A Run of the Mill Attack on Calvinism

Part Three

For Part One and Two, see here and here. 

More knowledgeable writers than Mr. Mills on Calvinism and Islam recognize the disparities that obtain between the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination set forth in the previous post and its Islamic counterpart, the latter of which is more appropriately seen as a version of fatalism. No less an authority than Samuel Zwemer, appropriately dubbed the Apostle to Islam, noted the differences between the two and sought to elucidate them:

THE sixth great point of faith in Islam is Predestination, and it has important bearing on the Moslem idea of God. It expresses God's relation to the creature and to man as a moral agent. Although the terms used in describing predestination by Moslems and Christians (especially Calvinists) have much similarity the result of their reasoning is as far apart as the East from the West. It has often been asserted that the Mohammedan belief in God's eternal decrees and foreknowledge of good and evil is a sort of Oriental Calvinism. This, as we hope to show, is not the case. [Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God: An Essay on the Character and Attributes of Allah According to the Koran and Orthodox Tradition (New York: American Tract Society, 1905), pp. 93-94. This book can be read in its entirety at the following link: here]

Zwemer goes on to demarcate the differences, noting, among other things, that Christianity fully affirms the reality of secondary causes and agents while Islam tends towards their denial. That is, in Christianity, God ordains not only that certain ends will be realized or actualized; he also ordains that they will come to pass by certain means. Moreover, while God ordains the means just as surely as He ordains the ends, the secondary causes or agents, particularly in the case of human beings, always act in accord with their own nature and desires. The Biblical or Calvinistic view on this has already been presented. On the other hand, Islam’s denial of human responsibility for what has been decreed is pointedly set forth in the following hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.' Then Adam said to him, 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His own hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet added, repeating the statement three times. (Bukhari, 77.611; see also Muslim 33.6409, 33.6411)

The disparity between the Christian and the Muslim view on these points is well-captured and illustrated by Lorraine Boettner:

Practically, Mohammedanism holds to a predestination of ends regardless of means. The contrast with the Christian system is seen in the following story. A ship crowded with Englishmen and Mohammedans was ploughing through the waves. Accidentally one of the passengers fell overboard. The Mohammedans looked after him with indifference, saying, “If it is written in the book of destiny that he shall be saved, he shall be saved without us; and if it is written that he shall perish, we can do nothing”; and with that they left him. But the Englishmen said, “Perhaps it is written that we should save him.” They threw him a rope and he was saved. [Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philippsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932), p. 320.]

And so, while Calvinistic Christianity, which is just to say, Biblical Christianity, holds man to be fully accountable or responsible for his actions, the logical conclusion of the Islamic system is that man is not properly spoken of as being responsible for his actions, though he is still subject to Allah’s whims and punishment.

Hence, Mr. Mills' claim that Calvinism naturally leads one to Islam since the two teach the same thing regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility is far from the truth.

In addition, while it is true that there are Muslims who believe in predestination, it is also true that many Muslims reject this doctrine in favor of something more akin to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism and/or Arminianism. For example, Yusuf Ali, the famed commentator of a very popular translation of the Qur’an, claims to find proof for free will all over the place, albeit man’s free will is limited in some respects by Allah’s choices regarding at least “big” matters (such as maintaining the stars in their orbits), something readily affirmed by Semi-Pelagians.

For instance, the following verse of the Qur’an states:

Say: “The Truth is from your Lord”: let him who will believe and let him who will reject (it): for the wrongdoers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames) like the wall and roof of a tent will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass that will scald their faces. How dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! (Q. 18:29)

In his commentary on this verse, Yusuf Ali says:

Our choice in our limited Free-will involves a corresponding personal responsibility. We are offered the Truth: again and again is it pressed on our attention. If we reject it, we must take all the terrible consequences which are prefigured in the Fire of Hell. Its flames and roof will completely enclose us like a tent. Ordinarily there is water to quench the heat of thirst: here the only drink will be like molten brass, thick, heavy, burning, sizzling. Before it reaches the mouth of the unfortunates, drops of it will scald their faces as it is poured out. (Footnote #2371.)

(For more comments from Yusuf Ali on the Qur’anic support for free will, see the following footnotes for starters: #186, 628, 860, 866, 1333, 1392, 1490, 1503, 1622, 1802, 2057, 2133, 2229, 2247, 2252, 2253, 2395, 2573, 3557, 3644, 3788, 4012, 4233, 4267, 4556, 4593, 4855, 4952, 4963, 5480, 5688, 5832, 5996, 6004, 6168. If the reader wants further garish descriptions of hell, read the Inferno by Yusuf Ali’s Roman Catholic counterpart, Dante Alighieri.)

Predestination is also denied by Muslims of the Ahmadiyya sect, as well as by Shiites, the followers of Ali, Muhammad’s cousin, et al.

Since Muslims also have their “Semi-Pelagians” and "Arminians," and since examples of Semi-Pelagians and Arminians converting to Islam are ready to hand, perhaps like Mr. Mills I should say of someone like John Walker Lindh: “It should not surprise us when a Roman Catholic becomes a Moslem.”

To be continued…

A Run of the Mill Attack on Calvinism

Part Two

For Part One, see here.

Here is the first point on offer by Mr. Mills to support his claim that Calvinism leads one to Islam…

Both [Calvinism and Islam –AR] have a constricted view of the nature of God, a view that limits human responsibility.

In this post I will respond to Mr. Mills’ view of Calvinism, leaving a consideration of Islam’s doctrine of predestination to the next installment.

Since Mr. Mills, in an attempt to confirm the above charge, goes on to write that Calvinism teaches God’s comprehensive sovereignty over all created reality, or at least over who will be saved or damned, one can only wonder what Mills thinks the word “constricted” means. Such a scurrilous charge is all the more inexplicable in light of Mills’ claim that Calvinism’s view of the nature of God puts “limits on human responsibility.” If Calvinism’s view of God actually does limit human responsibility, it would seem only too obvious that Calvinism’s doctrine of God does not teach a constricted view of God’s nature but a constricted view of human nature. To make Mills’ statement coherent, it should be revised to say that Calvinism teaches “a constricting view of the nature of God, i.e. one that limits human responsibility.”

In any case, while it is certainly true that Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God, and while this does place definite limits on all created reality, including mankind, confessional Calvinism has never thought or taught that this limits human responsibility. While God decreed, planned, and purposed everything that was and is to happen, by His providence He caused and causes it all to come to pass through that natural liberty with which He has endowed secondary agents. The Bible itself teaches the complete compatibility of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The following two verses are representative of this teaching, for in both the sovereign goodness of God in planning and bringing the events to pass is affirmed while at the same time the human agents that brought these events about are upbraided for their evil intent and the lawlessness of their actions.

Genesis 50:15-21

When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he died: ‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.” And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, YOU meant evil against me, but GOD meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

Acts 4:22-24

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

In fact, Calvinism does not merely teach the utter compatibility of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, as if the two are merely to be thought of as consistent with one another and no more. Calvinism actually teaches that it is only on the Biblically grounded presupposition that God is the sovereign creator as well as providential sustainer and governor of everything is human responsibility a reality. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (“Of God’s Eternal Decree,” Chapter III, Section 1.)

It is precisely because God created (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6), upholds (Hebrews 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17), and governs all events, things, and people (Lamentations 3:37-38, Ephesians 1:11), and through the works of creation and all the motions of providence reveals Himself and His righteous requirements (Psalm 19:1-7, Romans 1:18-32, Acts 14:15-17, 17:24-28), that human beings are obligated at all points to render unto Him whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. To deny God’s sovereign Lordship at any point is to deny human responsibility at precisely that point. According to Calvinism then, man, the special object of God’s works of creation and providence – indeed, man as the image bearer of God – is face to face with God everywhere and at all times, even when he looks in the mirror. We were made in His image and it is in Him that we live and move and have our being. For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.

In short, the reality of human responsibility is grounded upon and presupposes divine sovereignty in order to even be possible or intelligible. To unseat God from His Lordly throne and place chance or human autonomy in His place is the only way one can hope to do away with human responsibility. Only on the assumption of human autonomy can it be said that man is not a responsible agent. Since Mr. Mills does not deny human responsibility but in fact affirms it and uses it in his argument, it must frankly be said that Mr. Mills has not only failed to impugn Calvinism but has shown that he can’t even intelligibly attempt to do so apart from depending on the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob…and, yes, Calvin.

For Part Three, go here.

A Run of the Mill Attack on Calvinism

Part One

In an opinion piece written for Western Journalism by Charles G. Mills, which is titled From Calvinism to Islam, the author, a Roman Catholic, takes several ill-informed and misdirected swipes at Calvinism.

The foil for Mills’ attack is the recent Bergdahl affair, and it is the latest instance of what may well turn into a trend, as witness the relatively recent and equally wild flailing of Dr. Mary Stange, likewise in an opinion piece (USA Today), who also used the Bergdahl situation to attack Calvinism: Can Bergdahl’s faith explain his actions? (For those who are interested, several responses to Dr. Stange can be found in the following articles: A Response to Professor Mary Stange’s USA Today Article on Bowe Bergdahl, Helping the media understand Bergdahl and his religious past, USA Today Slams the Reformed Faith…A Slight Rebuttal.)

According to Mr. Mills, Bowe Bergdahl and his father “are said by some to have become Muslims,” a bit of unsubstantiated gossip that Mr. Mills, undoubtedly hastened by his unwillingness to be bogged down with the pesky business of presenting evidence, and justified by the opportunity it provided him to lampoon Calvinism, turned into an established fact in the short space of two sentences. Nevertheless, as interesting as all that is, it isn’t my intention here to probe into the truth or falsity of what some people have said about the alleged conversions of Bob and Bowe Bergdahl. Neither is it my intention to upbraid the author for all too easily hopping on the rumor mill, an effort that would quite possibly only cause him to swell with pride that he is living up to the family name.  I’m also not interested here in going on at any length about how Mills' evident ability to transubstantiate a rumor into a fact through a bit of verbal legerdemain shows that he missed his calling as a priest in the Catholic church which, as every self-respecting Catholic knows, is where the real hocus pocus takes place. Instead, what agitates this response is the following statement made by Mr. Mills:

Bowe Bergdahl was home-schooled and raised as a very strict Calvinist. It should not surprise us that a Calvinist has become a Moslem. The two religions have much in common.

As this response to Mills will demonstrate, what he believes about Calvinism and Islam shows that he knows very little about either, which is perhaps Mills’ way of living out Rome’s teaching on implicit faith, i.e. belief devoid of personal knowledge.

As Mills would have it, Calvinism and Islam have the following four things in common, and these commonalities make a transition from the former to the latter both easy and natural:

• “Both have a constricted view of the nature of God, a view that limits human responsibility.”

• “Calvinism and Islam are characterized by unjust and harsh laws.”

• “Both Islam and Calvinism practice an extreme form of textual literalism in understanding scripture.”

• “…both Islam and Calvinism produce self-righteousness and intolerance.”

Each of these claims will be dealt with in several future installments. For now, the reader can smart from the fact that it is a Roman Catholic who is leveling the charge that Calvinism makes it easy to convert to Islam. After all, it was a Pope, not Calvin, who said to Muslim youth: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection,”(*) a statement every bit in conformity with Vatican II (See Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium, Ch. II, sec. 16, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 841.). And it was Calvin, not a Pope, who said:

John’s saying has always been true: “He that does not have the Son does not have the Father” [1 John 2:23 p.]. For even if men once boasted that they worshipped the Supreme Majesty, the Maker of heaven and earth, yet because they had no Mediator it was not possible for them truly to taste God’s mercy, and thus be persuaded that he was their Father. Accordingly, because they did not hold Christ as their Head, they possessed only a fleeting knowledge of God. From this it also came about that they at last lapsed into crass and foul superstitions and betrayed their own ignorance. So today the Turks [i.e. Muslims –AR], although they proclaim at the top of their lungs that the Creator of heaven and earth is God, still, while repudiating Christ, substitute an idol in place of the true God. [John T. McNeill, editor, Ford Lewis Battles, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), Vol. I, II:6:4.]

For part two, go here.

This Generation

On the Answering Muslims blog the question of the meaning of "this generation" as used in the Olivet Discourse as found in the synoptic Gospels came up (see the comment section - here). Some argued that it could mean "this race" or something other than "this generation". Many Christians believe it is necessary to make this move in order to prove that Jesus (or the disciples) did not make a false prediction that He would come in the first century. Ironically, it is just because people have argued that Jesus did not return in judgment in the first century that has led unbelievers who take the phrase "this generation" according to its clear meaning to argue that Jesus and the early Christians were wrong in their expectations. But taking the phrase as it is uniformly translated does not at all create a problem, at least not if one interprets the rest of the passage(s) that bear on the subject according to the way such language is used throughout the Bible, particularly in apocalyptic sections. In other words, the phrase should be translated "this generation", and these things did come to pass exactly as Jesus, interpreted against the backdrop of the Old Testament prophets, predicted that they would.

The following are my reasons for thinking the phrase is properly translated as "this generation". Perhaps in future posts I will go through the entire discourse in Matthew, beginning back in chapter 23, and show how all of these things comport with what happened in the first century. Suffice it to say here, beginning back in Matthew 23 Jesus is clearly indicting His first century hearers, particularly the Jewish leadership, for rejecting Him, and telling them the wrath of God would fall on them. As Jesus exits the Temple area with His disciples, they point out the beauty of the Temple, apparently because He has just said it will be desolated, which provokes Christ to respond that the Temple would be destroyed. At this the disciples ask Jesus when these things will be, and Jesus proceeds to tell them what to look for. He speaks of many things that will happen before the end, including earthquakes, wars, famines, the coming of false Christ's, the abomination of desolation being set up in the temple, Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, etc. After they see all of this happen, they are to flee from Jerusalem, for her destruction is near. Immediately after all of the above happens, the very heavens would be shaken, the sign of the Son of man would appear in the sky, and faithless Jerusalem would be no more. He concludes this part of the discourse by saying, "All these things shall come upon this generation". [This of course is a paraphrase and a rough synopsis.]

When one interprets these things in light of their Biblical context, and when one compares this to what happened in the first century, as we have recorded for us in detail by Josephus, who was an eyewitness, there is every reason to believe that they happened just like Jesus predicted.

There were wars, famines, earthquakes, false prophets, and false Messiah's during that time period. (Many of these things are listed several times over in the book of Acts.)

Jerusalem was surrounded by the armies of imperial Rome. The armies briefly withdrew only to return a short time later, and during the interim while the Jews were rejoicing thinking their disaster had been averted, the Jewish Christians left the city according to Christ's command.

The Son of Man did coming riding the clouds in judgment, and Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed just like He predicted. In fact, they were destroyed within a generation - AD. 70.

There is, therefore, no problem on this view with taking the phrase "this generation" literally.

None of this impinges on the truth of the return of Christ at the end of history to resurrect the dead, judge the world, and create a New Heavens and a New Earth. There are several other passages that speak of these events in contexts that are not qualified by time texts or other temporal indicators.

With that said, here are my reasons for taking "generation" and "this generation" to be the correct translation of the words, as did many of the early Christians (Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Theophlacyt, et. al.) and many other able men closer to our own times (John Gill, J. B. Lightfoot, Albert Barnes, John Wesley, C. H. Spurgeon, John A. Broadus, F. F. Bruce, and D.A. Carson, just to list a few).

1. All standard English translations render the Greek word genea in the Olivet Discourse as “generation”, not race (KJV, NKJV, NAS, ESV, etc.). Many other translations are even more explicit.

2. Greek lexicons and reference works on Greek grammar give “generation” as the primary meaning of the word (Thayer, BAGD, et. al). Even those who say the word could sometimes mean “race”, and many do not, list it as a very remote meaning.

3. A number of lexicons even make reference to the relevant passages in the Olivet discourse when giving “generation” as the meaning of the word (e.g. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, rev. ed., 112; Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Vol. 1), as do other reference works.

4. No example can be brought forward from anywhere in the New Testament outside of the Olivet discourse – excepted here because that is the verse in question – where genea must be translated as “race”. Furthermore, “race” does not appear to even be a very likely reading of any verse outside of the Olivet discourse.

5. If the disciples wanted to say race, the best word for this, a word that was at their disposal since they use it elsewhere, would have been genos.

6. Every time the word genea is used in Matthew’s Gospel (and the other Synoptics) outside of the Olivet discourse it is not only translated as “generation”, but that is the only possible translation. Translating it as “race” in such places would not fit.

7. Most importantly, the full phrase, “this generation,” which is only used by Jesus in the New Testament, can never mean “that generation”, “this race”, or “that race”. The following is every time the phrase is used (outside of the times it occurs in the Olivet discourse as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels):

“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge and you did not mourn.' For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." But wisdom is proved right by her actions. “ Matthew 11:16ff.

“The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. “ Matthew 12:41-42

“The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. Sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, "Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation." Mark 8:12

“To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.' For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!' "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'” Luke 7:31

“As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. The Queen of the South will rise up with the men of this generation at the judgment and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. Luke 11:29-32

“One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, "Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too." But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them. "So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build their tombs. "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering." Luke 11:50-51

Note the following salient facts:

a. Often in these verses Jesus is directly addressing His contemporaries making it clear that what he is saying has particular reference to them.

b. To make the word mean race in many of these contexts is to put the Jews of all time under a perpetual curse. It was the generation then living that was guilty of rejecting Jesus and on whom the wrath of God would fall, not a future generation.

It is for such reasons that commentators almost never give an example where “generation” or “this generation” could be translated as “race” or “this race” and make it fit the context; they most often just assert that the word or phrase could mean the latter. On those rare occasions when they do try to give examples, I would maintain that they are not dealing squarely with the facts.

Interestingly enough, even the unprovable (and demonstrably false) assumption that the phrase means “that race” does not refute the view that the passage is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, for people who have thought this to be a possible translation have still recognized the incredible fit of everything in the passage – using the Bible of course to control how they interpret prophetic discourse, rather than ignoring Biblical idioms and imposing on the passage what such words “literally” mean to them – with what happened in the first century. For instance, the relatively well known commentator Adam Clarke, writing in 1810, believed that the phrase “this generation” could mean “this race”, though he gave no argument for this (which is but to be expected). But interestingly enough, Clarke interpreted the passage as a reference to Jerusalem’s destruction.

“This chapter contains a prediction of the utter destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the whole political constitution of the Jews; and is one of the most valuable portions of the new covenant Scriptures, with respect to the evidence which it furnishes of the truth of Christianity. Everything which our Lord foretold should come on the temple, city, and people of the Jews, has been fulfilled in the most correct and astonishing manner….” Clarke’s Commentary, 3:225

To The Believers Is He Most Kind and Merciful

The New articles are out at Answering Islam. I haven't read them all yet but as usual I am looking forward to it and would encourage others to look them over as well.

I contributed an article showing yet another way the Qur'an violates it's own criteria of "pure monotheism". Check it out here.

God is Love; Not so Allah

Someone recently asked me a question via e-mail and I thought I would include it here along with my brief response (of course names and other sensitive material have been edited out):

Greetings my brother in Christ,

I am working on [something]. [It] consists of a handful of articles that I have written critiquing world religions. One of them of course being Islam. Mike Robinson told me a little bit about you so I would like your input on a question that I am asking a few apologists.

Men like Francis Schaeffer and John Frame as well as some historic greek philosophers, have made a similar argument that God cannot be personal or love if he is a unitarian type god etc. For these two things require multi-persons.

I am kinda surveying a couple of Christian apologist to see how they feel about this argument. At one time I believed that [the] majority of Christian apologist would agree to this statement, but after a few recent conversations I am not to sure how many Christians believe this argument. The response argument being that God can have self love for himself etc. What do you think?

Thanks,


Greetings _______,

For my part, a unitarian god looks like little more than an abstraction, so it is very difficult to conceive of such a being loving "himself" much less others. But if we grant the personality of such a god for the sake of argument, and therefore the possibility that he could "love" himself, then we must ask if loving oneself is really what we mean by love. Usually a person who is defined by self-love is not really thought of as loving in the true sense of the term. Certainly this is not the Biblical definition of love, where love is seen in giving itself away to others and for the sake of others. In fact the word used for love in 1 Corinthians 13 in the King James Bible communicates the point quite well: charity.

4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Would we consider a person charitable if he gives things to himself?

"That Ebenezer Scrooge, what a guy! he just took a million dollars out of his account and stored it in his personal vault at home. Have you ever seen anything so charitable as that in your life? Oh, if the world were only filled with more people who were so charitable as that."

I don't think so.

Likewise, to say that the monad of post-Christian apostate Judaism or the new-fangled "god" of Islam are love because the "god" of either loves himself is to use the word "love" in an equivocal sense, i.e. not in the sense we mean when we say that God is love and when we say that love requires a God who is multi-personal.

I hope that helps. If you have any follow up question, by all means feel free to write back.

Semper Paratus,

----------------------

Sam Shamoun has written an article related to the above that is well worth reading: The Triune God - The Greatest Conceivable Being that Exists.

Civilization and Self-Control

By Bojidar Marniov

“I don’t want men looking at me lustfully when I work here.”

This is how a Muslim girl, cashier at Wal-Mart, replied to my wife’s question about the purpose of her head-covering, wrapped tightly around her head, covering everything except her face. My first reaction was, “Phew, how do you look ‘lustfully’ at a woman’s hair?” In a Christian society, the hair is the glory of a woman (1 Cor. 11:15). We don’t normally expect Western men to fantasize over a woman’s hair; and hair is a legitimate ornament for a woman, as far as the Bible is concerned. Deviations, of course, have existed in every culture, but are they so common in the Western societies as to warrant such strict dress-code? What made this Muslim girl have such strange views about modesty?

Her views are not informed by the norms of the Western society but by the tenets of her Muslim worldview. According to the teaching of the Muslim religious teachers, a woman is a sexual object from her hair to her feet, and every part of her body is an occasion for seduction. Westerners usually believe that the burqas and the yashmaks of the Muslim women have some religious significance – something like the head coverings Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 11. They don’t. The only significance of Muslim clothing for women is the avoidance of sexual seduction by the woman. Burqas are not a religious symbol; they are a protective barrier, protecting both men and women from the male sexual lust.

Read More