The Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally, believes that the Bible has many contradictions. As he was making his case, he argued for one I have never heard a Muslim apologist use. In fact, outside of Christian circles, I have rarely heard it at all. Yet he attacks a belief that most modern Evanjellycals hold dearly to. Listen to this contradiction given by a Muslim and see what kind of answer you would give to him. (I realize the recording is not the best.)
Please post a reply. I look forward to hearing what answers some of you might have.
A La Carte (April 25)
12 hours ago
3 comments:
An interesting challenge. I appreciate your open approach of giving challenges to the Christian faith serious consideration.
Ally posits two criticisms of the idea that Jesus died to pay the penalty for the sins of the world. I'll respond to each in turn, with thoughts that reflect on my theology, which tends to be reformed.
1. Dying for the sins of the world means that everyone's penalty has already been paid, so there's no reason for anyone to believe in Jesus.
This assertion relies on a misunderstanding of the notion of "world." We often use "world" in a non-total sense, such as "Microsoft Windows changed the world" (many places in the world have never seen a computer, much less Windows).
The sovereign God did not waste Jesus' blood on those who would not repent and believe. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to His people, who would hear His voice and respond. He died for the world of His people -- not for literally everyone that would walk the planet. In reformed theology this is termed "limited atonement" -- the understanding that Christ's work on the cross didn't fail regarding unbelievers, but instead was perfectly successful in redeeming those people God intended for Himself.
2. Paying the penalty for the world's sins contradicts passages in the Old Testament, where God declares that people's sins are forgiven in return for their obedience (a form of payment).
This is a more sophisticated challenge, focusing on theology instead of language. Yet Ally's assertion implies that obedience to God is less an act of faith than a penalty for sin.
To dig a bit deeper: how, specifically, does an act of obedience pay the penalty for sin -- which in the Old Testament is blood? Or how does the blood sacrifice of an animal substitute for the blood of a sinner? Neither obedience nor animal sacrifice come close to being equivalent of shedding the sinner's blood.
Reformed theologians see the cross as the central point in history where a timeless God paid the penalty for all sin, past, present, and future. Those who sin now accept the atonement accomplished at the cross. Similarly, those in the past who obeyed God and/or shed the blood of an animal as prescribed by the Old Testament exhibited a faith in God that counted them among God's people, whose sins were vanquished once and for all at the cross. Thus Jesus' sacrifice is the pivotal point in human history, the sole payment pure and powerful enough to atone for the sins of His Bride, the Church.
Ken and forester, I agree that only the Reformed faith as a whole is able to give a consistent answer to the Muslim argument...or any other arminian argument dealing with the atonement.
That was fun because it wasn't an exercise, it was a response to a real world challenge to Christianity. Shabir Ally has a contact page -- I've used it already to email him my response (edited a bit to address the audience more appropriately). I also tacked on an opening and closing:
Opening paragraph: A friend of mine posted a link to your audio file criticizing the notion that Jesus died for the sins of the world. I respect and appreciate your thoughts, and wanted to share my own in return. Please accept this as a respectful sharing of ideas.
Closing paragraph: I find criticisms of my Christian faith to be invigorating, as they cause me to probe into the reasons for why I believe what I believe. So I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful challenge.
Any more from you, Howard?
Post a Comment