Still Serious

So here's what I've posted in response to Y's ideas:


Greetings, Youssef --


I've found time to give your comments the attention they merit. Regarding the apostate Bishop and his thoughts on the Trinity, I have one major point. Whatever God's nature, that's what it is. If God is the absolute unity of the Moslems and the Jews, so be it. If God is the composite unity of the Christians, so be it. Not my, nor your, nor any man's best efforts will ever comprehend the Creator. Because you and I cannot encompass eternity, doesn't mean there is nothing that exists outside of time. That you and I cannot conceive a thing, has no bearing on its reality. What arrogance it would be, to suppose otherwise: "God must be what I think he is." We both understand that God is not limited by our capacity to imagine.

So, suppose I think it's absurd, that the One God would manifest or chose to manifest himself as Three Persons in this universe. Does my opinion make a thing so or not so? Of course it's an idea that can be explored only by analogy, just as the concept of infinity can only be apprehended, never comprehended -- we might hold it in our hand, but we'll never truly possess it. We understand that there is such a thing, but it's an understanding such as little children have of adult matters.

As for God being the "third of three," there is no knowledgeable Christian who says such a thing. This is a teaching of the Koran, not a teaching of the Bible. Ignorant Christians may say any number of things, but those informed on the matter maintain that Jesus is wholly God, as is the Father and as is the Spirit. A simplistic analogy is of a man, who is a father, and a husband, and a son. Well, which is he? All three. How can such a thing be? Well, obviously it can, because it is so. None of these roles affect his nature, only his relationship.

That Christian scholars have spent, as the Bishop says, "about seventeen centuries" exploring doctrine, hardly seems a worthwhile point. Moslem scholars have spent about thirteen centuries exploring Islamic doctrine, and if there is shame in that, it wouldn't be because of a lack of sincerity or intelligence. To say something in a scornful tone is hardly a refutation. Islam is a simple faith, and that makes it accessible. But I am utterly certain that there are subtle controversies that imams have bickered over for centuries. The point is proved in the shiites and the sunnis and the wahabis, in the sufis, kahrijites, ismailis, fatimids, nizari, alawis, bohra, ahmadiyyah, zayidis, yazidis, ibadites, and even in the druze and the baha'i. Allah is a simple god. God is more complex. Because of this, which is true? Again, our understanding doesn't make a thing true of false.

The Bishop's inability to understand this is no rare occurrence. But we are not saved by our understanding. We are saved by grace, through faith, unto good works. We are not saved by our subtle cogitations on the nature of God. We are saved by accepting the salvation offered as a free gift to any who would take it. I'm certain there are untold multitudes of Christians who have come to grace, with no sophisticated ponderings at all upon the triunity of God. That theologians enjoy such nice points is fine -- somebody needs to think about these things (me, for example -- look here). But they are no more saved, for all that, than the simple farmer who understands he's a sinner and that only one thing can wash away his guilt -- the blood of Jesus.

The Bishop says, "The essence, the person and nature of Allah are absolutely beyond human comprehension..." This is certainly a true statement, of God. Then he adds, "and therefore any attempt to define His essence is not only futile but even dangerous..." Alas, in the sentence before that, the Bishop says, "Allah is the only self-existing, knowing, powerful Being. He compasses, fills every space, being and thing; and is the source of all life, knowledge and force. Allah is the unique Creator, Regulator and Ruler of the universe. He is absolutely One." You see the problem, don't you? In his enumerations, the Bishop has defined Allah. Every statement of the character of God or Allah is a definition: "God is love" or "Allah is compassionate" -- definitions ... a = b. Whether we repeat what a scripture states, or we draw out logical conclusions from such scripture, we are making definitions. The Bishop demonstrates some not-very-clear thinking, here.

I'll get back to him in a moment, but first, a point on the Koran verses you've cited. I really respect your sincerity. I think faith is among the highest of virtues. And the verses you've quoted are clear statements of what faith should be: accept the authority of the book. This is, of course, what I would say of the Bible, and what a Hindu would say of the Gita, and what a Jew would say of the Torah. We are all men of faith, and we "bear witness". And as you say, "To you be your religion, and to me my religion," if it must be so. I would point out, however, a problem, with Sura 2:84. That Moslems believe in Allah is beyond question. But that they believe "what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma'il (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob) and Al-Asbat [the twelve sons of Ya'qub (Jacob)] and what was given to Musa (Moses), 'Iesa (Jesus) and the Prophets from their Lord" -- well, I have a problem with that, since what was sent down to the Patriarchs and given to Moses and Jesus, is the Bible, Old and New Testaments. And Moslems most certainly do not believe the Bible. Of course the justification is that the Bible has been corrupted. That would be an argument grounded not in logic or evidence, though, but in the rejection of the evidence. It isn't an argument at all, in fact, but a simple assertion: you're wrong and I'm right. In the discipline of logic, it's a classic example of the fallacy of 'begging the question.'

Returning to the Bishop, he talks about perfection. So will I. First, regardless of any belief or disbelief in the perfection of the triune God, what we all must certainly know is that we, for our part, are not perfect. In the eyes of a perfect God, we can be nothing but utterly unclean. All our righteousness is as filthy rags -- the image is of soiled menstrual cloths. Yet we are told in the Bible that the blood of Jesus will make us clean. How can blood make us clean? We are told that though our sins be as scarlet, we shall be white as snow. How can this be so?

God is perfect, and he made a perfect creation which was ruined by sin. We are made to be perfect, we who are imperfect but saved, by being IN Christ, so that when God looks at us, he sees Jesus. Again, it's an analogy, but that's the language the Bible uses.

Here's the ancient image: Jesus is called the Lamb of God. The Lamb is slain as a sacrifice, a sin offering. Why? A practice of shepherds makes it clear: when a ewe died in giving birth, there was an orphaned lamb; when a lamb was born dead, there was a wanting mother. The shepherd would bring the orphan to that mother, to be adopted. Wonderful solution, right? But the problem is, the mother would smell the lamb, and it didn't smell right -- the smell was wrong and the lamb was rejected. So what the shepherd did was skin the dead lamb and wrap the fleece around the orphan. The mother would then smell her own (dead) offspring, and accept the new lamb as her own. The writers of the New Testament knew such practices, and used them as analogies. We would use others. In any case, when I come before God, he sees his perfect Son, and I am adopted. You can be adopted too.

Come the resurrection, my spirit, now dead in sin, will be restored to true life. But for now, as a Christian, I am, as they say, indwelt by the Holy Spirit -- and my dead spirit is, as it were, revived moment to moment by this indwelling. Am I perfect? Certainly not. But God saves me perfectly.

How can the death of a man save all men? If an innocent man volunteers to take the place of a guilty man, and be executed for the crime of another, well the demands of the law are fulfilled, that the crime be paid for with a death. Blind justice is satisfied. But a man can sacrifice his life only once. If that man -- I should say Man -- has infinite worth, however, then he can pay an infinite price. Because Jesus' life was sinless (cf. Jn 18:38, Heb 9:14), death had no claim on Him, and so, as it were, Jesus paid a price which He did not owe, and so could redeem His sacrifice as He saw fit. Because His worth is infi­nite -- because He is God -- Jesus could ransom from death any and all whom He chose. He chooses those peo­ple who recognize the price He paid; He choos­es those who trust in the salvation He freely offers. Salvation is not free, but it is free to us.

Here's the thing: all sin is as mutiny, and the penalty for mutiny has always been death. We owe the price of not just one death, but countless -- one execution for each sin, each rebellion, each mutiny. How could we ever pay such a debt? That's why hell is eternal, because our sin is not just in the great failings of our lives, but in ever second, and part of a second, and smallest part of second, that we live outside of obedience to God. And that's just about every second of our lives.

Jesus, on the cross, suffered not just in his human body, but in his God nature. He suffered, in those darkest hours on the cross, not just for every man, but for every sin of every man. And not just every sin, but every eternity of damnation for every sin of every man. This is what Jesus did on the cross: He looked across the span of centuries and saw you. He saw your entire life spread out before him like a scroll. He saw every sin of every description, in its smallest part. He saw your infinite sin. And he asked himself, "Will I suffer eternal torment for that sin of Youssef's?" And the answer was, "Yes, I will suffer infinite torment for that sin of Youssef's." Then he looked at the next sin, some slightest nanosecond of your life latter. And he said, "Yes." And, "Yes." And "Yes and yes and yes..." So, for my part, I can only think of Jesus, and weep with gratitude, to be redeemed at such a price, by such a Man, for such love.

The fact is, Youssef, He did this for you. He saw your life, and your sin, and He loves you and suffered for you beyond our ability to comprehend -- like we can't comprehend the Trinity. But whether or not we understand, He died for me, and He died for you, and he died for everyone else. For my part, I said "thank you Jesus, for paying my debt." I think anyone who would reject such love, earns the hell he gets.

Ingratitude is such an ugly thing. Everyone who rejects Jesus does this: he stands at the foot of the cross and looks up at Jesus, and says in his heart, "I don't need you, Jesus. You're dying for nothing, like a fool -- as a fool. I'm good enough that God, if there is a God, will forgive me, if I need forgiveness, just because I'm me." There's only one unforgivable sin -- it isn't suicide ... that's the ultimate sin, the last sin, but it's forgivable. The unforgivable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit: here's the Holy Spirit, who comes beside us as Comforter, offering you forgiveness, and you reject it. So you are unforgiven, and unforgivable. You're offered the pearl of greatest price and you scorn it, trample it beneath your feet, like swine. Ingratitude is such an ugly thing.

So there it is. You say Jesus was a prophet but certainly not God or the Son of God, and any report that says he was is in error so grave as to merit damnation. I say that Mohammed not only was not the Final Prophet, but that he wasn't a prophet at all -- rather, for whatever reason, a man who was wrong, and did not know God. Obviously, we are each others infidels, each denying the very core of the other's faith. The so-called Christians who reject the Trinity -- they're called Unitarians ... maybe analogous to the Druze -- are indeed close to Moslems, and might as well face Mecca when they pray, since they pray to a God indistinguishable from Allah. But what I believe is that God, without Jesus, is without excuse, for the pain and torment of this world. I'll post a poem, The Trial of God, that expresses this very challenging idea. Without Jesus, I'd be an atheist, because for all its beauty, this is an ugly world. But with Jesus, the world is redeemed.

But I've gone on too, too long.

Peace be with you.

Jack


---