Craig.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
A Reflection on Giving Thanks
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
Several years ago, I had the privilege of meeting a World War II fighter pilot. Then in his late 80’s, in 1944 he took part in a key battle of the war in the Pacific, a last-ditch effort by the Japanese to repel the American reoccupation of the Philippine Islands. Known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, it pitted the last remnants of Japanese naval power against a vastly inferior American force, left behind to oversee the American landings while the bulk of American striking power had gone off in search of the enemy. The men who fought that day, on ships and in the air, exhibited much gallantry in facing a determined enemy. Though time had ravaged this man’s body, his mind remained sharp, and before long he was recalling details of that October day those many years ago. As our conversation came to a close, I took a moment to express my thanks for what he did during the war. I thanked him for his service and his courage, and for the opportunity it provided me to live in a more stable and peaceful world.
As I reflected on this later, I realized that his actions in upholding freedom in a war-torn world did not actually involve me. He had done nothing directly for me; I was not yet even born. But I knew that if men and women like him had not risked their lives, and been willing to sacrifice all, I might not ever have been. They had earned my thanks. They, in turn, had people who had come before them, who had done things for them, and to whom heartfelt gratitude would be appropriate. Tracing backward in time, I saw for a moment an endless stream of thanksgiving moving back through the recesses of time to a beginning trapped forever in the mists of forgotten memory.
In that moment, I also saw that my gratitude was personal. It was directed at living, breathing human beings. I did not give thanks to machinery, to the steel that cocooned the pilot in the cockpit of his plane, or to the chemistry that allowed the fuel mixture to propel it forward. Nor did I thank the instruments that provided feedback to him or the gunpowder that charged his weapons. My thanks, appropriately, were directed at people – the ones who forged the steel, who had teased out the secrets of chemistry, who had built the machines and weapons that he used. My gratitude related not to the thing, but to the intelligent source that lay behind it. To a person.
What, I wondered, lies at the beginning of this seemingly endless chain? If gratitude is owed to a person, to whom did the first man and woman, or the first group of humans, give thanks? Evolution? An undirected process that did not have them in mind? And if much of what we are thankful for exists in nature – as part and parcel of the good Earth and all that is on it – to whom does this thanks belong? Giving thanks to inanimate objects is nonsensical, yet the desire to express thanks is universal. We all do it, regardless of to what time or place or culture we belong. I saw in that moment that the whole idea of gratitude, the innate desire to give thanks, presupposes an ultimate source to whom this gratitude is owed.
While the atheist too can give thanks to people who preceded him, how can he make sense of the beginning of this chain of personal thanks? With no one there who created the Earth with all its bounty and splendor, what point is there for gratitude? The Christian worldview, by contrast, does make sense of this. It is right and fitting that we express thanks to those who came before us, for their effort and toil paved the way for the good we now experience. But that chain of causation, the progression of events for which we are thankful, does not begin a month, a year or a even century ago; it continues to a beginning point, and to a source who was both all powerful and yet quite personal.
In the last analysis, it is God – a person – whom we thank for all that is good. Whether he acts directly, or through the things and people he created, it makes sense to express our gratitude to him. And what better time to begin than on this weekend set aside to remember… and to give thanks.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com
Why “Don’t Take God’s Name in Vain” is Not What You Think | with Dr. Carmen Imes
PodcastCould the secret to who we are lay hidden in the ancient past? Dr. Carmen Imes, associate professor of Old Testament Studies at Biola University, says “yes”! Specifically, Carmen directs us back to the events that took place at Mount Sinai, when the nation of Israel truly met their God. In this fascinating interview, Frank discusses issues with Carmen such as: How do the events of Mount Sinai point us to understanding our true identity today?, have we completely misunderstood the commandment ‘Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain’?, and what does it mean to bear God’s image vs. to bear God’s name?
Carmen discusses all of this and more in her recent book, Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters. Carmen also reveals insights from her soon-to-be-released book, Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters (coming June 2023). She unpacks how acknowledging who we are as God’s image bearers directs how we understand our purpose, identity, and significance.
Plus, Frank sits down with Phoenix Hayes, the Creative Director at CrossExamined, to discuss some of the philosophical and moral implications that follow when we divorce our identity and personhood from our biology.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians (including Frank) while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
To get your copy of Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters click here: https://amzn.to/3gahNG5
To pre-order your copy of Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters click here: https://amzn.to/3V57T79
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher