|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Make sure to read Robert Spencer’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
There is an entire cottage industry of Islamic apologists who claim to know Christianity better than Christians themselves do; their arguments in this line usually consist of quoting various passages from the Mosaic Law and claiming that the Christians are being dishonest or ignorant when they insist that such passages do not apply to Christian belief and practice, and never has.
Recently one of these Islamic apologists, Paul Williams, who professes to be an ex-Christian, published a video claiming that what I stated on the Patrick Bet-David podcast recently is false: that Christians do not consider Deuteronomy 13:6-11 to be a law they are bound to follow, and never have. That passage says this: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.”
In making his case, Williams makes arguments that are common among Islamic apologists, claiming that Christians are, in fact, actually bound to keep the Mosaic Law. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity and an unfamiliarity with both its scriptures (aside from a few proof texts cited with no genuine understanding of the way they’re understood in Christian theology) and its history. Williams is apparently unacquainted with Acts 10 and Acts 15, and should read and ponder them if he really has any interest in understanding the basic Christian position on the Mosaic Law.
Williams also cites Thomas Aquinas’ argument in favor of the execution of heretics, claiming that it was the Catholic Church’s teaching at the time. There are several fundamental problems with this:
1. Aquinas, though he cites numerous scriptural passages in making this argument, does not mention Deuteronomy 13:6-11. Why not? Because contrary to Williams’ claim, even Christians in the High Middle Ages who believed heretics should be executed did not believe that passage to have mandated a practice that was valid for all time. Aquinas clearly did not think that a localized command God issued to the Israelites to execute His wrath upon a particular group of people had any relevance to the question of whether or not heretics should be executed.
2. Aquinas’ position was never the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The common claim that the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 endorsed the execution of heretics is based on a mistranslation. The 1911 (that is, before the modern-day madness) Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government.”
3. Williams claims that at the time Aquinas wrote (he died in 1274), the Roman Catholic Church was the only Church. Then, perhaps aware of how false his statement was, quickly amends it to the claim that the Roman Church was the only Church in Europe at the time. He is either unaware of the existence of the Orthodox Church (as well as other Churches, such as the Coptic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and many more), or ignorant of the fact that Orthodoxy was quite prevalent in European Russia and Southeastern Europe at the time of Aquinas.
Aside from its numerous inaccuracies, however, the worst part of Williams’ video is the underlying reason why he considered it important to make it: he wants to justify the murder of those who leave Islam today, as his friends Daniel Haqiqatjou and Jake Brancatella did on the Bet-David podcast. While the Roman Catholic Church, as well as other Churches, through long meditation on the implications of the idea that human beings are made in the image of God and have equal dignity before Him, have decisively rejected coercion and force in matters of faith, Williams and his coreligionists want to justify and normalize the idea that people should be forced and even terrorized (as per Qur’an 3:151, 8:12, and 8:60) to remain in Islam. Underneath the calm veneer of intellectual debate, Williams’ agenda is nothing short of monstrous.
Paul Williams. For I moment, I thought “Just An Old Fashioned Love Song.” Until . . .
Paul Williams, a small, slight shouldered little man. Why would anyone pay any attention to what this excuse for a person has to say.
These apologists completely forget, maybe they never knew, that Christianity is based on the New Testament. Christianity is a peaceful revolt against the violent Old Testament.
The Muslims propagandists for Islam are very ready and willing to quote a few 0slated verses from the Old Testament from the Bible, out of context, if they happen to feel that such a verse will “support their position.”
A true Christian never becomes an ex-Christian.
The plain and simple to Islamic Radicals We Don’t Want your Sharia Laws Forced upon us Keep them in your own Middle East Nations
So according to their reasoning, under Mosaic law Mohammed and all of his followers should’ve been stoned to death with stones because they follow a differen God than the GOD of the Bible.
When the law of Moses was in effect, it did not apply to Gentiles, like Mohammed. The Gentiles/heathen/nations were on the other side of the middle wall of partition, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. When God called Abram in Genesis 12, He had let the Gentiles go their own way. In this dispensation of grace, when Mohammed lived, the law of Moses is not effect, whether any Jew is practicing it or not. God’s program with Israel is in abeyance. It has been since Paul was saved in Acts 9.
There is no Christianity in the O.T., and there isn’t any in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or early Acts. From Genesis 12 and on through early Acts, it is strictly God’s program with Israel. When the Lord made Israel, He had let the nations go their own way. They did not want Him. Romans ch. 1 explains what happened. 200+ times in the O.T. the Lord said He is the God of Israel. And again, no Christianity in the gospels. The Lord in John ch. 4 said “salvation is of the Jews.”. Israel at that time we’re on Daniel’s 70 week timetable. By the time of crucifixion, 69 weeks had been fulfilled. Only the 70th week remained, “the time of Jacob’s trouble.” The Lord delayed that for a year, so more of Israel could get in the “little flock.” By Acts 7, the year was up and the rebellion against the Lord climaxed with the stoning of Stephen. The Lord stood up to judge His people. But instead of beginning His day of wrath, He paused the prophetic program, and began the dispensation of grace through Paul. Christianity began with Paul. That is where the Christian doctrine is located, in Paul’s Epistles. Hebrews through Revelation covers the resumption of God’s program with Israel, after this age of grace concludes.
I should have included this too: So, since Gods program with Israel is in abeyance, the Mosaic law is not effect; which again, pertained to Israel only. In this unprophesied dispensation of grace, God’s new agency, the church the body of Christ, is not under the Law, it’s under grace, and it’s supposed to operate in that doctrine. When God resumes the prophetic program with Israel. the law of Moses will be in effect again, until the new covenant is implemented, upon the Messiah’s return.
considering that muslims believe that the bible has been corrupted by jews and christians , how is it that they are quite prepared to use it to back their false and ignorant claims ?? as koran states ” allah is the best of deceivers ” a euphemism for satan . he has done a great job . as an aside , just because you go to a church no more makes you a christian than standing in a garage makes you a car .
I watched the Patrick Bet-David podcast and saw this ploy.
I was hoping that the Christian side would respond with just one of the many OT verses emphasizing God’s overriding mercy to all who repent from their sin (including idolatry). Just the case of King David – who by the Law should have been executed for his adultery and murder – would have been enough to deflate their arguments.
Instead, the Christians banked on the claim that the OT laws were “annulled” by Jesus.
Disappointing, and not even true according to the NT.
It’s correct the Lord did not abolish the Law for His program with Israel. However, that program, with the Law, is in abeyance. See Eph. 3:1-9; Col. 1:25-27. Since Paul, the Church’s apostle (Rom. 11:13), God’s administration is grace. The believer is under grace, not the law. Rom. 6:14-15 and Galatians makes this clear. II Tim. 2:15 is critical in this matter. “…rightly dividing the word…” is essential. It is not a coincidence that with perhaps one or two exceptions, the words “rightly dividing” are not in any English version except the KJB.
Paul quoted liberally from the OT to prove that grace was ALWAYS there, embedded in the Law.
“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham…” (Gal. 3)
It’s a sad commentary that Christians can no longer do the same.
The point and context of Gal. 3:8 is faith, believing what God said. The Galatians were taught to believe the gospel of grace, but they were going back to the Law. The example for just believing what God said was Abraham. The Law was not implemented yet in Abraham’s day. Once the law was given, the Jew was to do their best to observe it, by faith; even though the law couldn’t be perfectly observed. The point again, in Gal. 3, is faith in what God said, whether under the law or under grace.