God is Light: A profound convergence of Biblical and Qur'anic thought

I have been 'sitting on' this post for a few months now, being a bit reticent to publish it; but recent events have now compelled me to do so. I suspect that it will be a bit controversial for a number of my readers, but I sincerely hope that those who take the time to read it, will do so with as much objectivity as they can muster. Here goes...

In the Bible we read: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5b - ASV)

And from the Qur'an: "God is the light of the heavens and the earth." (Surah 24:35a - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

This attribution of the term "light"—in both the Bible and the Qur'an—to the One, Supreme, True God, is a reference to His very being/essence. Note the following scholarly references which support this important motif (I have selected only a few from a list of dozens):

"God is light." John formulates short statements that describe God's nature. In other places he says, "God is spirit" (John 4:24) and "God is love" (1 John 4:16). Here, in verse 5, he reveals God's essence in a short statement of three words: "God is light." (Simon J. Kistemaker, James and I-III John, 1986, p. 242.)

The very being of God is absolute light. (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of I and II Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John and the Epistle of Jude, 1966, p. 384.)

God is light, i.e., God's nature is light = absolute holiness and truth (comp. iv. 8; Gospel of John iv. 24). (J.E. Huther, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, 1980 reprint, pp. 480, 481.)

In the inanimate world, light is the most common and the most theologically important image of God. John virtually defines God when he says, "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). (John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, 2002, p. 376.)

The physical light is but a reflection of the true Light in the world of Reality, and that true Light is Allah. (Abdullah Ysuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an, 1993, p. 876.)

Al-Nur—Light—is the visible one by whom everything is made visible, for what is visible in itself and makes other things visible is called light'. In the measure that existence is opposed to non-existence, what is visible cannot but be linked to existence, for no darkness is darker than non-existence. What is free from the darkness of non-existence, and even from the possibility of non-existence, who draws everything from the darkness of non-existence to the manifestation of existence, is worthy of being named light. Existence is a light streaming to all things from the light of His essence, for He is the light of the heavens and the earth. And as there is not an atom of the light of the sun which does not by itself lead one to the existence of the sun which illuminates it, so there is not a single atom from the existents of the heavens and the earth and what lies between them which does not lead one by the very possibility of its existence to the necessary existence who brings them into being. (Al-Ghazali, The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God, trans. David B. Burrell and Naih Daher, 1992, 1997, p. 145.)

"God is the light of the Heavens and of the Earth . . ." (XXIV, 35). For, to those who have understood the true meaning, light is being, and darkness is non-being. The Light, which is God, therefore is the constitutive being of the Heavens and of the Earth. (Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Shi'ism - Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality, 1988, p, 197.)

Having established that "the light" is a reference to the very being of God, I would now like to explore the issue of etiology—i.e. causation, origination—more specifically, the first causation by/from God.

In Christian thought, it is God's Logos/Son/Wisdom/Word which was the 'first causation' from God. Before time, God begets (i.e. causes) His Logos/Son/Wisdom/Word, from His being/essence/Light (Proverbs 8:22-30; John 5:26; Rev. 3:14). God's Logos/Son/Wisdom/Word is 'Light from Light'.

In Islamic thought, we have a virtual parallel concept concerning the 'first causation' from God. Note the following Hadith:

The hadith that is related by Jābir in the Musannaf of al-Hāfiz Abū Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzāq b. Hammām al-San’ānī and considered sound by recent scholarship indicates that the very first of God’s creation was the light of the Prophet. According to the hadith, Jābir b, ‘Abd Allāh asked the Prophet, ‘What is the first thing that God created?’ To this, the Prophet replied, ‘O Jābir! The first thing God, the Sublime and Exalted, created was the light of your Prophet from His light, and that light remained in the midst of His power for as long as He wished, and there was not at that time a Tablet or a Pen or a Paradise or a Fire or an angel or a heaven or an earth. (Hamza Yusaf, The Creed of Imam al-Tahāwī, 2007, p. 117.)

Before time (or anything else), God brings forth (i.e. causes/creates) "the light of the Prophet...from His light". This concept is known as the 'Muhammadan Light' (an-Nur al-Muhammadiyyah), also called the 'Muhammadan Reality' (al-haqiqah al-Muhammadiyyah). Note the following from Cyril Glassé:

Much emphasis is placed on this idea by the Shī'ites, who find this light eminently manifest in their Imāms, but the term is also encountered, mainly in the context of mysticism, among the Sunnīs, as a doctrine not unlike that of the logos. (The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, 1989, p. 304 - bold emphasis mine.)

This "Muhammadan Light", or Light of Muhammad, is mentioned in Qur'an:

People of the Book! Our Messenger has come to make clear to you much of what you have hidden of the Scriptures and to forgive you much. A light has now come to you from God and a clear Book, whereby God guides to the ways of peace all who seek His good pleasure, bringing them from darkness to the light, by His will, and guiding them to a straight path. (Surah 5:15 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

For more information on the "Muhammadan Light", or Light of Muhammad, see the following online articles:

The Light of the Prophet

The First Thing That Allah Created Was My Nur

The Light of the Prophet

Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyya

Now, I suspect that many will notice that on the Christian side of the issue of God's 'first causation', an emphasis is placed on begetting, while on the Muslim side, it is creating. At first glance, it would appear that we have two different concepts being presented; however, one must keep in mind that in the Bible and early Church, the Hebrew and Greek terms used for beget and create were often interchangeable. As such, one needs look beyond the verbal action (causation)—both sides acknowledge this first cause—to the ontological aspects of this action/cause. The ontology of God's first cause is this: the One, Supreme, Uncaused God from His Essence/Light begets/creates another being, and this, before the creation of anything else, including time.

Another difference is that for Christians, it is Jesus Christ's pre-existent being/nature that is presented, while for Muslims, it is Muhammad's. But, once again, the divide may not be as wide as most would perceive it—especially from a Muslim perspective. In the Qur'an we read:

The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and [so do] believers. They all believe in God and His angels, His scriptures, and His messengers. They say, We do not differentiate between any of His messengers. We hear and obey. Grant us Your forgiveness, Lord, to You we shall all return! (Surah 2.284 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

It sure seems to me that if one is going to be faithful to the above concept, one needs to affirm that Muhammad's pre-existent 'light' is Jesus' pre-existent 'light'.

There is much more to share on this topic, but I want to limit the size of this opening post. With that said, I shall be looking forward to the contributions of others...

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I am heading out of town tomorrow for a 4 day vacation. Don't know if I will be able to access my blog, so do not be surprised if I am unable to respond to any comments before Saturday.

Muslim preacher sentenced to 11 years in jail for blasphemy for burning a Bible (June 16, 2013)

(Reuters) - A Cairo court sentenced an Egyptian Muslim preacher to 11 years in jail for blasphemy on Sunday for burning a Bible during a protest last year outside the U.S. embassy.

 

See the following link for the full article:

 

UK Reuters

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Martin Luther on the life and practices of the "Turks" (i.e. Muslims of the Ottoman Empire) and the God worshipped by them

Before I resume my review of James R. White's, What Every Christian Needs To Know About the Qur'an, I wanted to share an article that I found online last week; an article that includes two translations from Luther's corpus that I had never read; an article that I think many will find to be quite interesting. The article is from the Lutheran journal, Word & World (Volume XVI.2, Spring 1996, pp. 250-266). A pdf copy can be accessed (and downloaded) via the following link:

 Martin Luther - Translations of Two Prefaces on Islam

In addition to the translations of the Preface to the Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum (1530), and Preface to Bibliander’s Edition of the Qur’an (1543), a valuable introduction is provided. From the introduction we read:

Throughout this period, guided by his perspective of the two realms, civil and spiritual, and the duties appropriate to each, Luther repeatedly argued for the obligation of obedience to all secular authority as instituted by God for the preservation of order, going so far as to say, even if it be the authority of Turkish captors. Accordingly, Luther was often charged with being responsible for a perceived reluctance on the part of Lutherans to fight against the Turkish invaders and thus for hindering good morale on the part of the defenders of Europe. At the same time Luther’s writings consistently show him to have been more concerned with Christians at home than with the Turk, with matters of theodicy and with a call for contrition and inward preparation on the part of a Christian population in great need of repentance before the present catastrophe, which he saw to be the punishment of God. (Page 252)

The authors then briefly comment on a few of Luther's polemical treatments against the "Turks", and follow that section with:

Whatever must be granted in Luther’s language in this document [On War Against the Turk] to the context, to the extremities of the political situation, and the rhetoric of war, still in the almost contemporary work included below in Part II we see a much more balanced discussion. (Page 254) 

From "part II" (LUTHER'S 1530 PREFACE TO THE TRACT ON THE RELIGION AND CUSTOMS OF THE TURKS):

...we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies—and, I might almost say, in customs—than ours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplicity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, prayers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seen among us—or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. Furthermore, which of our monks, be it a Carthusian (they who wish to appear the best) or a Benedictine, is not put to shame by the miraculous and wondrous abstinence and discipline among their religious? Our religious are mere shadows when compared to them, and our people clearly profane when compared to theirs. Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display. This is the reason why many persons so easily depart from faith in Christ for Muhammadanism and adhere to it so tenaciously. I sincerely believe that no papist, monk, cleric, or their equal in faith would be able to remain in their faith if they should spend three days among the Turks. (Page 259)

Moving on to the God worshipped by the "Turks", we read the following from Luther's Large Catechism:

These articles of the Creed, therefore, divide and distinguish us Christians from all other people upon earth. All who are outside the Christian church, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites, even though they believe in and worship only the one, true God, nevertheless do not know what his attitude is toward them. They cannot be confident of his love and blessing. Therefore they remain in eternal wrath and damnation, for they have do not the Lord Christ, and, besides, are not illuminated and blessed by any gifts of the Holy Spirit. (The Book of Concord, "The Large Catechism", 1959, p. 419 - bold emphasis mine.)

As with so much of Luther's thought/writings, I come away with a strong sense of tension between some of his more basic reflections on the "Turks", and his polemical outbursts.

With that said, I hope that some of my readers will find the above resources as interesting as I have.

Grace and peace,

David

Surah 4.157 - some further reflections and a resource list

My interest in Surah 4.157 was in a very real sense renewed after reading James R. White's, What Every Christian Needs To Know About the Qur'an. I have posted two installments of my review of the book (first; second), and the second installment was on chapter 6, a chapter which focused on Surah 4.156, 157 ("forty Arabic words"). In that installment I stated, "Chapter 6 (pages 129-143) is the most disappointing of the book", and then offered 4 reasons for that conviction. I would now like to add yet one more: Mr. White's interpretation of Surah 4.157 makes constructive dialogue between Christians and Muslims virtually impossible. I say this, because if a Christian adopts Mr. White's interpretation (and most do so), then only one conclusion can be reached: Surah 4.157 is utterly false; and if a Muslim adopts the same interpretation (and most do so), then only one conclusion can be reached: the Bible on the issue of the crucifixion and death of Jesus is utterly false. When conclusions of this nature are embraced, any possibility of constructive dialogue vanishes. And further, any chance of objective reflection from either side of the issue also vanishes; which in turn means that when competent scholars present solid evidence such interpretations are severely flawed, they are almost universally ignored. Fortunately, there are some Christians and Muslims who are objective enough to recognize such flaws, and I am in debt to these folk for my understanding of Surah 4.157—i.e. the Qur'an does not deny the physical crucifixion and death of Jesus—which happens to be the most internally consistent interpretation. I shall now turn to the Qur'an itself, and let it speak to us on this issue:

It is He who has sent down the Book to you. Some of its verses are clear [muh'kamātun] and precise in meaning they are the basis of the Book while others are allegorical [mutashābihātun]. Those with deviation in their hearts pursue the allegorical, so as to create dissension by seeking to explain it: but no one knows its meaning except God. Those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, We believe in it: it is all from our Lord. But only the wise take heed. (Surah 3.7 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

Some clear [muh'kamātun] ayat:

Do not say that those who are killed in Gods cause are dead; they are alive, but you are not aware of it. (Surah 2.154 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

God said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall clear you [of the calumnies] of the disbelievers, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes. (Surah 3.55 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

Do not think of those who have been killed in Gods cause as dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their Lord; (Surah 3.169 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

I told them only what You commanded me [Jesus] to, Worship God, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness to what they did as long as I remained among them, and when You did cause me [Jesus] to die, You were the watcher over them. You are the witness of all things, (Surah 5.117 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

Blessed was I on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day I die and on the day I am raised to life again. (Surah 19:33 - Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

A not so clear ayah (Dr. Joseph Cumming in his essay, "Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"[link] lists no less than 10 differing interpretations of this ayah in the major tasfīr literature—i.e. commentary on the Qur'an):

For their saying: “It is we who killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God.” Nay, they did not kill him by crucifying him. They thought they did, and those who affirm that are uncertain; they have no knowledge about it except by speculation. In certainty they did not kill him because God raised him from death up to Him. (Surah 4.157 - Dr. Suleiman Mourad)

If one begins with the clear ayat in mind (the Qur'an refers to those who do so as being, "firmly grounded in knowledge"), only one internally consistent interpretation of ayah 4.157 emerges: Jesus' physical body was crucified and killed on the cross, but His soul/spirit remained alive, and He was raised to the presence of God.

What follows, is a partial list of books, essays and websites/blogs that support the internally consistent interpretation of Surah 4.157:

Islamic Studies scholars -

"Does the Qur'an Deny or Assert Jesus' Crucifixion and Death?" (Paper presented in 2008 at the "The Qur'an in Its Historical Context" conference, University of Notre Dame; subsequently published 2011 in, The Qur'an in Its Historical Context 2, pp. 347-355)  - by Dr. Suleiman A. Mourad

"The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 72, 2009, pp. 237-58.)- by Dr. Gabriel Said Reynolds [link to online pdf copy]

“Towards an Islamic Christology II”, The Muslim World, Vol. LXX, April 1980, #2, (p. 106) - by Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub

“The Crucifixion in the Koran,” (Muslim World 13, 1923, pp. 242–58) - by E.E. Elder

Jesus In the Qur'an (Oxford University Press ed. 1977; Oneworld Publications ed. 1995,  pp. 105-121) - by Dr. Geoffrey Parrinder

The Crucifixion and the Qur'an (2009) - by Dr. Todd Lawson

NOTE: One Islamic Studies scholar, Dr. Neal Robinson, was recently cited by a Muslim apologist who posts under the name Ibn Anwar (thanks to Ken Temple for bringing this to my attention). In the combox of a thread at Paul Williams' blog, Ibn Anwar quoted the following from Dr. Robinson:

“The attempt of some Christian apologists to circumvent the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion is disingenuous in the extreme.” (Robinson, N. (1991) Christ in Islam and Christianity: The Representation of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Classical Muslim Commentaries. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. p. 115). [Link to Ibn Anwar's post]

The above quote from Dr. Robinson, if read by itself, seems to be denying any legitimacy to the interpretation of Surah 4.157 that I have adopted. However, one must not read the quote in isolation. Earlier in the same book, Dr. Robinson cited an early Muslim source which affirmed that it was Jesus himself who was crucified on the cross, and then laid in the tomb:

Jesus’ humanity (nāsut) was crucified and his hands were nailed to the cross. He was left there all day, given vinegar to drink, and pierced with a lance. He was taken down from the cross, wrapped in a shroud and laid in the tomb. Three days later he appeared to the disciples and was recognized by them. When the news spread that he had not been killed, the Jews opened up the tomb but did not find his mortal remains (nāsut). (Christ In Islam and Christianity, pp. 56, 57.)

Even more important is the following from Dr. Robinson's contribution on "Jesus" in Brill's, The Encyclopaedia of the Qur'ān (2005, vol. 3, pp. 7-21):

[T]he Qur'anic teaching about Jesus' death is certainly not clear-cut. Three things, however, may be said with certainty. First, the Qur'an attaches no salvific importance to this death. Second, it does not mention his resurrection on the third day and has no need of it as proof of God's power to raise the dead. Third, although the Jews thought they had killed Jesus, from God's viewpoint they did not kill or crucify him. Beyond this is the realm of speculation. The classical commentators generally begin with the questionable premise that Q 4.157-9 contains an unambiguous denial of Jesus' death by crucifixion. They found confirmation of this in the existence of traditional reports about a look-alike substitute and hadiths about Jesus' future descent. Then they interpreted the other Qur'anic references to Jesus' death in the light of their understanding of this one passage. If, however, the other passages are examined without presupposition and Q 4.157-159 is then interpreted in the light of them, it can be read as a denial of the ultimate reality of Jesus' death rather than a categorical denial that he died. (Cited in Dr. Todd Lawson's, The Crucifixion and the Qur'an, pp. 23, 24.)

Websites and blogs -

"DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS?" (Evidence for God's Unchanging Word - link)

"What does the Qur'an say about Jesus death?" (Antioch Believer - link)

"Never say die: The death of Jesus in the Qur'an" (Religion at the margins - link)

"Did Jesus Die?" (From the book, Jesus The Light And Fragrance of God, by M. N. Anderson - link)

"Two questions from a truth-seeking Muslim on the death of Jesus on the cross" (A Christian Thinktank - link)

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. For all my threads on Surah 4.157 see THIS LINK

James R. White's, What Every Christian Needs To Know About the Qur'an - A critical review, part 2

I am into the 8th day of a cold that may be the worst I have every had; but, I am finally beginning to sense that it is nearing it's end. Apart from laryngitis, and some occasional stuffiness, I am starting to feel almost 'normal'. So, now that the headaches, constant drainage, and overall sinus pressure has vanished, I am now able to focus on posting again, resuming my review of Mr. White's, What Every Christian Needs To Know About the Qur'an. The first installment of this review was published back on May 9th, 2013 (link), and focused on the book's introduction; this second installment shall delve into chapter 6, "The Qur'an and the Cross".

Chapter 6 (pages 129-143) is the most disappointing of the book (IMO), and this, for a number of reasons: first, Mr. White has chosen to limit his polemic to but one of the interpretations that has been offered by Muslim commentators—the "substitution theory"; second, only one translation is offered—for a section of the Qur'an (Surah 4.156, 157 - some "forty Arabic words") which many scholars have deemed the most difficult to translate, that is troubling; third, only ONE Muslim source is referenced in the entire chapter; and fourth, apart from the ONE Muslim scholar cited, no other scholarly author of Islamic Studies (Muslim or non-Muslim) is referenced, not ONE (comparing Mr. White's with Dr. Lawson's references on this issue we get: 1 vs. 300+).

I have already published 4 previous threads on Surah 4.156, 157 (link). Some of the key points covered in those threads include: first, some Muslims are fully convinced that the Qur'an does NOT deny the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus Christ; second, interpretations offered by Muslims who do believe that the Qur'an denies the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus Christ are varied and often contradictory; and third, given the fact that other passages in the Qur'an clearly affirm the death of Jesus Christ (Mr. White lists 2 such passages in his book: Surahs 3:55; 19:33 - page 141), the interpretation that the Qur'an does NOT deny the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus Christ is by far the most internally consistent one.

Now, I think the question that needs to be asked is this: why does Mr. White totally neglect the more internally consist understanding of 4.156, 157 ? To be sure, the vast majority of modern day Muslims reject this interpretation, but then, the vast majority of modern day Muslims also reject the understanding that the corruption of the "Torah and the Gospel" spoken of in the Qur'an pertains to interpretation and not wholesale textual corruption—Mr. White defends the minority position on this issue (see chapter 8, pp. 165-192). So, while Mr. White vigorously defends one minority position, he totally ignores another; his reasons are unknown to me, but one issue comes to the fore: the issue of consistency.

Moving from Mr. White's polemic, to that of Muslim apologists, the question of why the majority of Muslim commentators have rejected the internally consistent interpretation of 4.156, 157 remains. Dr. Lawson touches on a number of possible reasons in his exhaustive book, The Crucifixion and the Qur'an, but one very interesting possibility was not included. I shall now present what may be the most telling reason why the majority of Muslim commentators have rejected the internally consistent interpretation of Surah 4.156, 157. The following is from al-Kindi's, Apology, as found in N.A. Newman's, Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue [a book I recommended to my readers back on Dec. 2, 2011 (link); a book referenced numerous times by Mr. White in his book (pp. 49, 57, 102, 103, 192, 278), but NOT for what follows]:

They say [Muslims] that during his lifetime [Muhammad's] he told them not to bury him when he died. He said that God would raise him to heaven, as Christ our Lord was raised, and that he was too dear to God to be left on earth more than three days. They cherished this hope, and when he died on Monday, the 12th night of the first Spring moth in the 63rd year of his age, after an illness of 14 days, they laid him out, believing he would be raised to heaven as he had said. But when the third day had come, corruption had already set in, and their hope failed. They despaired of his vain assurance, and buried him in the earth on the 4th day. (N.A. Newman's, Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue, p. 444.)

N.A. Newman, in chapter note #48, adds the following important data:

[48] Though there appear to be no Muslim sources for Muhammad ever saying that he would be resurrected as Jesus was on the third day, al-Kindi's accusation is not entirely without merit...Shahih Bukhari, The Virtues and Merits of the Companions of the Prophet, ch. 6, hadith 18, vol. 5, p. 13 shows 'Umar as saying that Muhammad was to be resurrected...if Muhammad had said that he was to be resurrected and then was not, this would have been reason enough for a fairly well organized cover-up on the part of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and even the rest of the community...In view of the many inconsistencies concerning the death of Muhammad, it is quite possible that there were Muslim hadith in al-Kindi's day which reported that he was to be resurrected in a manner similar to Jesus. Moreover, it appears that none of the later Muslim apologists even tried to respond to al-Kindi's charge, though they must certainly have known of it at least through al-Biruni. (Ibid.. pp. 528, 529)

Nothing of this in Mr. White's book, nothing concerning important Muslim figures who affirmed the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, nothing concerning Dr. Lawson's scholarly treatment—sure makes me wonder about the book's title...

More installments to follow, the Lord willing.

Grace and peace,

David

Christianity Today: "What Can Christians Learn From the Surge in Mormon Youth Missionaries?"

I found the article, "What Can Christians Learn From the Surge in Mormon Youth Missionaries?", posted yesterday in the OPINION" section of Christianity Today (LINK), to be both interesting, and provocative. Note the following:

Mormonism pushes its kids harder and takes them farther than even the most ardent Protestant youth ministry. Can you imagine a youth group that challenged each of its teenagers to meet at 6 a.m. every day of the school year to learn about Christianity? That's exactly what Mormons do with their high-school students. We get excited if our teens gather around a pole at 7:15 a.m. to pray once a year.

When typical Christians graduate from high school, they grab their books and go off to a college dorm. When typical Mormons graduate from high school, they grab a bike pump and go on mission.

Those high expectations pay off. Young Mormons know what they believe and why they believe it. They've hammered out their theology on evangelical doorsteps. Their hearts and minds have been steeled and sealed into Mormon orthodoxy through their intense commitment.

Maybe that's why Mormons give more and work harder than their Christian peers. Maybe that's why the religion is expanding while a majority of former Christian youth-group attendees are fleeing the church.

My own personal experience growing up as a 4th generation Jehovah's Witness shares some similarities with the above. In my 'door-to-door' (i.e. missionary work) encounters (hundreds of hours), not once was my beliefs cogently/seriously challenged by ANYONE I met, let alone someone in their teens or early twenties. So, it comes as no surprise to me that Evangelical Christians are left 'scratching their heads' over such phenomenon.

Grace and peace,

David

The current issue of Credo: "The Trinity & the Christian Life"

I was going to work on the second installment of my review of What Every Christian Needs To Know About The Qur'an today, but during some online browsing this morning, I found out that a new issue of Credo was recently published (April 2013 - LINK), and it's major theme is on the doctrine of the Trinity.

Much to my surprise, one of the featured articles is an interview with Dr. Stephen R. Holmes (pp. 48-51), the author the book, The Quest for the Trinity; a book I reviewed and recommended here at AF back on March 28, 2013 (LINK).

In addition to the Dr. Holmes' interview, I found the article, "The Mystery of the Trinity" (pp. 26-33), by Scott R. Swain, to be of some value, particularly his reflections on "Eternal Generation" (a doctrine denied by a number of Evangelical theologians - see THIS THEAD).

Though I cannot endorse all of the content of this issue of Credo, I still think it is worth one's time to read, and would be interested in the thoughts of those who have taken the time to do so.

ENJOY !!!

Grace and peace,

David