July 25, 2007
Islam: A lesson for Christianity
Ever wonder how and why Islam spread so quickly after its birth, and why so many lands that were Christian became Muslim? I did, so I researched the subject and wrote a ten-page paper on it for my Church History course. For this blog article though, I will give you a highly condensed version of the paper and only highlight the main points.
The main conclusion drawn from my research was that the areas most affected by heresy (the Middle East and North Africa) were the areas that eventually became Muslim. Arianism, Monophysitism, and Nestorianism plagued these lands so much that in some cases the local population helped the Muslim invaders defeat the Byzantine, Christian rulers. The molding of Christianity under Greek culture in the Byzantine Empire tended to alienate non-Greek populations from orthodoxy and encourage the molding of Christianity to their culture and different beliefs. They were persecuted for these beliefs and some saw a change in authority as a better option.
These lands were conquered militarily by the Muslim Arabs, but conversions were not made by the sword. Non-Muslims suffered a special tax and some political disadvantages. Over the centuries, in some places faster than others, the population eventually became Muslim. It seems that without the fullness of the Christian Faith, virtually all these Christian sects succumbed to the political-religious phenomenon of Islam. Unlike the Roman persecution of Christians centuries before, there were few heroic acts of martyrdom or adherence to Christianity.
History can teach us a lot about today and the future. In light of recent events, we in the West better think twice before we discard the Truth and the fullness of the Faith. Pursuing it in Christ and His Church is best way to defeat any heresy, any evil. May ecumenical dialogue and ongoing conversion that begins with “me” bring the fruit of peace in the world.
In Christ,
Daniel
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
It almost seems like we have a historical "paper-scissor-rock" situation where people choose weak-Christianity over strong-Christianity, choose Islam over weak-Christianity, and choose strong-Christianity over Islam.
I've often wondered why the left-leaning crowd, which finds repulsive anything resembling patriarchy in Christianity (only male priests for example), goes to such great lengths to accomodate Islam - which does not even strive to treat men and women with equal dignity.
Would Dan Brown and Robin Williams dare to insult the Islamic faith the way they insult Christianity?
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at July 27, 2007 11:51 AMDiscussing theology with a follower of Islam is always interesting for me. Many Muslims believe all Christians are Muslims, as they believe in one God. In the midst of ugly divisions, the acceptance seems intoxicating, I must admit. However, in responding in true form, I must dig up several points proving the Holy Trinity. When trying to convince a Muslim that Jesus is/was God, I test my beliefs and realize the importance of Bible and Church knowledge.
Who wrote that the promised Messiah of the Old Testament was going to be God? Are Christian heretics for calling Christ God? Did the early Christians need 300 years to intellectualize and justify Christ's divinity with idea of the Trinity? Do Christians conclude in Christ's divinity and backtrack throughout history looking for a few verses in the Bible that may support their bais?
Interesting questions. Any answers?
Thanks for the help.
Michael O.
Posted by: Michael O. at July 31, 2007 02:59 PMMichael O,
My knowledge of early Church history is abysmal so I'll leave it to others to comment on the early Christians. As for the Scriptures, the parts that first come to mind concerning the divinity of Christ:
Jesus forgave sins of a paralytic despite the Pharisees objection that God alone can forgive sins, the Word was God and was made flesh, "before Abraham was, I am", Christ did not cling to divinity but emptied himself, and Jesus did not rebuke people for worshipping him even though his Disciples tore their clothes when they were worshipped. I'm sure the Early Church Fathers must have brought much more Scripture that was used at the Council of Nicaea.
I'm pretty sure that if one wants to dismiss Jesus' claims to divinity one first needs to reject idea that the Sacred Scriptures derive their content from eyewitnesses. It is my understanding that Islam believes the Sacred Scriptures to have been corrupted - particularly by Saint Paul.
I would also conjecture that before discussing the divinity of Christ, the "fatherhood of God" needs to first be established. "Our Father who art in heaven". Can Jesus rightly call God "Father"? and can we rightly call God "Father"?
Scott Hahn, (convert from Calvinism to Catholicism) recalls dialogue with a Muslim who grew increasingly offended as Scott constantly referred to God as "Father". The Muslim explained that even the best of us, even Jesus, is like a filthy dog before Allah. Allah's love is like the love of an owner for a pet, not like the love of a father for son. It is beneath the dignity of Allah to become flesh, to send his son, to become one of us, and thus it did not happen.
If we tackle this question first, I think we will find that despite even stronger support for the "Fatherhood of God" (compared to the "Divinity of Christ") - Islam rejects this more fundamental point and thus the Scriptures. Now if the Son of Man is not also the Son of God, how can we even begin to discuss the question of whether the Son of God is also God?
The Divinity of Christ is also a sticking point with Jehovah's Witness - makes me wonder what they think of the Fatherhood of God.
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at August 1, 2007 09:27 AMMichael O.
Writes; "Who wrote that the promised Messiah of the Old Testament was going to be God?" Where in the O T does it say the Messiah would not be God? Just quickly coming to mind from http://scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html
Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" in reference to Himself.
Psalm 62:12 - the Lord God renders to each according to his work - Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12 - Jesus so renders to each according to his work.
Isaiah 44:6 - the Lord God is the first and the last - Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 - Jesus is the first and the last.
Are Christian heretics for calling Christ God? Are Arians heretics for denying the divinity of Christ?
John 6:38 - Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven."
John 8:12 - Jesus says "I am the light of the world." - 1 John 1:5 - God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.
John 8:19 - Jesus says, "if you knew me, you would know my Father also."
John 8:23 - Jesus says that He is not of this world. Only God is not of this world.
John 8:58 - Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Exodus 3:14 - "I AM" means "Yahweh," which means God.
John 10:18 - Jesus says He has the power to lay down His life and take it up again - Gal. 1:1 - God raised Jesus to life.
John 10:30 - Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus' statement in John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I," cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus' statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh.
Did the early Christians need 300 years to intellectualize and justify Christ's divinity with idea of the Trinity? see above + “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin." Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).
"For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 121 (A.D. 155).
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at August 1, 2007 01:24 PMWWWO,
Thanks for the verses. However, as the book of John is poetic and quite distict from the other gospels, are we basing the divinity of Christ on verses taken out of context? Is Christ merely expressing human nature's desire for God and our souls' yearning for heaven?
Michael O.
Michael O.
From your recent post I surmise that you are satisfied with the OT evidence and the testimony of the fathers (before 300 ad) who were taught by the 12 directly.
I think my list of John perhaps did not satisfy your need to have the NT revalation. So to return to borrow from "scripture catholic" I will add for you these other NT quotes:
Acts 3:15 - Peter said the men of Israel "killed the Author of Life." This can only be God - Acts 14:15 - who made all things.
Rom. 9:5 - Jesus Christ is God over all, blessed forever.
1 Cor. 15:9 - Paul says he persecuted the Church of God - Matt. 16:18; Rom. 16:16 - it is the Church of Jesus Christ.
Phil. 2:6-7 - Jesus was in the form of God, but instead of asserting His equality with God, emptied Himself for us.
Titus 1:3-4 - God our Savior = Christ our Savior = Jesus Christ is God.
Titus 3:4 - 3:6 - great God and Savior Jesus Christ = God our Savior = Jesus Christ our Savior = Jesus is God.
Jude 4 - Jude calls Jesus Christ our only Master and Lord. Our only Master and Lord is God Himself.
Luke 8:39 - Luke reports that Jesus said "tell how much God has done for you." And the man declared how much Jesus did.
Re: PROSKUNEO
Rev. 4:9-11; 5:8,12-14; 7:11-12 - both Jesus and the Father are worshiped. The Greek word for worship is "proskuneo" which always means the worship of God.
Matt. 2:2,11 - the magi who came to see the newborn Jesus came to worship Him.
Matt. 8:2 - a leper came to Jesus and worshiped Him without rebuke.
Matt. 14:33 - the apostles who were in the boat worshiped Jesus without rebuke.
Matt. 28:9 - Jesus' disciples took His feet and worshiped Him without rebuke.
Matt. 28:17 - Jesus' disciples saw Him and then worshiped Him.
Mark 5:6 - the man with the unclean spirit ran to Jesus and worshiped Him.
Luke 1:11 - Mary accepts Elizabeth's declaration "the Mother of my Lord" = the Mother of my God (Elizabeth used the word "Adonai" which means "Lord God").
Luke 24:52 - as Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles worshiped Him.
John 9:38 - the blind man who was cured by Jesus worshiped Him.
John 20:28 - Jesus accepts Thomas' statement "My Lord and my God!" Literally, "the Lord of me and the God of me!" (in Greek, "Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou").
In Love
when we were one
P.S.
Michael O
This entire discussion with you reminds me of why I am Catholic. I have many Protestants friends and some Muslims. The Protestant Churches now number over 30,000 by Newsweek research with 5 new Protestant churches per week. Each of their churches feels that the other 30,000 are wrong re: the interpretation of scripture. The Muslims also are fractured see Iraq.
So reason dictates that there cannot be 30,000 faiths. Christ prays for 1 faith as his last wish before his capture. Ephesians notes 1 faith not 30000 and Paul berates those who call themselves Christians but do not share the same faith mind and determinations in Cor.
So scripture calls for 1 faith scripture notes that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Scripture notes that in disagreements amongst brothers you are to go to the church not churches. Christ forms a church on that rock not churches on that rock. If anyone can interpret scripture you end up as we do now.
Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the real Prescence the other 29998 don't but these 2 are 80% of Protestants. The Anglicans allow gay clergy the rest don't. The Southern Baptists and Mormons just allowed black members in the last 20 yrs the rest don't care. 50% believe in eternal security 50% don't (my estimate)...
Burnt did a better job of delineating this awhile back.
But this is not what Christ designed. We as Catholics have the church fathers who learned directly from the 12 apostles how we should take the passages. ie. the Eucharist is Literal, Jesus is God, we must keep Oral traditions... that is why as a Catholic I shake my head in disbelief as the Protestants continue to fracture creating conflicting doctrines yet we know the original interpretations.
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at August 3, 2007 03:46 PMWWWO,
Are you implying that Christians of non-Roman Catholic tradition do not believe in the Trinity? Per out discussion about Islam, I was drawing Biblical proof for Christ's divinity, via playing a devil's advocate. Your jump into the ever apparent pride of your Roman Catholicism suggests that other Christian churches do not believe in the Trinity. Where do you get this information? 50% what?
How can you believe that Mormons are Protestant Christians? The mere suggestion reveals your belief that all non-Catholics are not Christian. You often use that 30,000 Newsweek number, which is fine; but the premise of your argument loses touch with reality when you compare those numbers to “1” faith. The Roman Catholic Church may have one creed in the Vatican; however, much like a political party, underneath that big tent lays a million different viewpoints and genuine beliefs that run contrary to RCC creed. To suggest that Roman Catholics believe the same thing is ridiculous. Catholics I know have many different beliefs about the Eucharist, Holy Baptism, the meaning of the sacraments, Mariology, the final judgment, the Jews, etc. Please revisit your conclusion about the intoxicating ‘oneness’ of Catholics.
Your organization’s structure may suggest physical unity, but Christ did not intend to replace one over-structured, ceremonial, self-righteous religion with another that mimics it verbatim. Christ is the new Temple – not St. Peter’s Basilica. While many Catholic converts come from non-denominational churches, they remain quite naïve when it comes to the mainstream Christian churches of the conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans. You enjoy lumping all non-RCs into one barrel, so your conclusions are inaccurate and unconvincing.
Roman Catholics love the Greek Orthodox Church, which mystifies me. That church often represents the worse of the Christian faith, in that its priests are renowned to be unfriendly, contemptible, and seemingly unchristian- especially in the Middle East. Rome loves the Greeks' organizational structure – nothing more. I guess the way to win the heart of Rome is through a rigid, unfruitful organizational structure and spiritless bureaucracy, not through the fruit of the Spirit.
Here’s my synopsis of present day Church relations:
Anglicans love Catholics
Catholics hate Anglicans
Orthodox Greeks hate Catholics
Catholics love Orthodox Greeks
Maybe it's about time we drop all theological agruments and go home - back to the Mother Church in Constantinople.
Michael O.
Posted by: Michael O. at August 4, 2007 11:24 AMMichael O, WWWO
Do we have a misunderstanding here? I see no evidence that WWWO suggested that non-Roman Catholics reject the idea of the Trinity. Where did you get that idea, Michael?
The 50% WWWO speaks of refers to, I suspect, the split in the Protestant community over the "Perseverance of Saints" vs the possibility of "Losing one's salvation". Calvinists and Evangelicals and Lutherans and Pentecostals on one side vs Arminians, Wesleyans, and Anglicans on the other.
As for the divisions and myriad of opinions within the Roman Catholic Church, we do have a Tradition of Ecumenical Councils and a Magisterium which outlines which of these positions is the official Roman Catholic position. Yes, many reject this position and still call themselves Roman Catholic but one can tell that they are at odds with the Roman Catholic teachings. In other words, the dissenters can be seen as such from both the inside and the outside. Is there any confusion in your mind as to which of the Catholics you know are dissenting and which are submitting to Catholic teaching?
Within Protestantism, however, I have no way to tell either from within or from without who is the dissenter and who is representing the authentic biblical teaching.
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at August 4, 2007 04:41 PMMichael O. and Burnt
Michael, sorry, I seem to have offended you. Burnt as usual has more gracefully presented my points.
But as usual you have raised some interesting points. I do understand that most Protestants bellieve in the Trinity, was it not you who came with questions re: the divinity of Christ? Can you have a Trinity without a divine Christ? Do you view Pentecostals as Christian? Do all Pentecostals believe in the trinity? Do you view the Willowcreek Christians as Christians? The largest Willowcreek Church in my area has voted to stop using the word "Trinity".
"Your organization’s structure may suggest physical unity" you clearly have misconceptions of the Church as Burnt points out, we have doctrines and disciplines. Doctrines define Catholics and are non negotiable, disciplines are negotiable. What are the doctines of Protestants? Do you Michael speak for all Protestants?.. Burnt and I are seeking this person. For where I get my data is Newsweek April 2001 who reviewed a study put out by...Anglicans. On the early church I prefer and suggest for you The Four Witnesses by evangelical Baptist Rod Bennett in that Protestant work you may find truly why Catholics love the Greeks and why you should too. Be warned that book may destroy cheaply fabricated misunderstandings of Catholic motivation.
I await your post.
In Love
when we were one
