The Quran doesn't prove anything. At best, it's testimony concerning the Bible is interesting, and it might be useful in Muslim evangelism, but it can't prove anything – it isn't the word of God.
Maybe there is a point here that I am failing to grasp.
The work here is a pamphlet to evangelize Muslims. Given their presuppositions, they have to accept the Bible as the Word of God. As we will see by the end of this work, the Quran is definitely not the Word of God.
You're talking like a presuppositionalist, which is not bothersome to me. I was going to wait to read everything unfold here, but I think you ask good questions. The way I have chosen to see this so far is that everyone who is lost is suppressing the truth, and related to that is a particular stronghold in their mind. In this case, the Muslims have "reasons" why they don't believe Scripture. Since we believe based upon presuppositions that Muslims are suppressing the truth for a lie, we look to see how they are doing that. We use Scripture to pull down that stronghold. I think that the language found in the second heading is a concern too, but I'll let Thomas speak to that. How could we see the Quran to "prove" the Bible. I don't think that Quran could "prove" anything to a Muslim, because the problem is not the absence of truth for him, but his rebellion. I still think, however, that he could be pointed to the fact that Islam has acknowledged that Scripture is true, so he should believe it.
I would be less concerned about the success of the pamphlet with Muslims—I would be happy that Muslims are being evangelized. However, I do know that Thomas has spent a lot of time with Muslims in evangelism from his time spent here in our church.
I will add the explanation at the top of the blog. Thanks.
I have not seen any pamphlet-length material for reaching Muslims; only very short tracts and books. Unless readers of this blog have excellent pamphlets for reaching Muslims that they already use in their churches (and if they do, please let me know about them!) I trust that the several parts of this work (the entire pamphlet can be downloaded at http://thross7.googlepages.com) may be used of the Lord for the conversion of many Muslims.
Well, lest I be too snarky, let me say I think you have a worthy goal. I am just not sure that your efforts will be effective. I'd be interested to hear what kinds of responses you might get from Muslims.
I have heard presentations where the speakers have suggested using Quran references to point people to the truth of the Bible.
I am not just being pragmatic, by the way. Ultimately, salvation comes as a response to the Word, nothing else. But in presenting the Word we need to find ways to communicate it to people in their own 'milieu' (to use a highbrow term). So… it will be interesting to see what kind of responses you might get.
Why do we want anyone, muslim or not, to accept the word of an earthly, sensual, and devlish book? Doesn't this imply that the book is reliable? How is an appeal to the specific faith of a Muslim help him to reject Islam?
I think any tract that gives the plain gospel and demonstrates from scripture that faith not works is the basis of salvation will reach Muslims, no? Or are they a special case?
Let me address some of your concerns. Thomas is free to add whatever defense he may have.
A tract with the "plain gospel" is good. We have a scriptural basis for the skilled use of the sword (Eph 6:17) for the pulling down of strongholds (2 Cor 10:3-5). Those strongholds are peculiar imaginations that certain people have. Notice that when Jesus or Paul preach to various audiences, though not changing the gospel, they address the particular wrong thinking that is keeping someone from receiving Christ. Compare woman at the well with the rich young ruler. That's what Thomas is doing here.
As it relates to his use of the Quran, I've read this same approach in tracts, two-to-three small pages, by those who have preached to Muslims for many years. We had one in our tract rack for awhile. In a unique way a Moslem is suppressing the truth. Thomas is showing him how he is doing that. His own book says that he should believe the Bible. Does that prove anything to you? No. But does it direct a Moslem to the Bible according to his own thinking? Yes.
I've been thinking about these things a lot lately because I am teaching our seminary level guys a course in apologetics with an emphasis on the apologetic methodology. I don't believe we approach the lost from a position of neutrality, that is, approaching them as if worldviews were neutral and that we could use theirs as a basis for proving anything to them. That would be the question I would have for Thomas. Are we elevating the Quran too much, starting from a position of neutrality, thinking about the impression this might have on the Moslem? I would enjoy hearing his answer to that.
to add to d4v34x and Kent's conversation here, what would you say to using the New World Translation as a means of witnessing to JWs? This is often advocated by those who evangelize them. The process is very difficult even then.
In any case, the rationale is that the Lord may use the nature of the very things they trust in to shake their confidence in their false faith.
I tend to agree with the method, which is why I think Thomas' project is worthy. I am not sure that his writing style is as effective as it could be, but I would support the effort.
Though I did have some question about the Quran proving anything, it appears to me that Paul did some thing similar in Titus 1:12-13- "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;". Paul said that the witness of unbelievers was, in this case, true. I believe that this is what brother Ross has done.
I appreciate the effort that Thomas puts into evangelism. He is a godly man who loves God and loves the lost and puts a considerable personal effort into it both in his own preaching and with his writing. Not many scholars have this emphasis. They do their work for journals read by other academics—not Thomas.
Don,
Probably like you, I see using the NWT of the JWs as different than the Quran, in that it might be adding too much credibility to the NWT, but it might be more similar than I am thinking.
I appreciate the effort that Bro. Ross has made, and certainly commend him for his zeal to win Muslim to Christ.
This being said, I am a bit dubious as to just how effective the particular arguments made in this tract will be with Muslims who are reasonably well-versed in the Qur'an and the ahadith and in Muslim traditions.
First, we need to understand the way they define terms. Taurat and Injeel refer specifically to the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) and the Gospels (Matthew to John) respectively. Most Muslims do not include the Khetubim and Neviim (writings and prophets) as part of the Scripture – they probably got this attitude towards the OT from the Samaritans (seriously). They also do not accept the epistles in the NT, especially the Pauline epistles, Paul being one to whom many Muslims are especially loathe. Hence, we cannot use these terms synonymous with the OT and the NT, most Muslims knowledgable in their own traditions will probably reject attempts to use these terms in this fashion.
Also, we need to understand some things about the Muslim attitude towards biblical corruption (tahrif)or the lack thereof. Muslims certainly believe in the textual preservation of the Qur'an, and taking this tack might be helpful in getting a Muslim to recognise the insufficiency and corruptness of the Qur'an.
However, they do not approach corruption of the Bible from this same perspective. In the ahadith (which are indispensible to Muslims for interpreting and understanding the Qur'an), when Christians and Jews are said to have corrupted the Bible, what is typically meant is that this was done so by means of speech. In other words, a Christian or Jew was falsifying what the Bible says while preaching or explaining the Scriptures wrongly and deceitfully. Likewise, the ahadith describe attempts to "conceal" the meaning of Scripture through means such as hiding certain passages with your hand. Thirdly, by biblical corruption is sometimes meant the notion that Christians purposefully conceal the meaning of prophecies which "obviously" were pointing to Mohammed. Interestingly, in this area, Muslims WILL accept the prophets and writings, since they know that Christians and Jews accept them, and therefore should see Mohammed in them. (cont.)
(cont.)
Strictly textual arguments about the Bible such as we understand them are a relatively late addition to the Muslim repertoire, mostly in response to Christian arguments about the textual corruption of the Qur'an. They would consider the Bibles we have to be textually corrupt, perhaps, but that's not the primary sense in which their traditions teach them.
The point is that trying to argue for the Bible with textual arguments will not be all that effective, since most Muslims think that we've corrupted the Bible by not accepting that it teaches Muslim doctrines and about Mohammed, rather than that we went through and rewrote the whole thing. Again, there may be some for whom the textual argument is effective – so I wouldn't necessarily discourage use of this argument – but we should understand that with a lot of Muslims, their take on it will be "so what?"
Further, Muslims believe that Allah HAS guarded his words from corruption – but the point is, he did so by (re)revealing the Qur'an to them. For many Muslims, the attitude is essentially that the Qur'an IS the Bible as it originally was, it says the same thing as the Bible did back in Mohammed's time, and the corruption of the Bible actually POSTceded the revelation of the Qur'an. Pointing to a bunch of manuscripts – 99% of which postdate the time when Mohammed supposedly lived – as evidence for Biblical preservation won't be convincing, they'll just say the Bible was corrupted before those mss. were copied.
Again, I don't want to necessarily be discouraging the use of this tract, I just think we ought to know some of the reservations that Muslims might have towards the arguments trying to be used.
To those who asked about questions of this nature:
There is a clear Scriptural basis for showing how, given an unsaved person’s own presuppositions, he has problems/needs to listen to the gospel. Paul showed how pagan Greek poets demonstrated that the Athenians needed to abandon their belief that God was like gold or silver, etc. as their idols were. Christ demonstrated how, on the assumption that He was casting out devils by Beelzebub, those who were critiquing Him were themselves in error. God says, “Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant,” and then shows the problems with what the wicked presuppositions lead to. There are other examples of ad hominem (note-NOT the fallacy of abusive ad hominem, but a “to the man” argument) in Scripture. Thus, to argue that, given Muslim presuppositions, the Muslim must receive the Bible as the Word of God, is a Scriptural way of approaching him. The Titus verse by Pastor Webb is another example of this.
As for the NWT, I would use it if I had to get a hearing, but otherwise I would not. It is VERY corrupt, and the Watchtowerite will often listen to a real uncorrupt Bible (KJV). The NWT is so corrupt that it even changes salvation by faith in verses like John 3:16 to “exercise faith” for salvation (that is, “do good works.”)
In relation to the questions by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus about the equation of the Torah + Gospel with the OT/NT, I would commend to him the relevent material at: http://www.answering-islam.org/, a website with a lot of useful material for evangelizing Muslims, and where articles on that question may be found. They even have an article on Paul. Also, Muslim attitudes toward the hadith are far from uniform, and (just as many Catholics don’t have a clue what their organziation teaches) there are many Muslims who are not at all well versed in their religious tradition, but they just think the Bible is bad because someone told them it was so.
As will be demonstrated in later parts of the pamphlet (keep in mind that the above was part #1), if one accepts a textually pure Bible (as one must if he believes the Quran), the Muslim will have horrible problems. If the Bible is not corrupt, then Islam must be false. Also, the Bible cannot have been textually corrupted after Mohommed since we have Bibles that predate him that say the same thing as later ones, and the Quran says that no change can come to the words of Allah at any time—so arguing that the Bible has been corrupted is rejecting the Quran.
Also, it is not possible to simply limit the Quranic testimonies to the Bible as the Pentateuch and the Gospels. Note, for example, from the booklet:
“And if you [Muhammad] are in doubt concerning that which we reveal to you, then question those who read the Scripture that was before you” (10:94).
The Jews/Christians in Muhammad's day did not just have a Pentateuch and Gospels.
Also:
The Quran, claims, over and over again, to confirm and uphold the Torah and the Gospel, the Old and New Testaments—Muhammad claimed he was the “messenger from Allah, confirming . . . the Scripture . . . which they [the people of the Book, the Jews and Christians] possess” (2:101; cf. 2:41, 89, 91, 97; 3:3, 81; 4:47; 6:92; 12:111; 35:31; etc.)
Note the present tense–what the "people of the Book" CURRENTLY possessed was what the Quran confirmed, so it was an uncorrupted Bible, not one with textual errors, lots of uninspired books added (like Paul's writings, etc.)
“We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them” (3:84).
Note the reference to "the prophets," in addition to Moses, etc. This supports a reference to the entire OT, not the Pentateuch alone.
How could the Quran state that the religious “doctors of the children of Israel know . . . [what is in] the scriptures from the men of old” (26:196-197)? Could this be the case if the Jews had added all sorts of uninspired books to the OT?
Thus, the Quranic testimony to the Bible is very strong, and modern Muslim apologetics that attacks the Bible actually also rejects the Quran.
Uh… The Quran 'proves' something about the Bible?
This is just bizarre.
The Quran doesn't prove anything. At best, it's testimony concerning the Bible is interesting, and it might be useful in Muslim evangelism, but it can't prove anything – it isn't the word of God.
Maybe there is a point here that I am failing to grasp.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The work here is a pamphlet to evangelize Muslims. Given their presuppositions, they have to accept the Bible as the Word of God. As we will see by the end of this work, the Quran is definitely not the Word of God.
Ok, a couple of comments then…
1. You should put some kind of explanation to that effect at the top of the article. This blog isn't generally read by Muslims as far as I can tell.
2. Have you used this pamphlet with any success? If not, it might be helpful to do that first before publishing it in a place like this.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
You're talking like a presuppositionalist, which is not bothersome to me. I was going to wait to read everything unfold here, but I think you ask good questions. The way I have chosen to see this so far is that everyone who is lost is suppressing the truth, and related to that is a particular stronghold in their mind. In this case, the Muslims have "reasons" why they don't believe Scripture. Since we believe based upon presuppositions that Muslims are suppressing the truth for a lie, we look to see how they are doing that. We use Scripture to pull down that stronghold. I think that the language found in the second heading is a concern too, but I'll let Thomas speak to that. How could we see the Quran to "prove" the Bible. I don't think that Quran could "prove" anything to a Muslim, because the problem is not the absence of truth for him, but his rebellion. I still think, however, that he could be pointed to the fact that Islam has acknowledged that Scripture is true, so he should believe it.
I would be less concerned about the success of the pamphlet with Muslims—I would be happy that Muslims are being evangelized. However, I do know that Thomas has spent a lot of time with Muslims in evangelism from his time spent here in our church.
I will add the explanation at the top of the blog. Thanks.
I have not seen any pamphlet-length material for reaching Muslims; only very short tracts and books. Unless readers of this blog have excellent pamphlets for reaching Muslims that they already use in their churches (and if they do, please let me know about them!) I trust that the several parts of this work (the entire pamphlet can be downloaded at http://thross7.googlepages.com) may be used of the Lord for the conversion of many Muslims.
Well, lest I be too snarky, let me say I think you have a worthy goal. I am just not sure that your efforts will be effective. I'd be interested to hear what kinds of responses you might get from Muslims.
I have heard presentations where the speakers have suggested using Quran references to point people to the truth of the Bible.
I am not just being pragmatic, by the way. Ultimately, salvation comes as a response to the Word, nothing else. But in presenting the Word we need to find ways to communicate it to people in their own 'milieu' (to use a highbrow term). So… it will be interesting to see what kind of responses you might get.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Why do we want anyone, muslim or not, to accept the word of an earthly, sensual, and devlish book? Doesn't this imply that the book is reliable? How is an appeal to the specific faith of a Muslim help him to reject Islam?
I think any tract that gives the plain gospel and demonstrates from scripture that faith not works is the basis of salvation will reach Muslims, no? Or are they a special case?
D4,
Let me address some of your concerns. Thomas is free to add whatever defense he may have.
A tract with the "plain gospel" is good. We have a scriptural basis for the skilled use of the sword (Eph 6:17) for the pulling down of strongholds (2 Cor 10:3-5). Those strongholds are peculiar imaginations that certain people have. Notice that when Jesus or Paul preach to various audiences, though not changing the gospel, they address the particular wrong thinking that is keeping someone from receiving Christ. Compare woman at the well with the rich young ruler. That's what Thomas is doing here.
As it relates to his use of the Quran, I've read this same approach in tracts, two-to-three small pages, by those who have preached to Muslims for many years. We had one in our tract rack for awhile. In a unique way a Moslem is suppressing the truth. Thomas is showing him how he is doing that. His own book says that he should believe the Bible. Does that prove anything to you? No. But does it direct a Moslem to the Bible according to his own thinking? Yes.
I've been thinking about these things a lot lately because I am teaching our seminary level guys a course in apologetics with an emphasis on the apologetic methodology. I don't believe we approach the lost from a position of neutrality, that is, approaching them as if worldviews were neutral and that we could use theirs as a basis for proving anything to them. That would be the question I would have for Thomas. Are we elevating the Quran too much, starting from a position of neutrality, thinking about the impression this might have on the Moslem? I would enjoy hearing his answer to that.
to add to d4v34x and Kent's conversation here, what would you say to using the New World Translation as a means of witnessing to JWs? This is often advocated by those who evangelize them. The process is very difficult even then.
In any case, the rationale is that the Lord may use the nature of the very things they trust in to shake their confidence in their false faith.
I tend to agree with the method, which is why I think Thomas' project is worthy. I am not sure that his writing style is as effective as it could be, but I would support the effort.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jerimiah 33.3
Though I did have some question about the Quran proving anything, it appears to me that Paul did some thing similar in Titus 1:12-13- "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;". Paul said that the witness of unbelievers was, in this case, true. I believe that this is what brother Ross has done.
I appreciate the effort that Thomas puts into evangelism. He is a godly man who loves God and loves the lost and puts a considerable personal effort into it both in his own preaching and with his writing. Not many scholars have this emphasis. They do their work for journals read by other academics—not Thomas.
Don,
Probably like you, I see using the NWT of the JWs as different than the Quran, in that it might be adding too much credibility to the NWT, but it might be more similar than I am thinking.
Gary,
Thanks for that Titus reference. That was great.
I appreciate the effort that Bro. Ross has made, and certainly commend him for his zeal to win Muslim to Christ.
This being said, I am a bit dubious as to just how effective the particular arguments made in this tract will be with Muslims who are reasonably well-versed in the Qur'an and the ahadith and in Muslim traditions.
First, we need to understand the way they define terms. Taurat and Injeel refer specifically to the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) and the Gospels (Matthew to John) respectively. Most Muslims do not include the Khetubim and Neviim (writings and prophets) as part of the Scripture – they probably got this attitude towards the OT from the Samaritans (seriously). They also do not accept the epistles in the NT, especially the Pauline epistles, Paul being one to whom many Muslims are especially loathe. Hence, we cannot use these terms synonymous with the OT and the NT, most Muslims knowledgable in their own traditions will probably reject attempts to use these terms in this fashion.
Also, we need to understand some things about the Muslim attitude towards biblical corruption (tahrif)or the lack thereof. Muslims certainly believe in the textual preservation of the Qur'an, and taking this tack might be helpful in getting a Muslim to recognise the insufficiency and corruptness of the Qur'an.
However, they do not approach corruption of the Bible from this same perspective. In the ahadith (which are indispensible to Muslims for interpreting and understanding the Qur'an), when Christians and Jews are said to have corrupted the Bible, what is typically meant is that this was done so by means of speech. In other words, a Christian or Jew was falsifying what the Bible says while preaching or explaining the Scriptures wrongly and deceitfully. Likewise, the ahadith describe attempts to "conceal" the meaning of Scripture through means such as hiding certain passages with your hand. Thirdly, by biblical corruption is sometimes meant the notion that Christians purposefully conceal the meaning of prophecies which "obviously" were pointing to Mohammed. Interestingly, in this area, Muslims WILL accept the prophets and writings, since they know that Christians and Jews accept them, and therefore should see Mohammed in them. (cont.)
(cont.)
Strictly textual arguments about the Bible such as we understand them are a relatively late addition to the Muslim repertoire, mostly in response to Christian arguments about the textual corruption of the Qur'an. They would consider the Bibles we have to be textually corrupt, perhaps, but that's not the primary sense in which their traditions teach them.
The point is that trying to argue for the Bible with textual arguments will not be all that effective, since most Muslims think that we've corrupted the Bible by not accepting that it teaches Muslim doctrines and about Mohammed, rather than that we went through and rewrote the whole thing. Again, there may be some for whom the textual argument is effective – so I wouldn't necessarily discourage use of this argument – but we should understand that with a lot of Muslims, their take on it will be "so what?"
Further, Muslims believe that Allah HAS guarded his words from corruption – but the point is, he did so by (re)revealing the Qur'an to them. For many Muslims, the attitude is essentially that the Qur'an IS the Bible as it originally was, it says the same thing as the Bible did back in Mohammed's time, and the corruption of the Bible actually POSTceded the revelation of the Qur'an. Pointing to a bunch of manuscripts – 99% of which postdate the time when Mohammed supposedly lived – as evidence for Biblical preservation won't be convincing, they'll just say the Bible was corrupted before those mss. were copied.
Again, I don't want to necessarily be discouraging the use of this tract, I just think we ought to know some of the reservations that Muslims might have towards the arguments trying to be used.
To those who asked about questions of this nature:
There is a clear Scriptural basis for showing how, given an unsaved person’s own presuppositions, he has problems/needs to listen to the gospel. Paul showed how pagan Greek poets demonstrated that the Athenians needed to abandon their belief that God was like gold or silver, etc. as their idols were. Christ demonstrated how, on the assumption that He was casting out devils by Beelzebub, those who were critiquing Him were themselves in error. God says, “Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant,” and then shows the problems with what the wicked presuppositions lead to. There are other examples of ad hominem (note-NOT the fallacy of abusive ad hominem, but a “to the man” argument) in Scripture. Thus, to argue that, given Muslim presuppositions, the Muslim must receive the Bible as the Word of God, is a Scriptural way of approaching him. The Titus verse by Pastor Webb is another example of this.
As for the NWT, I would use it if I had to get a hearing, but otherwise I would not. It is VERY corrupt, and the Watchtowerite will often listen to a real uncorrupt Bible (KJV). The NWT is so corrupt that it even changes salvation by faith in verses like John 3:16 to “exercise faith” for salvation (that is, “do good works.”)
In relation to the questions by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus about the equation of the Torah + Gospel with the OT/NT, I would commend to him the relevent material at: http://www.answering-islam.org/, a website with a lot of useful material for evangelizing Muslims, and where articles on that question may be found. They even have an article on Paul. Also, Muslim attitudes toward the hadith are far from uniform, and (just as many Catholics don’t have a clue what their organziation teaches) there are many Muslims who are not at all well versed in their religious tradition, but they just think the Bible is bad because someone told them it was so.
As will be demonstrated in later parts of the pamphlet (keep in mind that the above was part #1), if one accepts a textually pure Bible (as one must if he believes the Quran), the Muslim will have horrible problems. If the Bible is not corrupt, then Islam must be false. Also, the Bible cannot have been textually corrupted after Mohommed since we have Bibles that predate him that say the same thing as later ones, and the Quran says that no change can come to the words of Allah at any time—so arguing that the Bible has been corrupted is rejecting the Quran.
Also, it is not possible to simply limit the Quranic testimonies to the Bible as the Pentateuch and the Gospels. Note, for example, from the booklet:
“And if you [Muhammad] are in doubt concerning that which we reveal to you, then question those who read the Scripture that was before you” (10:94).
The Jews/Christians in Muhammad's day did not just have a Pentateuch and Gospels.
Also:
The Quran, claims, over and over again, to confirm and uphold the Torah and the Gospel, the Old and New Testaments—Muhammad claimed he was the “messenger from Allah, confirming . . . the Scripture . . . which they [the people of the Book, the Jews and Christians] possess” (2:101; cf. 2:41, 89, 91, 97; 3:3, 81; 4:47; 6:92; 12:111; 35:31; etc.)
Note the present tense–what the "people of the Book" CURRENTLY possessed was what the Quran confirmed, so it was an uncorrupted Bible, not one with textual errors, lots of uninspired books added (like Paul's writings, etc.)
“We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them” (3:84).
Note the reference to "the prophets," in addition to Moses, etc. This supports a reference to the entire OT, not the Pentateuch alone.
How could the Quran state that the religious “doctors of the children of Israel know . . . [what is in] the scriptures from the men of old” (26:196-197)? Could this be the case if the Jews had added all sorts of uninspired books to the OT?
Thus, the Quranic testimony to the Bible is very strong, and modern Muslim apologetics that attacks the Bible actually also rejects the Quran.