Ichthus77

This chapter of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics covers the truth claims of Islam and its objections to Christianity.

My Background in Islam (skip this to discuss the chapter) 

I’ve noticed an odd fascination with Islam in the U.S. post-9-11, a sort of national Stockholm syndrome…the way some women are attracted to bad boys. My awareness of Islam first began just before the new millennium. My husband was stationed in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, and we bought a computer with tax return money shortly after he got home from a deployment to Panama. All my unanswered questions from high school poured through my fingertips as I tapped them out on whatever search engine was popular back then. Among other things, I found a lot of Islamic material against Christianity–Paul, in particular. I didn’t know any better. I thought I was duped my whole life to believe a lie. I didn’t convert to Islam, but I did become an atheist for a while. The Islamist material didn’t make a case for Islam, but even so, converting to Islam (instead of atheism, for me) would’ve been like switching from belief in Santa, to belief in the Tooth Fairy.

I have read a *bit* on the history of Islam, but nothing chapter-length that laid its beliefs out systematically.  Most of my curiosity had to do with why Israel is so hated, how much progress has been made towards peace there, how far back the conflict goes, where it started, who is preventing peace from being attained, and so on. Vaguely I remember studying it (& the Crusades, et cetera) in public school in various history classes.

When 9-11 happened, we had just moved to Arizona. My mother-in-law woke me up with a phone call and asked me if I had the TV on, and told me to turn it on when I said I hadn’t yet…I saw the footage of the planes flying into the Twin Towers, heard that it was terrorism and cried for my country. Like everyone else, I was glued to it as events played out (Pentagon, et cetera), watching for survivors. If I didn’t have two young boys, I would have joined the military. The unit my husband left behind in NC were deployed to Afghanistan. The unit in Arizona started 12 hour shifts. Discrimination against a Muslim in the unit was nipped in the bud. At some point, my dad knew bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan. The anthrax letters happened shortly after that, and I wondered how bad things would get. 

Post-9-11, I’ve been exposed to material arguing for why terrorism-spawning Islam is not “extremist” but Quran-based (and how that compares to “genocide” in the Old Testament). I have watched part/all of a debate between a Christian and a Muslim that weighed the truth claims of each against the other. I’ve read a bit on who Islam thinks Jesus is and how it perceives his crucifixion/resurrection, who it thinks inherited the promises (Isaac or Ishmael), and stuff like that. I’ve read stuff warning against the spread of Shari’ah Law, and U.S. women actually *wanting* to wear those hijabs (prolly same sort of women who write letters to serial killers in jail). (Sorry…that’s culturally insensitive of me, isn’t it?) (Honestly, sometimes, when my complexion is particularly bad, I would welcome a hijab.)

A woman in a hijab scared the crap out of me in a Books-A-Million when we lived in North Carolina. Not something you expected to run in to as you turned a corner back then. Years later, I worked with a Muslim. She was a very nice girl, and she translated all the religious terms into American terms, like “church” and “pastor.” I think she didn’t want to trigger any unwarranted fear. She fasted during Ramadan, but didn’t expect everyone else to, like you see in the news these days. She didn’t wear a hijab…she sort of went the opposite direction in the clothing department, which sort of confused me. But she was genuinely nice, and well-liked. But the show 24 featured an American woman who had converted to Islam and become a terrorist. It’s just TV, but it speaks to a genuine fear, because the news actually talks about people who grow up in the U.S. and train as terrorists overseas after they convert. The terrorists on 9-11 had lived here for a while. Consider the bombings in Boston. Sometimes I wonder why the U.S. is not more war-torn. Alternatively on TV, there is Arastoo Vaziri, a ‘squintern’ in one of my favorite shows, Bones. There’s also the kalam cosmological argument. That’s my background in Islam. Pretty ignorant. What’s yours?

This chapter of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics covers the objection that all roads lead to God.

The Blind Men and the Elephant

The famous “elephant and the blind men” parable is introduced and, later in the chapter, dismantled. The contradictory claims of differing religions are more like this: They say conflicting things about the same body parts. Ultimate reality cannot be both impersonal and personal. Our problem cannot be both a) we’re ignorant of our divinity/nothingness, and b) we’ve lost touch with our Creator. Our spiritual freedom cannot be both a) secured by grace demonstrated on the cross, and b) secured by knowledge of our own divinity/nothingness. And it is just “assumed” that there is this “whole elephant” they are all talking about–the very “essence” this parable claims every religion only captures partially. How is the parable maker able to capture this essence in whole, in order to formulate this parable, when all the world’s religions have failed to capture it? No religion thinks they are the blind man. To suggest the elephant exists is to cease to be the blind man. Contradictions cannot be reconciled.

Groothuis defines religion as “a set of beliefs that attempts to explain the nature of the sacred and how humans can become in harmony with it.” So this chapter does not assert that atheism is a religion/worldview. That whole issue is avoided altogether. I like how Tim Keller defined worldview and tackled this issue in The Reason for God.

Christianity views God as a Trinity and recognizes a Creator-creature duality, that we are in the image of God but have lost touch with him, and that the solution is to accept the Way back to him: grace demonstrated on the cross. Nondualistic Hinduism believes all is Brahman/divine, that all duality is illusory–the real reality is the self is indistinguishable from Absolute Self, and the solution to our uneasiness is to recognize all of that. Buddhism believes the real reality is Nirvana–absence of self/desire, the solution to our suffering. These conflicting core beliefs about the same parts of the elephant cannot be reconciled.

John Hick recognizes that this dismantles perennialism. Instead, he proposes that none of the religions have got at the elephant (he calls it the Real), though they all try. The Real exists, but we cannot get at it, through divine revelation or philosophy or otherwise. Ultimate reality is ineffable. (Problem: Isn’t saying that it exists and explains the world’s religions a form of getting at it? How does it explain them, if nothing can be said about it?–that’s like saying, “This death is explained by the fact that I have no idea who or what caused it.”) 

I don’t like Groothuis’ criticism involving exclusive disjunction, because Hick already said–no religion gets at the Real. The exclusive disjunction objection only applies to perennialism, which Hick denies. Hick would likely affirm the Real needs to be either/or. What he denies is that we can know which the Real is. Maybe I’m wrong about that, because Hick says, “None of these descriptive terms apply literally to the unexperienceable reality that underlies that realm” — that does seem to go a bit further than “We just can’t know.” It seems to move closer to affirming non-duality/monism.

However, Groothuis has a good point that Hick cannot say, “The Real is neither personal nor nonpersonal,” while also saying, “The Real is neither good/loving, nor evil/hating.” If he is noncommittal on the personhood of the Real, then he has to commit to the fact that the Real is as able as a rock is to be good/loving/evil/hating. Also, Groothuis is right when he criticizes Hick for inconsistently saying that an impersonal (not good/evil) Real is behind this: When religions get it accidentally right and are in accidental alignment with the Real, they produce saints. Can an impersonal/ungood Real produce saints? If the Real is neither purposive, nor non-purposive, can it “produce” saints? Besides the inconsistency between impersonal/saints–Christianity says nonChristians can be good without God. They, too, are in God’s image and have his law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15).

While Hick’s hypothesis attempts a sort of pluralism, it is the highest form of exclusivism, because it essentially says everyone–everyone–is getting it wrong about the Real. No one is even able to get it right–the blind men were completely mistaken about the parts of the elephant they encountered.

Hick acknowledges: “If Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith.” (Groothuis quoting Hick, p. 585 of “Christian Apologetics”)

What about those who have never heard?

The important words in this discussion are particularism versus inclusivism.

Does God send the ignorant to hell?

We should consider eight things while we address this question: 1. Don’t twist the Bible to be in line with other religions. 2. Remember the Great Commission of world evangelization (Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 24:44-47, Acts 1:8). 3. Look for the common ground that exists between Christianity and other religions (see Don Richardson’s “Eternity in Their Hearts”). 4. Make sure that common ground is not a perversion of the truth. 5. The Bible never says people will be judged according to what they could not have known (Romans 1:18-32, 2:14-15; Ps. 19:1-6). 6. None of us deserves redemption. 7. Whatever their fate, Jesus is the only one who redeems (Matt. 11:27, John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1 Tim. 2:5). 8. Some will reject God and choose the alternative.

Groothuis offers possible solutions:
1. Their fate is in the hands of a just, holy and loving character, however he works it out.
2. Inclusivists believe salvation is possible for those who have never heard the gospel.
3. Particularists believe salvation is only possible for those who have knowledge of the gospel.

Some inclusivists put greater emphasis on faith than on the object of faith–this is unbiblical (Eph. 2:12, Acts 16:31). Other inclusivists require that a person realize the present object of their faith cannot save them and “cast themselves on the mercy of God.” This is more probable biblically (of the two), but Groothuis goes in for particularism (referring to Psalm 145:18, Acts 4:10-12, Romans 10:9-17).

He answers two objections to particularism by stating that 1) Cornelius, though considered a righteous Gentile, was not saved until after Peter told him about Christ (Acts 10), and 2) believers in the Hebrew Bible were saved (Galatians 3:8, Luke 2:29-32) who anticipated the Messiah in Scriptures and sacrifices.

Will more be lost than saved (Matthew 11:27, John 14:6, Matthew 22:1-44, Luke 14:15-24, Matthew 7:13-14)? Groothuis answers that those passages refer to Jews of Jesus’ day, and that Luke 13:22-30 shows this. Groothuis also points out the “many” in Matthew 20:28, Hebrews 2:10, Romans 5:19, Matthew 8:11 and the “multitude” in Revelation 7:14.

Groothuis also says:
1. Those who die very young are likely redeemed through God’s mercy.
2. Christians may always have been in the minority until very recently, but history is not over.
3. Humans are not the only messengers–angels can preach the gospel (Revelation14:6, Acts 9).

My thoughts: On number 7 above, it mentions it is Jesus’ name that saves. I would like to point out that his name is not a magic word. It is what Jesus stands for–that is what the OT saints anticipated. Jesus is God’s grace. It is God’s *grace* that saves. Jesus came to demonstrate it — it already existed, and his coming was planned before the world was made. So whether or not anyone hears, it is grace that saves. But God wants us to know and experience the reward of a relationship with our Creator and Savior–as soon as possible. Hence, the Great Commission.

No mention is made of verses that say we are only held accountable for the revelation (light) we have been given. See Acts 17:30 (barring this interpretation, which is false, though I love Piper), Luke 23:34/Acts 3:17, 1 Timothy 1:13, Matthew 11:21-24, Luke 12:48. If God can, in his mercy, make an exception for the young, he can make an exception for other examples of ignorance. If you have heard all the evidence of God’s demonstration of grace on the cross in Jesus, and you reject it–then you reject the light you have received, and you have made your choice. If you choose to remain in a state of “I don’t know”–that is the same as rejecting it.

There was a time when I rejected it, but he saved me out of it. I do consider it a time of ignorance. So, I have hope for you, if you are currently in a state of rejection, or “I don’t know.” And I know that God will do everything he can to get you to see the Point before he lets you choose the alternative. “The doors of hell are locked on the inside,” (C.S. Lewis). And there are many doors to hell.

More on my take on the problem of the unevangelized: Hell or Heaven: What about those who have never heard the gospel?

Book Discussion Index

This chapter of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics covers the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which is evidence that the Father approves of everything he said and did in his ministry on earth).

The significance of the resurrection:  “Of all the world’s religions, Christianity alone purports to be based on the resurrection of its divine founder.” Matthew 16:21, 12:40, John 2:19-22 (p.526)

Whereas in ch.20 John Frame is quoted to dispel rumors that the virgin birth is stolen from other religions or mythologies, in ch.22 Groothuis quotes Bruce Metzger and J.N.D. Anderson on why the resurrection is not likewise stolen. Perhaps I will combine those two sections into a unique post at some point. However, a) those rebirths symbolized spring, vs. b) resurrection on the 3rd day, and c) mystery religions were not yet well-established at that time.


Paul, writing two early for the theft hypothesis: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 15:14)

There are other consequences if you read on to verse 19: 1) Christians are false witnesses, 2) Christians are unforgiven, alive or dead, 3) Christians are supremely pitiable, because their hope ends in this life.

The evidence for general theism, and the evidence for the resurrection, are both strong. One may come to Christianity through the evidence for the resurrection alone, without ever knowing the evidence for general theism. However, one may more readily accept the evidence for the resurrection, if one already accepts the evidence for theism, because if there is a God, miracles like the resurrection are more probable.

Groothuis defines a biblical miracle as “an act of divine agency whereby a supernatural effect is produced for the purpose of manifesting God’s kingdom on earth.” (p.532) (Hume misdefined it as a violation of the laws of nature.)

Groothuis defines a law of nature as describing “the basic properties of physical objects in relationship to one another.” (p. 532)

Hume’s Objection

Hume does not argue that miracles are metaphysically impossible, only that natural explanations are always more probable, and no amount of evidence could ever ground a belief that a miracle occurred (this begs the question). He argues that all miracle claims are based on misunderstandings of  prescientific,”ignorant and barbarous nations” who are not credible (however, the disciples were very skeptical, notably Thomas, and in order to identify a miracle, one needs to be able to identify the laws of nature by which they are contrasted).

However, it is not the general probability that ought to be considered for any event, it is that event’s conditional probability–the evidence that makes it more probable, despite its general improbability. As already mentioned, if God exists, this increases the probability (in this case, general) of miracles. The evidence for the resurrection, specifically, increases its conditional probability.

The “cancellation argument” against miracles: Various miracles of various conflicting religions cancel each other out. Answer: miracles do not directly support the truth claims of all religions, and the case for Jesus’ historical resurrection is far stronger than any other miracle claim made by a non-Christian religion.

Jesus was the “kind of person God might raise from the dead” (p538-539). 1) he was accredited by God through miracles, wonders, and signs (Acts 2:22), 2) he was a master teacher, 3) he was a man of compassion, 4) he was a worker of miracles, 5) his life fulfilled OT prophecies, 6) he claimed to be God, 7) he prophesied his own death and resurrection.

The “Minimal Facts” Approach: 

Using only those facts (“minimal facts“) contained in the NT that are accepted by both liberal and conservative critical NT scholars, the resurrection is shown to best explain them over rival hypotheses.

Four minimal facts:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried in a known tomb. 
3. The tomb was found empty. 
4. There were postmortem appearances of Jesus.

Jesus died by crucifixion.

“Even if Jesus somehow survived the intense scourging, as well as the agonies of the cross … this would leave completely unexplained why Jesus’ disciples ended up hailing him the resurrected Lord of life.” (p.543)

Jesus was buried in a known tomb.

The two major issues covered in this chapter of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics are: 1) the “God or a bad man” argument for Jesus’ deity, and 2) the logical coherence of a “Godman” (someone who is both God and man).

The “God or a bad man” argument for the deity of Jesus from p. 507:

1. If Jesus claimed to be divine (in addition to being human), but was not divine, he was a bad man and merely human; that is, he was deceived, or a deceiver.

2. Jesus was not a bad man and merely human; that is, he was neither deceived, nor a deceiver.

3. Therefore, Jesus was divine (in addition to being human).


Objections:

This chapter of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics shows how Jesus’ beliefs and actions in themselves are an apologetic for a high Christology. Since I cannot reproduce the whole chapter, here are some highlights:

Matthew tells of Jesus’ virgin birth, which means that he is fully human and fully God (his human origin was supernatural and God-ordained), but he did not inherit a sin nature (one of us, but beyond us). John Frame is quoted (and Acts 17:16-34; 1 Corinthians 1-2 and Colossians 2:8 are referenced) to dispel the rumor that his virgin birth is a copycat of other religions or mythologies. In particular, his birth is dissimilar to Buddha’s, as Buddha’s mother was not a virgin, Buddha was not considered supernatural, and that birth narrative was written 100s of years later.

Jesus is the transliteration of Joshua: Jehovah is salvation/Savior. Matthew and Luke (2:10-11) call him “Messiah, the Lord” — Messiah being a title meaning one is anointed by God.  “The Lord” is not used of any OT priests, prophets or kings.


In the public eye, Jesus was a spiritual liberator from demons and death. Reversing death itself was one of Jesus’ most spectacular displays of authority, as was exorcism and healing (Acts 10:38) a display of his power over Satan. 

“When Jesus makes reference to ‘sitting on his throne’ and rendering final judgment, he is indirectly claiming deity, since these prerogatives belong only to God according to Jewish Scriptures.” (p. 489) You can see his claims to deity in his “I AM” statements in John (6:48, 51; 8:12; 10:7,9, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5) (not sure why Groothuis does not include John 8:58). He displayed his authority in forgiving sins, proclaiming himself Judge, and speaking confidently. 

Jesus was a master teacher. He did not defer to others (as a typical rabbi would), but spoke on his own authority and left many questioners speechless and amazed. The word he used frequently, “Amen” or “Verily” or “Truly” or “Solemnly” or “Believe me” or “I tell you this” or “Remember this” et cetera) points to his sense of authority, sincerity and certainty (p. 490). Pascal described his teaching this way: “Jesus said great things so simply that he seems not to have thought about them, and yet so clearly that it is obvious what he thought about them. Such clarity together with such simplicity is wonderful.” (p.482)  

His basic worldview: God: “There is one God who is personal; knowable; worthy of adoration, worship, and service; separate from the creation ontologically but involved with creation through providence, prophecy, miracle and supremely in the life of Jesus himself.” (482) He had unique knowledge of God (Matthew 11:27, John 14:5-7). Humanity: Humans are God’s creatures, are more valued than animals and are spiritual beings with much to gain/lose spiritually, and are poisoned by sin. Ethics: The greatest commandment is to love God (faith saves, not works), and the second greatest flows from it: love your neighbor (the Other) as self.

And he practiced what he preached, interacting with the lowest class (tax collectors, sinners, women)–who happened to be very attentive to what he had to teach.

Now, this next piece–that Jesus was a miracle-worker–had me stumped, because Groothuis says Jews didn’t expect the Messiah to be a miracle-worker at the time of Jesus (so the disciples wouldn’t have invented that). That made me wonder why Jesus answered John the Baptist the way he did when John was in prison. I asked him and he said, “They were not expecting it, but Jesus showed that they should have been. He gave the proper–and logically defensible–understanding of the Hebrew Bible (Matthew 5-7).” But it just occurred to me, why did everybody keep asking Jesus for a sign, if they didn’t expect one? I just asked him that, and I’ll update this with his answer when I receive it.

Jesus received worship from others at his birth (Matthew 2:11), when he calmed the storm (Matthew 14:33), when he was risen (Matthew 28:1,9), by women (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:52), and by the eleven.

His most frequent title he used in reference to himself was “Son of Man“, which carried strong divine and messianic connotations. There are several prophetic references in the Hebrew Bible specifically to the deity of the Messiah (Psalm 2:7-12; 110:1-2; Is. 7:14, Matthew 1:23; Is. 9:6-7; Micah 5:2; Jer. 23:5-6; Malachi 3:1).

“He faced his crucifixion not as an accident or a mistake, but as a necessary part of his mission.” (p. 495) “There would be no Christianity without his resurrection, which is central to the entire New Testament.” (p. 498)

John uses the word “Logos” to refer to the personal God of the universe who has taken on human nature to conquer sin.

Jesus is Savior, not a mere sage. He is the incarnation of God, not a mere avatar. And he is the Messiah, not a mere prophet.

All of the above considered, he said the “Law and the Prophets” spoke of him, giving them his stamp of divine approval. He says “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35, 17:17). He did not come to abolish it, but fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 16:7, 24:25-27; John 5:9). He gave its proper interpretation to overcome temptation (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13) and correct the false shepherds (who nullified it through their human tradition, Matthew 15:1-6). “Jesus equated the Hebrew Bible with the very words of God, as when he said that David’s writing in Psalm 110 was through the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:35-36).” (p. 504)

The NT is a good source of knowledge about Jesus: “The apostles were personally commissioned by Jesus (Luke 6:13; Acts 9; Galatians 1:1), had unique historical experience with Jesus (Mark 3:14; John 15:27) and were given special inspiration as specially designated emissaries of Christ (e.g., 1 John 1:1-3; 2:7, 24; 1 Peter 1:22-25; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). This authority was recognized by the ancient church as the basis of their beliefs and practices (see Acts 2:42).” (p. 505)

A word on “inspiration” — “God, who cannot err, directed the writers of the Bible to write what God intended them to write, and to do so without any kind of error–logical, historical, scientific or moral.” (p. 504)

(discussion index)