THE STATUS OF THE BIBLE
In such discussions, several things should be noted. First, the Muslim does
not have to reinterpret Christian scripture. Our duty is to insist that a man
state his case clearly, not in vague terms. We must ask for all information
related to the matter (Where else do we find key words and phrases in the
Bible?). We must demand that thoughts expressed are carried to their logical
conclusion. Let us illustrate again with another familiar example. An
all-purpose quotation is John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and
the life, no one comes to the Father, but through me." Exactly what
this verse is supposed to prove is left vague. Does it prove the divinity of
Jesus? Is it supposed to mean that God listens to no one except Jesus or those
who call on Jesus ? If either of these ideas are to be based on the verse, we
have to consider all the available information. The dictionary shows that the
words "way", "truth", and "life"
do not automatically carry connotations of divinity. So the Christian insists
that the structure of the sentence stresses the way, the truth, and the life,
as though Jesus is unique for all time. Bill Clinton may be the American
President but he is not the first and probably not the last. So language usage
alone does not do the job. Then another thought must be brought to its
conclusion. "The life" is said to be a state of affairs: one
either has "the life" or not. In this way the verse is used
in support of the redeeming power of Jesus. Yet Jesus himself says: "I
came that they might have life and have it abundantly." (John 10:10).
In this passage life is not a state of affairs, either positive or negative,
with no other possible states. Jesus speaks here of something that can be
measured. The verse John 14:6 is used by the missionary with the vaguest of
intentions. Ironically enough, when his meaning is questioned, this verse
becomes probably the most over-specified of all Bible texts.
NON-ISSUES
Second, there are certain non-issues that cannot be treated as though they
were issues. Where the Christian and Muslim agree, there is no argument. For
example: the Qur'an states that in spite of appearances the crucifixion of
Jesus was unsuccessful, that God saved Jesus. The Christian says that Jesus
died and three days later showed himself to be alive. Where the Christian
exceeds his authority disagreement begins. He does not have proof that Jesus
died. He has some anonymous writings (the Gospels) which say so. However, it
was common belief in the first century among Christians that Jesus was not
even crucified. But this was only one school of thought. Another is
represented in the Bible and it has become the only Christian school of
thought on the matter. The only facts that bear up well under historical
examination are simply these: Jesus appeared to be crucified but was seen
alive a few days later. Insisting that his death is proven is actually
ludicrous. On the one hand we are told that this man healed cripples, lepers,
the blind, and raised the dead. On the other hand, beating him,, stabbing him
and nailing him to a cross is said to be quite sufficient to kill him. While
portrayals of the crucifixion today tell of a great civic event, there are
Bible references that indicate otherwise. A small gathering in a garden, where
his followers were forced to stand at a distance is indicated in Luke 23:49
and John 19:41. The Bible describes his post-crucifixion appearances as an
attempt to tell his disciples that in spite of what they had seen he was
alive, not a ghost. If the Christian does not try to prove the death of Jesus
and the Muslim does not try to prove his own theory of how Jesus avoided
death, there is nothing left to disagree upon. This is precisely the point
made in the Qur'an at 4:157.
ISSUES
Third, let us not be led into believing that certain issues can be treated as
non-issues. More than one missionary has asked Muslims: "What do you
gain by denying the divinity of Jesus?" The questioner hopes to evade
an issue by treating it as unimportant. The answer to his question was given
by Jesus who said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make
you free" (John 8:32). Spelling out the precise disadvantages of
belief in any particular falsehood is a worthwhile exercise, but the general
principle of Jesus' words is sufficient motivation for rejection. The truth
is, claiming divinity for Jesus is based on what people said about Jesus not
on what Jesus himself said. Here is a place to explain the Muslim view of
world religions. Islam is not a competitor among religions. The Qur'an states
that in ancient times every nation had its messengers of God. Many peoples
possessed the truth, but have to varying degrees added to this knowledge with
unsupported claims. So the Muslim believes that virtually any of the old
religions stripped of its excessive points any thoughtful person towards
Islam.
CONSISTENCY
Fourth, the missionary must be consistent. If he admits that Jesus' words were
expanded into Trinitarian doctrine by later generations, then he is either
claiming that Jesus taught his disciples more than is actually recorded in the
Bible, or he is saying that God brought us knowledge of the Trinity gradually.
The first case cannot be reconciled with Jesus' words at John 18:20, "
. . . I spoke nothing in secret." As for the second case, if the
Trinity became known only to later generations, then one must not insist that
Jesus preached the doctrine.
DEDUCTION
Fifth, deduction cannot increase content. Deduction is a process of seeing
more clearly that which was already indicated by the evidence. We cannot
deduce more than the evidence contains. This is why we say that the Trinity
cannot be deduced from scripture. The definition of the Trinity requires a
vocabulary not found on the lips of Jesus. At best, the Christian can point to
a verse and say that it is in agreement with his ideas, but no verse is
conclusive evidence of the divinity of Jesus. The so-called "fallacy
of the converse" is the logical mistake most often made. This means
turning the "arrow of implication" backward, e.g. rain means
wet streets but wet streets do not mean rain. Another example: the appearance
of the horizon on the ocean might be cited as being in harmony with the idea
of a flat; earth, but it certainly does not prove the earth to be flat.
Similarly, some Bible statements might harmonize with the idea of a divine
Jesus but no verse proves the claim.
THE NATURE OF PROOF
"Proof" is a very misused word. Proof refers to the
establishment of a proposition. Proof withstands challenges and satisfies
tests. But phrases such as "more proof", "better
proof", or "stronger proof" are abuses of language
or misunderstandings. "More proof" is a deceptive phrase that
might lead us to believe that proof is measured and that people might have
proofs of opposite things, but the winner is the one with more volume of
proof. In this case proof has been confused with evidence. We may have another
proof, but not more proof. When logicians speak of better proof, they are
referring to something called elegance -a quality denoting clarity and
simplicity. They do not refer to validity by this word. Proofs are either
valid or invalid - or occasionally doubted by some until a more elegant
version appears. The expression "stronger proof" describes
not the proof but its assumptions. In general, the fewer the initial
assumptions, the stronger the proof.
This brief explanation is intended to dispel the notion that proof depends on
a man's ability to say a lot of things which sound plausible. It is content
and quality, not appearance and quantity, that really matter. When the
missionary produces his "proof" it can be shown to be
unsatisfactory. He often concedes this fact but prefers the word "insufficient".
He then claims that God can supply the insufficiencies. This raises three
important points:
1) Proof is not the sort of thing that we can simply patch over the gaps
with and then call it legitimate. In fact, any valid information contained
in an unsatisfactory proof is unrelated to the conclusions that one has
attempted to prove. For example, the apparent motion of the planets
approximately fits the theory of epicycles which is part of the theory that
puts the earth in the center of the universe. But the theory is false, which
means the trajectories of the planets in no way support the idea that the
earth stands stationary at the center of the universe.
2) When the Christian claims that God will "help one to
believe" he argues in a small circle. His claim is based on his
proof and his proof is based on his claim. The dialogue is something like
this:
Christian: "I have proof."
Muslim: "But there are gaps in your argument."
Christian: "Ask God to help you believe."
Muslim: "Why should I?" (Claim based on proof.)
Christian: "Because of things I, have shown you."
Muslim: "But these things do not prove anything."
(Proof based on claim.)
3) And finally, once again the Christian puts himself in a position where he
must contradict his own behavior. When a preacher claims that he has proof
for his beliefs, he should be talking about the kind of thing one man can
give to another -the facts and arguments for his case. Instead, he admits
that his belief is not built on evidence and analysis, but rests on the
faith which God gave him! If faith is a gift from God then it is not
something that one man can give another man. Missionary efforts would be
more honest if it was stated that the Christian only intends to describe his
religion and invite converts. But much of missionary literature suggests
that Christian belief is built on the kind of evidence that could win a
court case.
CHRISTIAN FAITH
Actually the Christian has two views of "faith". Faith is
said to be a gift of God, but there is another thought he expresses when
confronted as in the last paragraph. Speaking from personal experience: We
tell a man that his evidence will not stand a thorough examination and he
hurls an accusation that we are stubborn. As mentioned already, he carelessly
interprets historical accuracy in the Bible as proof that it speaks only the
truth on every matter. Turning the confusion backwards, he then says that if
we doubt any passage in the Bible, we must doubt every book of history. But
history is not our opponent. We are opposed to a particular doctrine built on
the interpretation of a very small collection of quotations of Jesus. But
before we can make this point, the second view of faith occurs to him. "If
all things could be proven, where is the merit in believing?", he
asks. In other words, he does not want final proof. He feels that a pledge of
loyalty - a bold leap into belief is actually the act that brings salvation.
So having faith means an effort that brings reward and yet faith is a gift
from God that we do not deserve. Resolving this irony is the Christian's
business. Our point here is only "honesty in advertising" If
the foundations of Christianity are loyalty to the interpretation of
scripture, it should not be advertised that Christianity stands on that which
has been established in clarity - i.e. proven explicitly.
