Tag Archives: Islam

Books of the Bible

Is the Biblical Canon Closed? Part 2

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

This is a profound question for the Christian church.  Every year, there are new cults that emerge where a charismatic leader claims that he or she has received a revelation from God that must be added to the biblical canon.  In fact, this is exactly what happened almost 200 years ago when Joseph Smith claimed to have received revelation from God which became the Book of Mormon.

In part 1, we examined why the canon is theologically closed.  In this second post, we will look at why the canon is historically closed, and then why the canon is still only hypothetically open.  Here are Geisler and Nix again from their book A General Introduction to the Bible:

Historically the canon is closed. For there is no evidence that any such special gift of miracles has existed since the death of the apostles. The immediate successors of the apostles did not claim new revelation, nor did they claim these special confirmatory gifts. In fact, they looked on the apostolic revelation as full and final. When new cults have arisen since the time of the apostles, their leaders have claimed to be apostles in order that their books could gain recognition. Historically, the canon is closed with the twenty-seven books written in the apostolic period. They alone are and have been the books of the canon through all the intervening centuries. No other non-apostolic books have been accepted since the earliest centuries, and no new books written by the apostles have come to light. In His providence, God has guided the church in the preservation of all the canonical books.

The canonical books are those necessary for faith and practice of believers of all generations. It seems highly unlikely that God would inspire a book in the first century that is necessary for faith and practice and then allow it to be lost for nearly two thousand years. From a providential and historical stand-point the canon has been closed for nearly two thousand years.

But is the canon hypothetically open?  If so, what does this mean?

Hypothetically the canon could be open. It is theoretically possible that some book written by an accredited apostle or prophet from the first century will yet be found. And what if such a prophetic book were found? The answer to this question will depend on whether or not all prophetic books are canonic. If they are, as has been argued, then this newly discovered prophetic book should be added to the canon. But that is unlikely for two reasons. First, it is historically unlikely that such a new book intended for the faith and practice of all believers, but unknown to them for two thousand years, will suddenly come to light. Second, it is providentially improbable that God would have inspired but left unpreserved for two millennia what is necessary for the instruction of believers of all generations.

Geisler and Nix, therefore, leave open the possibility that a first-century book could be found that belongs in the canon, but they think it is highly unlikely to occur.  Given the death of Jesus’s apostles in the first century, and given that Jesus was supposed to be the final revelation of God, Geisler and Nix reject the possibility that a new prophet will produce a new work today.  A new prophet would first have to make the case that the canon was not closed in the first century, and then demonstrate the miracles that go along with being a legitimate representative of God.

It is important to note, in closing, that neither Muslims, nor Mormons, nor any other religious group that has its roots in Christianity, has ever had a prophet who successfully performed miracles to prove that they were truly from God.  Hasn’t happened.

Islam, Top Ten Posts of 2010

Is the Qur’an Wrong about Jesus? – #9 Post of 2010

54 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

It may surprise some Christians that the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, speaks about Jesus.  In fact, the Qur’an speaks of Jesus as a great prophet of God and records some of the miracles that Jesus performed.

However, the Qur’an denies one important event in the life of Jesus, his crucifixion.  According to the Qur’an, Jesus was never crucified by the Romans.  He was taken straight to heaven without being executed.

Herein lies a couple of significant problems, it seems, for Islam.  First, virtually every professional historian who has studied the events of Jesus’ life agrees that he was killed by crucifixion.  This fact is just not debated by any reputable scholars, as far as I am aware.

Second, we have another problem, what Jesus scholar Mike Licona calls the “Islamic catch-22.”  You see, Jesus predicted that he would die a violent death, predicted it several times.  According to Licona, “We find this reported in Mark, which is the earliest Gospel, and it’s multiply attested in different literary forms, which is really strong evidence in the eyes of historians.”

So what?  How is that a problem for Muslims?  Licona explains:

If Jesus did not die a violent and imminent death, then that makes him a false prophet.  But the Qur’an says that he’s a great prophet, and so the Qur’an would be wrong and thus discredited.  On the other hand, if Jesus did die a violent and imminent death as he predicted, then he is indeed a great prophet – but this would contradict the Qur’an, which says he didn’t die on the cross.  So either way, the Qur’an is discredited.

If the Qur’an, which Muslims claim is perfect, contains an error as egregious as denying the crucifixion of Jesus, it simply cannot be trusted to be a reliable historical document.

Islam, Miracles

What Did Thomas Aquinas Have to Say about Islam?

19 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Between AD 1258 and 1264, Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa contra Gentiles, a book at least partially aimed at arguing for the truth of Christianity against the falsehood of Islam.  Recall that Islam was founded and spread in the seventh century, about 600 years before Thomas wrote.

In an interesting section of book I, Thomas argues that the veracity of the miracle accounts in the Bible are supported by the successful spread of Christianity around the world.  In essence, he is saying, “How else could Christianity be so successful unless the miracle accounts were true?”  Here is Thomas in his own words:

This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness of the signs given in the past; so that it is not necessary that they should be further repeated, since they appear most clearly in their effect. For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through His saints for the confirmation of the faith.

Thomas points out that given the humble roots of Christianity, it would be more miraculous for the religion to have spread without miracles than with them.  The miracles of Jesus and his apostles provide a reason for the initial spread of Christianity.

Thomas then goes on to differentiate the success of Christianity with the success of Islam.  He argues that Muhammad offered no miracles to prove he was from God, and that his sole appeal was based on the carnal pleasures he offered his followers, including military power.  Here again is Thomas:

On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.

On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Thomas makes some important distinctions between Islam and Christianity based on their respective beginnings.  It is paramount for all of us to understand these differences as we increasingly dialogue with the world about Islam.

Religion

Can All Religions Be True?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

If you actually know anything substantive about major world religions, you know the answer to this question is an emphatic “no.”

The only people claiming that all religions are the same or that all religions are equally true are those people who know little to nothing about world religions, or who are unable to do a little bit of critical thinking.

The major religions of the world profess profoundly different views of the nature of God, the nature of man, the afterlife, the source of evil, and a host of other weighty topics.  It is true that the ethical teachings contained in major religions have some commonality, but ethics are but one portion of what constitutes a religion’s core beliefs.

If you are a Christian, then you believe that Jesus is the third person of the Triune God.  No other major world religion recognizes Jesus as God in this sense, so clearly somebody is wrong!  We can’t all be right because Jesus can’t both be God and not God at the same time and in the same sense.

If  Christians are right about Jesus being God, then other religions who deny this fact are wrong about who God is.  They get God wrong, in other words.  I would say that is a serious error which dramatically undermines the claim that all religions are true.

General Apologetics, Miracles, Skeptics

How Would You Respond to a Miracle?

87 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

I just finished a detailed study of the seven miraculous signs Jesus performed in the Gospel of John.  If you don’t recall, they are:

  1. The Miracle of Turning Water Into Wine
  2. The Miracle of Healing the Nobleman’s Son
  3. The Miracle of Healing the Man at the Pool of Bethesda
  4. The Miracle of Feeding Five Thousand
  5. The Miracle of Walking on Water
  6. The Miracle of Healing the Blind Man
  7. The Miracle of Raising Lazarus from the Dead

The fascinating thing about these miracle accounts is how people reacted to them.  There is a wide cross-section of responses.  The way I would summarize the responses is in the following way:

  1. Some people responded by believing in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, and dedicating their lives to him, which is exactly the purpose John gives for writing his Gospel (see John 20:30-31).
  2. Some people responded by believing in Jesus, but only in a shallow way.  These people would have eternal life, but their growth as followers of Jesus was static and stunted.  They did not move beyond their initial belief.
  3. Some people responded by believing in Jesus as a political figure who could solve their earthly problems for them.  They did not believe in him as the Messiah and Son of God.
  4. Some people responded in disbelief and outright hatred and rejection.  These people felt threatened by Jesus’ growing popularity and his rejection of their traditions.  Ultimately,  some of these people had Jesus executed.

It is my contention that these miracles act like a mirror for each person that saw them.  The miracles, for those who loved God and were willing, confirmed their hope for a true Messiah.

For those who wanted a political savior, Jesus’ miracles confirmed their hope in him as a “political Messiah.”

For those who wanted to retain their own autonomy and power, Jesus’ miracles did nothing but agitate them.  There was no miracle he could perform that would convince them.

Where the heart is willing,  evidence, such as miracles, can be quite convincing.  Where the heart is not willing, no amount of evidence will do.

As an apologist, this frustrates me to no end.  I have spent years amassing evidence for Christianity, which I think is thoroughly convincing, but many times I present that evidence to people who are completely unwilling to listen.  I’ve just learned to roll with it, though, because I also present evidence to people who are willing to listen, and that always makes my day!

Which kind of person are you?  Which group would you fall in?  If you are someone who no amount of evidence can convince, then why is that?

Just some food for thought.

Islam

Is the God of Christianity the Same as the God of Islam?

37 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Imagine the following scenario: two people claim to know the same professional football player.  The football player’s name is Alex and he plays in the NFL.  The first person who knows Alex the football player describes him this way:

He is 6′ 6″ tall, he weighs 305 lbs., he plays left tackle, he is married, and he plays for the Carolina Panthers.

Now the second person describes Alex the football player:

He is 6′ 2″ tall, he weighs 256 lbs., he plays middle linebacker, he is single, and he plays for the Atlanta Falcons.

When when we started out, we were pretty confident that these two people were talking about the same Alex the football player.  Once we asked for more details, though, we quickly discovered that they are not the same person at all, but two different people.  We just needed a little more information about Alex from each person.

This is the same situation with the God of Islam and the God of Christianity.  Both are claimed to be the God of Abraham and both are monotheistic creator-God’s.  If we stop there, we might conclude that they must be the same God.

Unfortunately, there is a slight problem.  Christians believe that God is three persons in one nature, a Trinity.  The three persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Muslims flatly reject the Trinity.  There is only one person who is God, not three.

Second, Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man – he is fully God and fully man.  Muslims completely reject this idea of Jesus as God-man.  They view Jesus as a mere human prophet who is less important than the final prophet, Muhammad.

There are more differences in the God of Islam and the God of Christianity, but we need go no further.  Just based on the differences highlighted above, we are 100% sure that these two Gods are not the same.

One final note.  We must admit that there are some similarities in the God of Islam and the God of Christianity, and when Christians speak to Muslims about God, we can use these similarities as launching pads to share our faith.  However, just because there are some similarities, we must not fall into the trap of papering over the very real and very significant differences.  Closing our eyes to the key beliefs of these two religions doesn’t get us anywhere.

Islam, New Testament Reliability

Did the New Testament Writers Record Fact or Fiction? Part 8

14 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In this series of posts, we have shown that the NT writers claimed to be eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses; we have shown that we have multiple witnesses, and we have shown that the eyewitnesses were trustworthy.  How?  They included embarrassing details about themselves  and difficult details about their subject of worship, Jesus; their accounts contain divergent details, just as we would expect from independent witnesses; and they wrote about historical facts that have been thoroughly corroborated by ancient non-Christian writers and modern archaeology.

There is one final piece of evidence that you should consider, though.  I think it is one of the strongest historical evidences we have.

Here it is.  The apostles, some of whom wrote portions of the NT, were all killed for their beliefs, except John.  According to Christian tradition, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down – both of them killed in Rome.  James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, was thrown off the top of the Jerusalem temple and stoned to death.  The other apostles met similar fates.    Before they died, they were beaten, stoned, imprisoned, mocked, and persecuted, mostly because of their professed beliefs in Christ.

I was having lunch with a couple of bright engineers a few years back, and we started discussing religions, Christianity in particular.  They challenged my belief in the NT documents by saying that many people have created religions in order to gain fame, fortune, and power.  They thought it was quite possible that the NT writers were merely doing the same.  I asked them if they knew what happened to the apostles after Jesus died, and they did not know.  When I shared the facts above, they became silent.  Fame, fortune, and power eluded all of these men while they were alive.  Their lives would have been far easier if they had just kept quiet.

Maybe the apostles weren’t in it for the money, so to speak.  Maybe they had been lied to or deceived.  Maybe they just died for their false religious beliefs like so many other fanatics do.   Many people die for their religious beliefs, don’t they?  The Muslim fanatics on 9/11 certainly died for their beliefs.  Aren’t the apostles just the same?

No, they aren’t.  There’s a fundamental difference between the disciples and the 9/11 extremists.  The 9/11 fanatics died for contemporary beliefs that reflected someone’s modern-day interpretation of the Qur’an, a book which was written 1,400 years ago.  They had no way of knowing if the source of that book, Muhammad, was telling the truth or not.  They weren’t there to see it.  They believed based on what they had been taught by their contemporary religious teachers.

Not so with the disciples.  They all went to their deaths claiming that they saw Jesus risen from the dead.  But they knew this, not based on information delivered 1,400 years after the fact, but based on their own two eyes!!  If Jesus did not rise from the dead and the NT is a pack of lies, then the disciples knew it.  They were there.

But if they knew Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then we must explain why they willingly went to their deaths.  Many people die for a false belief, but nobody dies for a false belief they know is false, especially not 12 different people!  The martyrdom of the apostles is strong evidence for the truth of the historical resurrection of Jesus.  There exists no other theory which can adequately explain their behavior.

I conclude this series with an extended quote from Chuck Colson, who is often asked about why he believes that Jesus rose from the dead, which is the central event and miracle of the NT.  Here is Colson:

Watergate involved a conspiracy to cover up, perpetuated by the closest aides to the President of the United States, the most powerful men in America, who were intensely loyal to their President.  But one of them, John Dean, turned state’s evidence, that is, testified against Nixon, as he put it, “to save his own skin,” and he did so only two weeks after informing the president about what was really going on – two weeks!  The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now, the fact is that all that those around the President were facing was embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody’s life was at stake.

But what about the disciples?  Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beatings, stonings, execution.  Every single one of the disciples insisted, to their dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised from the dead.

Don’t you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned?  That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities?  None did.

You see, men will give their lives for something they believe to be true – they will never give their lives for something they know to be false.

The Watergate cover-up reveals the true nature of humanity.  Even political zealots at the pinnacle of power will, in the crunch, save their own necks, even at the expense of the ones they profess to serve so loyally. But the apostles could not deny Jesus because they had seen Him face to face, and they knew He had risen from the dead.

No, you can take it from an expert in cover-ups – I’ve lived through Watergate – that nothing less than a resurrected Christ could have caused those men to maintain to their dying whispers that Jesus is alive and is Lord.  Two thousand years later, nothing less than the power of the risen Christ could inspire Christians around the world to remain faithful – despite prison, torture, and death.

Jesus is Lord: That’s the thrilling message of Easter.  And it’s an historic fact, one convincingly established by the evidence – and one you can bet your life upon.  Go ahead researchers – dig up all the old graves you want.  You won’t change a thing.  He has risen.

Islam

From Islam to Christianity

2 Comments

I just saw a fascinating documentary on Fox, called Escape from Hamas,  about an up-and-coming leader of Hamas becoming disillusioned with the teachings of Hamas and radical Islam.  The documentary tells how he, Mosab Hassan, converted to Christianity and is now living in America and hoping to spread the word about the extremism within Hamas and radical Islam, and the hope that he found in Christ.  It is a riveting documentary that you don’t want to miss.

Fox plans on showing it several more times today and tomorrow, so set your DVR to record it.