Saturday, November 5, 2016

The Muslim apologist, Paul Williams, does not understand the deep teachings of John's Gospel


In this recent thread, the Muslim apologist, Paul Williams, isolates two verses from John's Gospel in a failed attempt to support his misguided Unitarian conception of the Godhead.

Paul isolates John 3:16 and 17:3 from passages in John's Gospel which speak to the divinity of God's only begotten Son—e.g. John 1:1; 1:14, 18; 5:18; 5:26; 20:28.

Paul fails to grasp that the "only true God" of John's Gospel (17:3) has an only begotten Son (His eternal Word), who was with Him before the "beginning"—that He created "all things through him"—and that this Son/Word "was God" (see John 1:1,3, 14, 18, 20:28).

This "only true God", is the "one God" of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) who has begotten, "the one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God". This "Son of God", was begotten "from the essence/substance of the Father", and is "God from God, light from light, true God from true God". (Link to the Nicene Creed.)

Augustine has elaborated at length on the truths of the Bible that were promulgated in the Nicene Creed. The following are a few germane selections from his extensive works:

...we understand that the Son is not indeed less than, but equal to the Father, but yet that He is from Him, God of God, Light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father, God only; not of God. (On the Trinity, II.2 - NPNF 3.38 - bold emphasis mine.)

For the Son is the Son of the Father, and the Father certainly is the Father of the Son; but the Son is called God of God, the Son is called Light of Light; the Father is called Light, but not, of Light, the Father is called God, but not, of God. (On the Gospel of John, XXXIX.1 - NPNF 3.38)

Partly then, I repeat, it is with a view to this administration that those things have been thus written which the heretics make the ground of their false allegations; and partly it was with a view to the consideration that the Son owes to the Father that which He is, thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer (eidem Patri æqualis aut par est), whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one. (On Faith and the Creed, 9.18 -NPNF 3.328-329 - bold emphasis mine.)

Just as the Father has life in himself, so he has also granted the Son to have life in himself (Jn. 5:26). As he had, as he gave; what he had, he gave; he gave the same king he had; he gave as much as he had. All the things which the Father has are the Son's. Therefore, the Father gave to the Son nothing less than the Father has. The Father did not lose the life he gave to the Son. By living, he retains the life he gave by begetting. The Father himself is life, and the Son himself is life. Each of them has what he is, but the one is life from no one, while the other is life from life. (Answer to Maximinis the Arian, II.7 - The Works of Saint Augustine, vol. 1.18, Arianism and other Heresies, p. 284 - bold emphasis mine.)

Thus, then, the Son according to nature (naturalis filius) was born of the very substance of the Father, the only one so born, subsisting as that which the Father is, God of God, Light of Light. (On Faith and the Creed, 4.6 -NPNF 3.324 - bold emphasis mine.)

Only one natural Son, then, has been begotten of the very substance of the Father, and having the same nature as the father: God of God, Light of Light. (On Faith and the Creed, 4.6 - FC 27.323 - bold emphasis mine.)

Being Son by nature he was born uniquely of the substance of the Father, being what the Father is, God of God, Light of Light. (Faith and the Creed 4.6 - LCC, Augustine: Earlier Writings, p. 357 - bold emphasis mine.)

[See THIS THREAD for related quotes and reflections on this topic.]

And so I ask, which understanding of John's Gospel is the fuller, more accurate one: that of Paul Williams, or that of the Nicene Creed and Augustine?


Grace and peace,

David

14 comments:

Ken said...

Thanks David,
Looks good. I look forward to digesting it better. I skimmed through and I appreciate it.

I think Muslims stumble over the word “born”, “begotten” and “son” and “Father”. (Even westerners stumble over the words “born” and “begotten” and what they in relation to the eternal Son.)

I think "eternally generated out from" (spiritually) explains better what Nicea and Augustine and others meant.

the words "born" and "begotten" has other connotations to them.

I will comment more as I have time to digest it more.
Thanks again.

Nick said...

I recently wrote a blog post showing a surprising find from an Imam who converted to Catholicism. He pointed out that in his study of the Quran, the name "Mohammed" only appears in 4 verses, whereas the name "Mary" appears in about 30 verses and the name "Jesus" appears in about 30 verses. Not only that, but the Quran says that Mary was born without sin, gave birth to the Messiah, was visited by an angel, etc, etc, and that Jesus performed miracles, raised the dead, was without sin, was taken to heaven, will come back to judge the world, etc. Nothing anywhere close to this is said of Mohammed. Startling to think about. I verified these myself.

Catholic Author Robert Spencer has a book "Did Mohammed Really Exist?" and makes a strong case that Mohammed never actually existed. Given the example above, where Mohammed is only mentioned 4 times in the whole Quran, this would suggest that the Quran was originally a Christian liturgical book, and that the name "Mohammed" means simply "the praised one," which was simply a title for Jesus. Over time Arab warlords took over and began to corrupt the text into a whole new narrative, akin to how Joseph Smith invented a new Christian narrative.

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Before I begin my own musings, I would like to provide THIS LINK to the post at your blog that you mentioned.

Having studied Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad for a good number of years now, I was aware of the details that Mario Joseph provided. Now, with that said, I would like to point out that though the name Muhammad (Muhammadin/Muhammadun) is only mentioned four times in the Qur'an—3.144; 33.40; 47.2; 80.1—he is termed 'O Prophet' (I-nabiyu, 'the Prophet' (I-nabiya), and 'the Messanger' (I-rasula) quite a few times.

Now, as for Robert Spencer's new book, I do not own, nor I have I read it, so I cannot comment much on it at this time (I ordered the book minutes ago). I have read his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam - 2005, which contains no hints that he supports the notion the Muhammad did not exist. I have also read his subsequent, The Truth About Muhammad - 2006, wherein he wrote:

"From a strictly historical standpoint, it is impossible to state with certainty even that a man named Muhammad actually existed, or if he did, that he did much or any of what is ascribed to him. In all likelihood he did exist—particularly in light of recorded aspects of his life that are acutely embarrassing for Muslims today (and, to varying degrees, throughout history) who are confronted with the difficulty of squaring them with modern sensibilities. It is hard to imagine that a pious hagiographer would have invented Muhammad's marriage to a nine-year-old girl, or his marriage to his ex-daughter-in-law. Muslims have struggled to explain these and other aspects of Muhammad's life for centuries; if an editor or compiler could have simply consigned them to oblivion, he most likely would have." (Robert Spencer, The Truth About Muhammad, 2006, page 31.)

However, in his new book, he now says:

"That may have been an overly optimistic assessment." (link to Google preview, no page number provided.)

Anyway, I shall withhold judgment until I have received, and read, his new book.

Thanks much for the heads-up...


Grace and peace,

David

Jamie Donald said...

Paul fails to grasp that the "only true God" of John's Gospel (17:3) has an only begotten Son (His eternal Word), who was with Him before the "beginning"—that He created "all things through him"—and that this Son/Word "was God" (see John 1:1,3, 14, 18, 20:28).

I disagree with this assessment. Paul, as a former Christian who converted to Islam as an adult, does know the theology and Christian thought that reconciles the verses. He simply doesn't believe it, so he (actively in my opinion) omits it.

Logically, his entire article takes this structure: he assumes the Islamic paradigm, then asserts and Islamic interpretation to the verses, and follows by concluding that his assumption is correct - which enables him to make and assert the assumption. It's a classic circular logic example that does not engage Christianity at all. Thus, it does not refute Christianity.

Our friend, Ken Temple, does a valiant job trying to defend the Trinity. But he does not recognize the circular logic being displayed and so he does not truly combat Paul where Paul is trying to make an argument. Over on Called to Communion this is where Bryan Cross frequently replies with something like, The Christian interpretation is fully consistent with these two verses, and says nothing more. When pressed he points out the logical fallacy and forces the interlocutor to correct his logic.

David, your response had done a good job at showing that "full consistency."

Ken, I suspect you will read this. If you did recognize the circular logic, then I did not see you respond with that recognition. No offense is intended.

Ken said...

Thanks Jamie,
I admit I don't see your assessment that my logic is circular at the comment boxes at Paul William's blog article.
Ken Temple

Jamie Donald said...

Ken, You misunderstand me. I'm saying that Paul's logic is circular. I'm also saying that I don't think you realized he was being circular. I think you approached him from a different avenue and avoided HIS circularity. My own opinion is that in missing it, you made the defense of the Trinity task somewhat more difficult for yourself. BUT I in this case, I am definitely NOT saying that you had the logic error. It is Paul who does. I hope this clears things up!

Ken said...

oh, ok.
thanks

David Waltz said...

Hi Jamie,

So good to see you back. Thanks much for taking time to respond to my post.

After reflecting on your comments concerning Paul, I have come to concur with your analysis. Yet with that said, I cannot help but think Paul may have had a skewed understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity before his apostasy and conversion to Islam.


Grace and peace,

David

Jamie Donald said...

David,

I would suspect that his view was most likely skewed prior to his conversion to Islam. What I cannot know is when and how far it was in the skewed state at what times.

I can only go on his claim that he knew and studied Christian doctrine prior to his conversion. Taking him at his word, I can only assume that he knows (or should know) the Christian response and then deliberately refuses to engage it.

Rory said...

Dave hey...

I finally had the chance to look up the arguments of the Muslim apologist. It seems like more than intellectual incapacity going on with him. He is another among many.

Here is my theory...

Polemicists in other religious communities have also been delighted to have their "faith" confirmed by imbibing puerile arguments that mock a supposed Christian teaching that no one would defend. They like to call it Trinitarianism.

One can tell that it is not a problem of the intellect, but of the will, when they stubbornly refuse to consider the distinctive ways in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are God according to the Nicene Creed and the explanation given from St. Augustine.

One seldom discusses Nicene Trinitarianism with this kind of apologist. It rarely gets that far. They will not let go of ideas that are supposedly implied by Nicene Trinitarianism that are as absurd to the Catholic as they are to the apologist.

The reason they need to make the Trinity so absurdly illogical and incoherent is because their will is involved. They love what they think the Trinity teaches because it is so stupid, and it comforts them with their restorationist ideologies to think so.

Rory

Rory said...

Thinking primarily of Muslims and Mormons who are convinced that the Church founded by Christ quickly abandoned His teachings about God and about himself, I wrote:

"One can tell that it is not a problem of the intellect, but of the will, when they stubbornly refuse to consider the distinctive ways in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are God according to the Nicene Creed, and the explanation given from St. Augustine."

I would like to add that I vehemently deny that the Catholic Scriptures alone (73 books) are adequate to refute the false doctrines of those who confidently affirm that any truncated or expanded canon, or even the Catholic canon clearly teaches plainly the doctrine of the Council of Nicea.

With that disclaimer, I would also insist that along with the Creed and St. Augustine, the Holy Scriptures are completely compatible with the Traditions which aided the Council Fathers of Nicea to affirm that Christ, God's Son, was no creature, and rather God of God.

The finest, most fitting, and true explanation of the mystery of the Godhead is not found only in Catholic Tradition, the Council of Nicea, or the teachings of the greatest Church Fathers. It is in my opinion, by far the best explanation for reconciling the way the Holy Scriptures sometimes seem to insist upon truths that appear to be contrary.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I have been pondering over your reflections off and on today, going back an re-reading them to make sure that I am grasping the thrust of your analysis. In your first post, you said:

==One can tell that it is not a problem of the intellect, but of the will, when they stubbornly refuse to consider the distinctive ways in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are God according to the Nicene Creed and the explanation given from St. Augustine.==

Certainly will is a major aspect involved, but I am open to the possibility that Mr. Williams may not have been exposed to solid delineations of the doctrine of the Trinity. If his formation and understanding of the Trinity came from more 'popular' treatments and/or those that placed an unhealthy emphasis on the ontological side of the Trinity, to the neglect of the economical side—as well as the monarchy of God the Father—I think one could say intellect did have a part to play in his abandonment of the Trinity and conversion to Islam.

==The reason they need to make the Trinity so absurdly illogical and incoherent is because their will is involved. They love what they think the Trinity teaches because it is so stupid, and it comforts them with their restorationist ideologies to think so.==

I can essentially agree with the above; but, let us not forget that a good many Christian theologians have stated that the Trinity is a "mystery", with some going so far as to say that it is illogical.

In your second post, you wrote:

=I would like to add that I vehemently deny that the Catholic Scriptures alone (73 books) are adequate to refute the false doctrines of those who confidently affirm that any truncated or expanded canon, or even the Catholic canon clearly teaches plainly the doctrine of the Council of Nicea.==

I would like to see what Nick has to say on this. Hopefully, he is still checking in on this thread...


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

I'm not following this thread that closely, but in response to Rory's claim that the Catholic Bible, or even the Protestant Bible, is not adequate to refute the false doctrines of Protestants, or that the Bible teaches plainly the doctrine of Nicaea, I'd say the following.

Many Church Fathers and great Catholic theologians held very high confidence in refuting most if not every heresy from the Scriptures. Indeed, it would be pretty weak if the Bible couldn't be used to refute most theological errors. I've yet to really even find any Protestant/EO/JW/Mormon errors that cannot easily be refuted by the Bible alone. On my blog there's a Pope Leo XIII quote where he says Catholics can and should use the Bible to refute every error.

The Bible confirms Nicaea in a real sense, and by Nicaea this means the the Creed, which was all basically derived from the Bible. The Creed was invented in so far as it didn't come from the Bible, but it likely came from the Apostle's Creed, which we hold comes from the Apostles. Nicaea was helpful in it's anathema: "There was a time when the Son was not," because the Bible doesn't use this plain, succinct claim, but the Bible certainly supports the Son's eternity. With the 'consubstantial' statement, that was again a more succinct/helpful way of putting things than what the Bible says, but John 1:1c literally does say "the Word was with God and had God's Nature," which is precisely what 'consubstantial' means.

Rory said...

Dave...

Thank you for your reply. I am afraid my "clarification" was itself confusing. My apologies about that.

My remarks were intended to convey my belief that the Council Fathers at Nicea needed both Scripture and Tradition to refute the Arian heresy. If the interpreter of Scripture has to put aside all sources of information except Scripture, I would be lost.

For some time now, indeed for more than two decades, I am of the opinion that successful error, a growing heresy, founded on the Bible alone, is ordinarily successful because it does come from a deep familiarity with the words of Scripture. Cut off from the Catholic Church, charismatic students of the Bible can succeed in offering an intellectually satisfying alternative to the truths of the Catholic faith.

Before becoming Catholic I was impressed with the ways the different heresies were able to cleverly turn Scripture alone to make it say contrary things. At this point in my life, I would be amazed to discover that the Holy Scripture alone clearly refutes all non-Catholic doctrines. That is why I have thought it was adequate and prudent in dealings with sola scriptura heretics to stop short of full refutation of their errors. Instead of that, I have thought it better to try to emphasize the futility of resolving controversies on the authority of the Bible alone by demonstrating that Catholic distinctives are also supportable from the Bible alone.

Nick...

As you see, my experience with the Bible leads me to doubt that I could arrive at the truths of the Catholic faith apart from the Apostolic Church telling me how the Scriptures must be traditionally interpreted. Contrary to your experience, my inability to resolve any doctrinal controversies from the Bible alone was an important part of my journey to the Catholic faith. Subsequently, my experience has also led me to a different strategy than your own in attempts to interact with non-Catholics.

Be assured of my admiration for your zeal to win souls to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I hope it could be that we are more agreed than it appears. Be that as it may, may the good God bless you and may He be glorified trough your diligent work.

Regards,

Rory