VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY AN EVALUATION OF ISLAMIC UNITARIANISM AND CHRISTIAN TRINITARIANISM

Transcription

1 VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY AN EVALUATION OF ISLAMIC UNITARIANISM AND CHRISTIAN TRINITARIANISM A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CERTIFICATE IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS COLIN BURGESS 10175

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION...3 ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM...7 WHERE THE MISUNDERSTANDING LIES...11 OBJECTIONS FROM THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION..16 THE INCARNATION...19 CONCLUSION...22 BIBLIOGRAPHY...26

3 3 INTRODUCTION One reason for the rejection Christianity, is not because of its moral teachings, but rather because some find it to be above our reasoning, one example of this is found in the Christian teaching of the 'Trinity'. It will, therefore, be my goal to dispassionately show how attacks against this fruitful doctrine are unsuccessful and their alternative lacking explanatory scope, as well as the reason of something being 'beyond our reasoning', is not going 'against our reasoning', and is, therefore, not a sufficient reason to reject an idea, but rather to examine it further, as it is with anything when examining the nature of reality, in the nature of our world, or with the nature of God. It will also be my goal, in this essay, to show how Islam has made a caricature, first, of the doctrine the Christian Trinity, then proceeded to attack the paradigm, which we, as Christians, would also reject. This refutation will attempt to adopt a 'minimal facts' approach. We should be attempting to argue this case from the 'lowest common denominator.'. What things do we, as Christians, have in common with Muslims that we can use as points of contact throughout the discussion? In the 12 Apologetic steps (See Geisler BECA) we, when witnessing to Muslims, agree that there is a theistic God and we both, at the very least, agree Jesus was a historical figure. So based on knowing there is a 'god who acts', there can now, in

4 4 the logical order of things, be 'acts of god', and events like the incarnation, miracles and the resurrection are not ontologically impossible, given a theistic universe. How then do we,...say there is 'One nature of God and there are 3 persons within this God nature/substance', without compromising the teaching that there is not 3, but 1 God, as in Judaism, which the Christian faith is predicated upon?...make sense of Jesus' Messianic self-understanding, that He was the final revelation of God to man-kind, as portrayed in the parable of the tenants in Matthew 20!?...understand Jesus being the human eschatological figure in Daniel 7....understand infinite deity taking on finite human properties, without divesting Himself of Deity? It is highly likely that the Trinity has the greatest explanatory scope with regards to these questions, as opposed to Unitarian, or Arian models. While the Christian says, God is one, there is only one God, and there are 3, coequal, co-eternal and uncaused persons, in the God-head, which are called, Father, Son&Holy Spirit. and that God became man to relate man to God,

5 5 and God to man ; the Islamic belief is that, that saying, God has a son, or that Allah has partners, is the unforgivable sin of Shirk. In fact, this is the whole message of Islam, not to know God through moral laws which He has given as necessary reflections of His nature, as Muslims are nominalists when is comes to morality, which is to say, a moral command is not referring to what is objectively right, rather a moral command is right because it comes from Allah, and Allah could have decreed otherwise. The message of Islam, as found in the Tawhid is, In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, Say, He is God, the One, God, the Self-Sufficient One. He does not give birth, nor was He born and there is nothing like Him. - Sura 112. This Sura is held to be worth a third of the whole Qur'an and the seven earths and the seven heavens are founded on it. According to tradition, to confess this verse is to shed one's sins as a man might strip a tree in autumn of its leaves. Muslim commentator, Cragg, says, The prophets (Muhammad) mission was not to proclaim God's existence, but to deny the existence of lesser deities. In defence of the Christian view, I will attempt to demonstrate that God, as a

6 6 necessary/simple being, has no composition to His nature, or essence. He was never put together to become 3, rather, He eternally and necessarily exists as 3. To say, God has a Son, and Jesus is His Son., is not saying that Jesus is created and then became God, with God, the Son relationship to the Father, within the eternal God-head, is to say that the Son 'eternally proceeds from the Father.'. With this information in mind, we can not explore what differentiates between Christianity and Islam, the Trinity vs. The Tawhid. Sources used: Answering Islam Geisler, Norman; Saleeb. Abdul. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview; Doctrine of the Trinity Craig, Moreland.

7 7 ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM Before saying one view is wrong, it is important to state specifically what the view is and then refuting the points that wrong, rather than creating a false paradigm, which the other side would equally disagree with, then proceeding to attack the false representation. This is considered a 'Straw Man' fallacy'. One can thrash away at the caricature, while the real model sits in the corner, safely, unscathed. As previously mentioned, the objective of Islam is to teach the oneness of Allah, but to what extent? Two words in the Qur'an are used to describe the oneness of God: 1. Ahad, which is the negation of any other number. 2. Wahid, which is to say, there is only one God for Muslims and for all people. To take partners and assign them to God, as mentioned in the introduction, is to commit the unforgivable sin of 'Shirk'. Sura 4:116 warns against this sin, God forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins Than this: one who joins other gods with God, hath strayed far, far away (from the right). God's oneness is clearly a fundamental part of Islam. Islam rightly affirms the Aseity of God, in that, as a necessary, uncaused being,

8 8 He is the self-existent one. (Surah 112) He does not have existence, in the proper sense of the word, rather, He is existence, and we, by extension of being caused by Him, have existence. (Sura 2:255) Much like in Hebrew, Arabic has many suffixes for the name of God, which speak of how He relates to us. In Islam, many of these names refer to Allah's sovereignty, or His justice and mercy. As Geisler&Saleeb mentions in Answering Islam, God is named from His effects, (In Islam), but He is not to be identified with any of them. Muslim commentator, Cragg, affirms that these names of God are to be understood as characteristics of the Divine will, rather than laws of His nature. As mentioned in the introduction to this essay, the Qur'an does not speak of the nature of Allah, rather it speaks of the Divine will and how we must submit to it. This is what the inflexible view on God's unity leads to, there is no way for God to have a knowable essence or nature by which we can distinguish His essence or 3 centres of consciousness. God is absolute will and absolute will must be one. This position can be summarized as such:

9 9 1. If God's will is one, there is one God and God is one. 2. A plurality of persons implies a plurality of wills. 3. God's will is one. (From p1). 4. Therefore, there is no plurality within God's nature. (From p1&2) Many verses in the Qur'an teach the oneness of Allah, reminding its readers that Allah is one, or without peer, Do not join anything in worship with Him.. * In the Philosophy of the teachings of Islam, the author first presents a rendition of the cosmological argument for the existence of a god, then emphasizes how this leads one to conclude that because nature moves toward one final cause and in an orderly fashion, that the cause itself is one, after all, if there were a plurality of persons, would there not be a plurality of wills?! The author here is not clear if this is by principle of analogy/uniformity, that an effect resembles its cause, or if this is intending to portray some sort of panentheism, that holds God is the eternal animating force of the universe. The panentheistic understanding of this author's writing is possible, since several Sufi saints and thinkers, primarily Ibn Arabi, held beliefs that were somewhat panentheistic. These notions later took shape in the theory of wahdat ulwujud (The Unity of all Things.). Some Sufi orders, notably the Bektashis and the Universal Sufi movement, continue to espouse panentheistic beliefs.

10 10 The problem here is obviously that if it is problematic, in Islam, that God took on a son in the incarnation, then any degree of panentheism would be tantamount to the same problem they are trying to escape, just recreated in another form. This will be further dealt with in the section covering the Incarnation and evaluating Islamic Monotheism. Suggested Further Reading: The Book of Monotheism Sheikh-ul-Islam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab. Sources used: Answering Islam Geisler, Norman; Saleeb. Abdul. What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an White, James. The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam Mirza Ghuliam Ahmad of Qudian. * This book does not represent orthodox Islam and this author from this sect is rejected by mainstream groups. I would not expect this sect to adequately represent orthodox Islam, anymore than I would Mormonism to represent Christianity. However, the argument portrayed here seems to represent what I know about Islam so far. It was a unique book on the Philosophical teachings of Islam, in that, I could not find its kind by a representative of Orthodox Islam. If this is a rationale shared by both groups, then I see no reason to not use this source in the absence of a better one. I hope to, someday, find a book on the philosophical foundations of Islamic worldview/thought.

11 11 WHERE THE MISUNDERSTANDING LIES Oftentimes, in debate or philosophical conjecture, the disagreement between two parties in discussion boils down to semantics. Once definitions and concepts are agreed upon, it is realized that there is very little disagreement. I will attempt to treat the Qur'an with the same fairness as I would ask a Muslim to treat the Bible and not to pretext or decontextualize passages. Before embarking on our quest, we must ask if the author of the Qur'an is even knowledgeable enough about the Trinity to both adequately portray it, then to refute it. The reason for this question is very obvious, in that, if the Qur'an is indeed inspired by an all knowing deity, then whatever truth claims it makes, it will need no contribution from the fallible mind of man. It should be noted that, whatever holy text is true, will not contain all facts, but will be factually true and will correspond to reality. (See Truth, Nature of, BECA). With this said, the exact term Trinity does not appear in the Qur'an, but does the

12 12 concept?! In Surah 4, we see a clear misunderstanding, on Muhammad's part that he had no divine insight into the doctrine of the Trinity when it portrays the teaching to be so grossly anthropomorphic saying, The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary and through His word he became a created being, and through His command, Jesus became a son without a father, all the messengers including Jesus, a son, father and wife. If in this Surah, it is said that the People of the book (Christians) have gone beyond the bounds of our religion and committed excess., and in 4:177, it is said we say, Three gods, then if it says the third person is Mary, who is God's wife, then it has demonstrated a lack of education on the matter, without divine insight, but most likely from Muhammad's exposure to Najran Christians. However, there is potential for a logical problem, if this is what Christianity has done to the nature of God, in committing excess in our religion. Are we in error? The doctrine of God's Aseity and simplicity, says that God is self-sufficient as being the uncaused cause. In other words, God cannot be caused, nor can even God create god's. God is a necessary being and necessity can cause contingency, but never necessity. Furthermore, to add to the intrinsic properties of God, we do

13 13 violence to the simplicity of God's nature, which is to say, God was never put together, complex beings have parts, whereas, that which is simple is seamless and cannot be divided from or added to. It can be summarized as such: 1. God is necessary and what is necessary does not change. 2. According to the incarnation, God changed when He took on a son. 3. Therefore, (From p1) a) God is not necessary, b) or God did not take on a son. Given Muslim's reject the incarnation, 3a is naturally rejected and 3b is accepted. As a minimal fact, premise 1 is accepted by both Islam and Christianity. It would be prudent to examine the second premise of this argument, in order to see if it is true. The Islamic understanding of what Christians have done to the nature of God is that we have added that which is caused to that which is uncaused and have assigned partners to Him, committing the sin of Shirk. We have, according to Islamic understanding, 'Multiplied gods for ourselves.'. One glaring problem for Muslims, is that they are in the same position. They hold

14 14 that the Bible is a specific revelation from Allah to specific people's at specific time, whereas the Qur'an is a general revelation from Allah to all people and this word has eternally proceeded from Allah. So while Christians, affirming John 1:1, say that the 'Word, which was eternally with the Father became flesh...', Muslims say that the 'Word, which was eternally with Allah, became a book.', and there is no self-revelation, of God, to man-kind except through a book. The argument can be summarized as such: 1. Allah's word is uncreated. (Surah 85:21-22) 2. The Qur an is Allah s word 3. Therefore, the Qur'an is uncreated. They are, in essence, still assigning partners to God and have once again recreated the problem, without escaping it, in the form of their own doctrine, but we, as Christians, are not saying the 'Word became God', or that 'Flesh became God...', we are saying that, 'That which was always God and eternally proceeded from the Father, became flesh...'. By doing so, we maintain consistency with the fact that God, in order to be God, would be uncaused and that there is one God and that the unchanging nature of God took on human properties, while maintaining undiminished Deity. The teaching that the second person of the Trinity took on human flesh, while

15 15 remaining God, is called the 'Hypostatic union.'. This teaching does not require that God change intrinsically, but that He change extrinsically, or in relation to other things, while remaining a fixed pillar. This would not be the only time God has changed extrinsically, as He did change when He became the 'Creator of the World', whereas, prior to creation, He of course was not. Thus, the doctrine of divine simplicity remains unharmed, because the second nature, which Christ assumed in the incarnation, is not essential to His Deity, nor was there intrinsic change involved in this event. This will be covered more in-depth on the section covering the Incarnation.

16 16 TRINITARIAN OBJECTION FROM THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION The law of 'Non-Contradiction', says that something cannot be true and false at the same time. (A = A, not non-a). If it can be said that the 'Trinity teaches God is both 3 persons and 1 person at the same time', this would be a false idea. If the Trinitarian model says, 'There are 3 persons in 1 nature', this is a mystery, but not a contradiction. Refuting something from ignorance is no refutation, at all, the best one can say is, 'we just don't fully know yet.'. Then again, if we could fully understand the Trinity, or any aspect of God's nature, God would not be infinite, but finite, as we with our finite minds fully understand Him, and this would stand as a legitimate objection to the existence of an all-knowing God. A human analogy could be helpful in understanding the above. Let us use Leibniz's law, which is a fancy way of saying 'The Law of Identity.' (A is A). If what is predicated of X is also predicated of Y, then X and Y are the same, if what is predicated of X is not predicated of Y, then X and Y are not the same. For instance: My mind, thoughts and words have a unity, but they are not a singularity. These things are all different, inasmuch the same way, Christ can be an expression of the Divine nature without being the same person as the Father.

17 17 To further simplify this concept, within the Trinity, we have '1 What' and '3 Who's.'. Does the Bible support this? This is reasonable to believe. I will appeal to one verse, in particular, then attempt to exegete it. Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! - Deuteronomy 6:4. The Hebrew word for One in this passage is Echad, which refers to a 'Oneness of unity', not a Numerical oneness.[yachid]. Had the word been Yachid, this would be problematic for Christians to say the Trinity coheres with Scripture. An example of the above would be: A nation [Canada], which is composed of provinces is an Echad, but the provinces within are a Yachid. The Shema is declaring that there is only one God, and that there is a plurality functioning within a unity. Thus far, the objections to the Trinity from both logic and Scriptural support, have failed. It cannot be said that this model is heretical against our foundation of thought and it certainly cannot be said that this is as illogical as squared circles, or saying 2+2=5.

18 18 Sources used: Answering Islam Geisler, Norman; Saleeb. Abdul. What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an White, James. Islam&Rationality Jubail Da'Wah&Guidance Center.

19 19 THE INCARNATION The notion of the incarnation was not that the Logos turned Himself into a human being, thereby ceasing to be God, but that Jesus was both God and Man, simultaneously since the divine nature was never abandoned by the Logos, the Incarnation could only be conceived as the acquisition by the Logos of the additional essential properties of human nature. Apollinarius found a solution, which is outlined in his anthropology. Each human consists of a body (soma), an animal soul (psyche), and a rational soul (nous). Soul and body are essentially different, but in one man conjoined in one human nature. So also in Christ there exists one nature of a part co-essential with God and another co-essential with human flesh.christ, having only a single intellect and will, belonging properly to the Logos, Christ was therefore without sinful desires and incapable of sin. Nestorians, at Ephesus in 431, condemned this, saying that in this model, there was no real union of God and man in Christ, but simply an ontological juxtaposition, or at best, an indwelling. I will attempt to show the Nestorian objection is not tenable, by presenting a proposed model, in favour of Apollinarianism, as outlined in Philosophical

20 20 Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP Moreland and William Lane Craig. 1. As proposed at Chalcedon, in Christ there is one person who exemplifies two distinct and complete natures, one human and one divine. In the sense of an individual essence, Christ does have a single nature, but His two natures are not abstract essences, but rather Kind essences, or natures, which demarcate certain natural kinds of things. Christ is all that is essentially God and all that is essentially Man. He is all that God is, and all that Man should be. These two natures are distinct and do not combine to make up a single theanthropic essence belonging to Christ, for this makes the Incarnation essential necessary and not contingent to the 2 nd person of the Trinity. The Logos has pre-existed incorporeally and possesses the human nature contingently. Christ never, at any point, ceased being God, nor did He divest Himself of Deity. It is ones nature that determines Deity, never their person. 2. The Logos is the rational soul of Jesus of Nazareth. If we are to avoid a duality of persons in Jesus Christ, the Man Jesus and the Logos must share some common constituent which unites their two individual natures. Chalcedon states there is a single hypostasis that exemplifies the human and

21 21 divine natures. The Logos, united with a single human body, much like the soul of an ordinary man. Therefore, the Logos was the image of God and the archetypal man, containing perfect human person-hood archetypally in His own nature. A doctrine implicit in the Chalcedonian formula is Enhypostasia. This teaches that Christ's individual human nature did not have its own hypostasis, it did not subsist on its own, becoming hypostatic only in its union with the Logos. The Nestorian conclusion, of 2 hypostasis in Christ, a human nature, which is enhypostatic, receiving its subsistence from another, is postulated. The hypostasis of the divine Logos exists prior to the Incarnation and then comes to possess the human nature as well, thus the individual human nature, of Christ, supervenes on the individual divine nature of the divine Logos. This allows for 2 natures to share the same hypostasis. Christ s human nature is then enhypostatic because it depends on its union with the Logos.

22 22 CONCLUSION Has this essay adequately responded to the problems posed at the beginning? How then do we,...say there is 'One nature of God and there are 3 persons within this God nature/substance', without compromising the teaching that there is not 3, but 1 God, as in Judaism, which the Christian faith is predicated upon? I believe, from both logic and theology, it has been demonstrated that with a plurality of persons within the God-head, monotheism has been maintained within Christianity and the teaching of the Trinity. Had we said that Jesus became God then we would be composing God's nature and thereby assigning partners to Him and multiplying God's for ourselves. Such is not the case, so I do not believe it possible that we, as Christians, have erred this way....make sense of Jesus' Messianic self-understanding, that He was the final revelation of God to man-kind, as portrayed in the parable of the tenants in Matthew 20!?...understand Jesus being the human eschatological figure in Daniel 7.

23 23 These two questions can be dealt with together, as Jesus having undiminished Deity in the incarnation and His self-understanding that He was the end of the line, as far as God's revelation to man goes, makes sense of both these simultaneously. Therefore, we can call Him a liar, a lunatic, or we can call Him Lord. There is no room in the text to simply call Him a good teacher and Muslims, agreeing that Jesus was a prophet, do this without warrant and act outside of the panoply of Jesus' words. It can be summarized as such: 1. Miracles confirm a truth claim by a messenger of God. 2. As witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God. 3. Jesus' claims to divinity were vindicated by a unique and unprecedented convergence of miracles. 4. Therefore, Jesus is God in human flesh. (From p2). Note: This, as with all syllogisms in this paper, is a deductive syllogism, making the conclusion inescapable, if and only if the premises are true. True, miracles were not discussed in this essay, but as a minimal fact, if Muslims agree on the gospel narratives, we are both committed to miracles and the words of Jesus. This essay is not equipped to handle the differing interpretations between our two views on the Gospels/Injeel. However, this is a clear case of Scripture being an

24 24 objective tool of reasoning, until its application and use is disagreed upon, then it tends to become subjective and proper rules of Biblical exegesis must be applied....understand infinite deity taking on finite human properties, without divesting Himself of Deity? By understanding the incarnation as being a contingent event and not necessary to the second person of the Trinity, we can say that Jesus was all God and all man in the incarnation and that by His self-limiting act, in the incarnation, He maintained being all that God is and becoming all that man ought to be, not limited by the sin nature of man. It was through this that an infinite God is able to represent Himself to finite man. It is my belief that Muslim scholars, when setting up the model of the Trinity they wish to refute, have not taken properly into account the best information available to them. It has, within these short pages, been somewhat demonstrated that objections toward the Trinity, from both philosophy and theology, have failed and that the concept of the Incarnation is not impossible or theologically reprehensible. When a reasonable working model of the Incarnation is presented, it seems

25 25 objections fall short, and even though the person of the Holy Spirit was not discussed in this essay, this does not seem necessary in light of, a) The Islamic contention with the Trinity is that we assign partners to Allah via the person of Jesus Christ. b) The nature of God is not said to be composed and His simplicity is not compromised if the 3 rd person were factored in. c) The Qur'an does not address the problem of the Trinity as including the Holy Spirit, but it postulates the Trinity to teach Allah had a wife, who is Mary. Any attempt, on the Muslim's part to knock down teachings of orthodox Christianity, is shown to only re-create the same problem on their side of the fence, if it is a problem at all, but it is clearly not a problem, since it has been easily escaped that Christians teach there is composition to the nature of God. According to the Christian model, God remains the unmoved mover and there are no peers or partners assigned to Him and now, in the incarnation, He is fully relate-able to man.

26 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY Answering Islam Geisler, Norman; Saleeb. Abdul. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview; Doctrine of the Trinity Craig, Moreland. What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an White, James. Islam&Rationality Jubail Da'Wah&Guidance Center. The Book of Monotheism - Sheikh-ul-Islam&Muhammad bib Abdul-Wahhab. The Qur an. A Translation by R.J Arberry. The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam Mirza Ghuliam Ahmad of Qudian.