Would God Lead Me To Marry The Person Of HIS Choice? (Reconciling God’s Will & God’s Knowledge)

            Some marriage related questions in young people are:

            1. I want to marry a girl according to God’s will, but would God will that I marry girl ‘A’ and not girl ‘B’?

            2. Does God know who I would marry?

            3. Would God lead me to marry the boy of HIS choice?   

   

            Consider a young girl’s prayer to God to lead her to marry the boy of HIS choice. This prayer presupposes that God knows which boy is the best possible fit for this young girl. Another presupposition is that God would intervene and lead this young girl to marry the boy of HIS choice.

            The first presupposition is predicated on God’s knowledge and HIS will. The second presupposition is predicated on God’s intervention in human affairs. 

            In order for God to lead a young person to marry according to HIS will, God should know who this young person should marry. Thus there is an overlap between God’s knowledge and God’s will.

            Three broad questions are in order for a greater understanding of God:

            (1) Does God have a specific plan for your life and mine? Is there a God’s will for you and me?

            (2) Would God intervene in my affairs and enable me to do HIS will?

            (3) Would God foreknow our choices?

            First, does God have a specific plan for your life and mine? Most surely, yes! While affirming God’s plan for our lives, Dr. William Lane Craig asserts that we have the freedom to make our choices, and he advises us as to how we could do the will of God:¹

God has promised to guide us along life’s path.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. (Proverbs 3.5-6)

A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. (Proverbs 16.10)…

I suspect that those who oppose the idea of a specific plan of God for your life are reacting against a sort of divine determinism, according to which God moves us about like toy soldiers on His playing field to do His will. But affirming that God has a vocation for your life or a mate in mind for you in no way implies that we are puppets. We have the freedom to do God’s will or not. Even Paul could say, “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” through which he received his calling to become an apostle (Acts 26.19). Indeed, the fact that we can miss the will of God for our lives and have to settle for His backup plan underlines the importance of walking in the Spirit, not grieving the Spirit through sin in our lives or quenching the Spirit by failing to respond to His guidance. None of us perfectly lives out God’s plan for his life, but God can still guide you from whatever juncture in life you are at.

            Second, would God intervene in my affairs and enable me to do HIS will? Yes!

            To say that God cannot intervene in human affairs is to question God’s immanence (i.e. God is inactive or not with us) or God’s omniscience (i.e. God does not know what to do) or HIS omnipotence (i.e. God is powerless).

            In the Old Testament, Joseph’s life was a testimony to God’s intervention in human affairs. For example, the instance where Joseph was betrayed by his brothers was a part of God’s plan (cf. Genesis 50:20).

            In the New Testament, Jesus did not idle in a corner, waiting for people to become HIS disciples. He intervened in the lives of HIS disciples when HE called them to become HIS disciples.

            Similarly, the resurrected Lord Jesus intervened in the life of Saul while he was on the road to Damascus (Acts 22: 6ff).

            Today, Jesus appears in dreams and visions. Thus HE intervenes in your life and mine.

            God’s intervention in human affairs is in both tangible and intangible forms. The intangible intervention of God is when HE ministers to us through a gentle whisper (cf. 1 Kings 19:12).

            Third, would God foreknow our choices? I ate cornflakes for breakfast today. Would God have known yesterday that I would eat cornflakes today? Yes, God most certainly knows why, when, and what we would do in the future.

            Does that mean I was determined to eat cornflakes? Did I not choose (based on my free will) to eat cornflakes?

            Just because God knows what we are going to do in the future does not mean that we are determined by God to do them. Dr. William Lane Craig clarifies this predicament:²

If God foreknows everything that happens including our choices then are we really free to do otherwise than as God foreknows we shall do? In other words, does God’s foreknowledge imply a kind of theological fatalism about the future that everything that happens happens necessarily. I argued that that conclusion does not follow so long as we keep clear the distinction between the chronological priority of God’s knowledge to the event foreknown but the logical or explanatory priority of the event foreknown to God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge does not determine the event. If we use the language of “determine” we would say that the event determines what God foreknows.

So when Judas’ betrayal was predicted by Jesus, Judas had the ability not to betray Jesus. He did not have to do it. But if he had chosen not to betray Jesus then God would have foreknown that instead and Jesus would not have predicted it. So we have the ability to do other than as God foreknows that we shall do, but if we were to do other than as he foreknows that we shall do then he would have foreknown something else instead. So long as we keep that distinction between chronological and logical priority clear I think we can see that God’s foreknowing the future doesn’t in any way threaten human freedom.

            Thus, we have the freedom to make choices and God knows our choices.

            So the following is clear:

            (1) God has a specific plan for you and me. That includes education, marriage, occupation et al.

            (2) God could also intervene in our affairs to enable us to do HIS will.

            (3) God knows our choices even before we decide.

            Although God knows our choices, our choices need not necessarily be according to HIS will and pleasure. We are more than capable of disobeying God. When we disobey God, we would not be doing his perfect and pleasing will for our lives. God has blessed us with free will, which enables us to accept or reject God’s plan for our lives.

            So those who pray to ask God to lead them to meet the person of HIS choice should walk in the Spirit and not grieve the Spirit of God by willfully ignoring or sinning against HIM.

            We are not done yet.

            There is a very important learning awaiting us.

            God’s will need not always result in a perfect, joyful and blissful wedded life.

            Remember Hosea? Hosea was a prophet in the Old Testament who was instructed by God to marry a prostitute named Gomer.

            How would Hosea’s married life have been? Not in any way perfect, joyful, or anything close to that.

            Interestingly and not surprisingly, that was God’s will for Hosea!

            In order to comprehend this and more, read Dr. William Lane Craig’s answer to multiple questions regarding marriage: [Emphasis Mine]³

Question:

Hi Dr. Craig,

I'd like to probe you more on your views of divine providence and marriage in particular. I believe you've said that God has a specific marriage partner intended for each person (unless perhaps that person is somehow called to celibacy).

This seems on the surface implausible, as from personal experience from many people there are many apparently suitable partners that one could marry. On your view then, would things somehow not be as good if one marries some other seemingly suitable partner? How could anyone know if the person they married is the 'right' one and that they didn't miss meeting someone better?

Does your view also mean that some people who are single haven't met or won't meet the right person because the partners they were meant to marry married someone else (perhaps because these partners were disobedient to God's direction, or made a mistake etc)?

Answer:

It’s important to note that my claim that God does have in mind a specific person for you to marry…So, of course, His plan for your life will include the monumentally important choice of whom you shall marry. Moreover, God has promised to guide us through life, so that as we walk in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, we shall not wander from the plan He has for us.

Now you say such a doctrine is prima facie “implausible.” Why? Because based on experience there seem to be “many apparently suitable partners that one could marry.” This objection evinces a drastic misunderstanding of what I affirmed. I have no doubt that there are many people you might marry who would be wonderful partners, resulting in a fulfilling and God-honoring marriage. But that fact is in no way inconsistent with the claim that God has in mind one specific person He wants you to marry.

What underlies your objection is, I think, the assumption that God’s only grounds for preferring one person rather than another is suitability. That seems obviously false. Think, for example, of the children you will beget and their progeny and theirs, on and on into the future. Your descendants are utterly unique. The course of world history shifts based on the person you marry in ways that are beyond our discernment.

Moreover, —and here I raise a radical thought—suppose God wants you to marry someone who is not well-suited to you…we have a natural tendency to think that God’s purpose for human life is to make us happy. But on the Christian view that is not true. The Bible says, “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (I Thessalonians 4.3). You may be brought more into conformity to the character of Christ by suffering in a marriage that is not what you dreamed it would be. God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute (Hosea 1.2)! We’re all broken people psychologically, and God may work in you or your spouse’s life through each other’s shortcomings, as you both learn to forbear and forgive. God has much wider things to achieve in this world than our happiness, and the partner He picks for you will be the person with whom you can best advance the interests of His kingdom.

So on my view, would things not be as “good” if you were to disobey God’s will and marry the wrong person? That depends on what you mean by “good.” I suspect you mean that if you disobeyed God, would your marriage be less happy and fulfilling? Based on what I’ve just said, the answer is obviously, not necessarily! But the overall goodness of the world or the interests of God’s kingdom may well be impaired by such a disobedient choice.

“How could anyone know if the person they married is the 'right' one and that they didn't miss meeting someone better?” We have the confidence that as we walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, God will guide our steps. So we need to focus on being the right person ourselves rather than on finding the right person. Certainty is never possible, but there’s no need to worry: just focus on being an obedient, Sprit-filled Christian and trust Him to lead you.

With respect to your last question, “Does your view also mean that some people who are single haven't met or won't meet the right person because the partners they were meant to marry married someone else (perhaps because these partners were disobedient to God's direction, or made a mistake etc)?”, keep in mind that God via His middle knowledge knew of that person’s disobedience in advance and so has a plan for your life that takes that into account. You might have similarly asked, “What if the person God intended for me to marry was never born because her parents were disobedient and failed to conceive her?” We needn’t rack our brains about such dizzying scenarios because God knew that such a person would not be born and so would not be His intended will for you. Similarly, a person who, had she been obedient, would have been God’s intended for you is not in fact God’s intended precisely because she was disobedient.

The bottom line is: don’t focus on finding the right person; focus on becoming the right person.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/guidance-and-gods-plan/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-god-attributes-of-god/doctrine-of-god-part-15/

³https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-god-have-a-specific-marriage-partner-for-you/

Websites last accessed on 10^th June 2020.

The Universe Came Out Of Nothing: True Or False?

            Big Bang Cosmology is the most widely accepted explanation for the beginning of our universe. However, some atheists claim that our universe came out of nothing and that quantum mechanics provides an explanation for the same.

Did Our Universe Come Out Of Nothing?

            Atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe from Nothing (published in 2012) posits science’s explanation for the origin of our universe from nothing and that God is unnecessary to understand the origin of our universe.

            Krauss’ posits the origin of the universe from nothing, “…we're now at a point where we can plausibly argue that a universe full of stuff came from a very simple beginning, the simplest of all beginnings: nothing.”¹ He goes on to add, “I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen…We don't know how something can come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it might.

            But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable—that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing.”²

            So Krauss’ claim is two-fold:

            1. It is possible to create particles from nothing. (Hence, he alludes to a beginning of our universe from nothing.)

            2. However, physics has not definitively shown how something could come from nothing.

            At the outset, these claims seem to contradict each other.

            If we were to combine both these statements into one, then this is what we understand of Krauss’ claim: We could suppose that our universe came from nothing because it is theoretically possible, and physics does explain how particles could be created from nothing. But physics has not definitively shown how something could come from nothing. 

            So my conclusion as a layman is: until physics definitively shows how something can come from nothing, I will still believe that something cannot come from nothing. Hence, our universe could not have come from nothing.

Quantum Mechanics Does Not Explain The Origin Of Universe From Nothing

            Interestingly, some scientists claim that the nothing that Krauss speaks of is not literally nothing!

            David Albert is a theoretical physicist who has written a book, along with numerous articles on quantum mechanics. He claims that the term nothing does not mean literally nothing, “Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right…And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. …”³

            Another prominent scientist, George Ellis considered as one of the leading theorists in cosmology, who has authored a book on quantum theory quashes Krauss when he was asked whether Krauss was right to claim that physics has solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing:⁴

Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions.

            So science is yet to definitively prove that our universe came out of nothing.

            Lawrence Krauss’s book was published in 2012. Can we be sure that science is yet to definitively prove that our universe came from nothing?

            Dr. William Lane Craig in November 2018, while answering a question Did the Universe Begin with Nothing? affirms the necessity for a cause for the beginning of our universe: [Emphasis mine]⁵

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe did not begin with nothing in the sense that at first there was nothing and then the universe came into being. Here a little philosophy of language is helpful:  The word “nothing” is not a singular term referring to something. Rather it is a quantifier, a term of universal negation, just like “nobody,” “nowhere,” “no one,” etc.  It means “not anything.”

So when cosmologists say that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang, they do NOT mean that there was something prior to it, and that was a state of nothingness. Rather they mean that there was not anything prior to the Big Bang.

So time and the universe start with the first physical state of affairs, before which there was not anything. This is, in fact, the view that you quite rightly want to affirm. The question is, what is causally (not temporally) prior to that first physical state? I have in my published work given reasons why it is not plausible that that first physical state came to be uncaused.

In saying that the universe came into being at the first moment of its existence, I am not presupposing a prior state of nothing but rather affirming that the fact of the universe’s beginning to exist is a tensed fact…on a tensed theory of time, according to which temporal becoming is real, the need for a cause of the first state of the universe becomes, I think, patent because that is the moment at which the universe comes into being.

            Furthermore in 2019, Dr. Craig in response to a question What Is the Universe Expanding into? affirms that the atheist ought to explain how the universe came into being without a cause. Thus he implies that the atheist scientists are still clueless about defending the notion that our universe came into being from nothing:⁶

According the (sic) Big Bang theory, the universe is not expanding into anything…So as you trace the expansion back in time, you eventually come to a place where all distances shrink to zero, and space disappears (or begins to exist). It’s not that the universe disappears at that point, and the empty space in which it was expanding is still there. No, there is nothing prior to that point because it is space itself which is expanding. Just as there is not anything prior to the universe’s beginning, so there is not anything into which it is expanding. The difficulty for the atheist, then, is to explain how the universe could come into existence without a cause.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

²Ibid.

³https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

⁴https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/did-the-universe-begin-with-nothing/

⁶https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P600/what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

Websites last accessed on 5^th June 2020.

Thank You, Margie Zacharias!

            Ravi Zacharias may have been an apologist, evangelist, or a mentor to you, but to me, he was my virtual pastor. Ravi’s sermons will always be a joy to listen to. He was a fascinating preacher. He faithfully preached Christ Crucified.

            I know Ravi, but Ravi does not know me.

            My initial foray into apologetics was through RZIM India. Then, I learned more about apologetics from the Southern Evangelical Seminary.¹ Ravi has now passed on, but he will continue to teach me apologetics. Ravi’s work still remains accessible on the internet to every hungry mind.

            Thank you, Ravi!

            I have wondered how God enabled Ravi’s powerful ministry to you and me!

            It was only after Ravi’s passing that I realized his ministry would have been impossible without Margie’s (Ravi’s wife of 48-years) presence in Ravi’s life. This is certain.

            When I read Ravi’s obituary message touchingly written by his daughter Sarah, the mention of Margie loomed large on me, “Ravi and Margie just celebrated their 48th wedding anniversary. My mother was entirely committed to my dad’s calling and to this ministry, believing God called them together. I cannot recall even one moment when I saw her commitment to this calling weaken, because she always placed unwavering trust in the God who called them and in His purposes.” [Emphasis Mine].²

            Naomi Zacharias, Ravi’s daughter, remarked there would have been no Ravi without Margie, “Mom, to honor Dad is to honor you. He would not have been who he was without your belief and support. He was a part of your calling – a beautiful part of it…” [Emphasis Mine].³

            Ravi also knew that his ministry would have been impossible without Margie. Ravi’s sister-in-law Barbara Reynolds emphasized this during Ravi’s memorial, “…He talked about his deep love for Margie and how when he chose her, he had chosen wisely; that without her, he never could have accomplished what he was able to do.” [Emphasis Mine].⁴

            Margie could have very well demanded Ravi’s greater presence in her life.

            So I thank God for Margie’s sacrificial life that enabled Ravi to travel 200+ days in a year for the sake of ministry. Margie sacrificed Ravi’s precious presence with her and the children to enable his precious presence in your life and mine.

            I thank God Margie did not seek visibility through Ravi’s highly visible and celebrated ministry.

            Think of one dreadful consequence for a moment.

            Had Margie sought to be as visible as Ravi, she could have ensured her travel with Ravi during most of his ministry. That may have robbed Ravi’s household of Margie’s invaluable presence nurturing their children.

            Ramesh Zacharias, Ravi’s brother, emphasized Margie’s monumental and valuable presence in Ravi’s life, “While Ravi travelled almost 200 days a year his amazing wife Margie of 48 years raised 3 beautiful children – Sarah, Naomi, and Nathan. So Margie, on behalf of RZIM, we want to thank you for all that you have done for the ministry. But more importantly Margie, thank you for sharing Ravi with the world.” [Emphasis Mine].⁵  

            God, through Margie’s supreme sacrifice, enabled Ravi’s ministry.

            Thank you very much, Margie! This I say from the bottom of my heart.

            Margie, you are an amazing testimony to every wife whose husband is called to serve Christ. I pray all Christian wives, whose husbands are called to serve God, would learn from your life. Thus, I pray that God’s servants would overcome Satan’s vicious attack on Christian families especially upon those who seek to serve God.

            Last but not the least, I thank God for blessing the Zacharias household with the hedge of protection (cf. Job 1:10) that enabled his powerful ministry to the seeking millions.

            Thank you Jesus for Ravi and Margie!

Endnotes:

¹https://ses.edu/

²https://www.facebook.com/RZIMfb/posts/10157796726026284

³https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBZxZG9nkC0 (Starting at 1:41:07).

⁴Ibid., (Starting 1:17:39).

⁵Ibid., (Starting at 1:10:45).

Websites last accessed on 31^st May 2020.

Why Can I Be A Christian Even If I Do Not Know The Evidence For Its Veracity

            The principal reason I am a Christian is because Christianity is true. The arguments for God’s existence, the infallibility of the Bible, the evidence for the existence of the Historical Jesus and HIS resurrection are sufficient for me to commit my life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and remain strong in HIM.

            But I did not commit my life to Christ upon learning the evidence for Christianity. I committed my life much earlier when I was not aware of the evidence.

            Was I wrong in committing my life to Jesus then? 

            If my commitment to Christ without examining the evidence for Christianity was valid/correct, then on what basis was it valid and would it be valid for everyone who, even now, do not examine the evidence for Historic Christianity?

            Today, there are Christians who do not know or understand the bedrock of evidence on which Historic Christianity stands. There are many simple, unassuming, and humble Christians. They do not know or do not care about the evidence substantiating Historic Christianity. Would an atheist, then, be justified to deem their faith as blind faith or go one step further to deem them as non-Christians?

            Dig deeper. Assume there is no valid evidence for the credibility of Historic Christianity. Should we then cease to be Christians or would Historic Christianity disintegrate?

            Is the legitimacy of Historic Christianity solely based on evidence?¹

            To reiterate, there is reasonable and adequate evidence corroborating the authenticity of Historic Christianity. But even if there is no evidence, would Historic Christianity disintegrate?

            First, the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Truth, occasionally, gets suppressed in the court of law. In some instances, the guilty are acquitted and the innocent are convicted. This is common knowledge.

            This phenomenon could be due to many reasons. One reason may be a sincere inability to produce indomitable evidence that would have tilted the case in favor of the innocent.

            Therefore, the lack of evidence, which leads to suppression of truth, need not necessarily posit evidence of absence or the absence of truth or the triumph of an error/lie.

            Second, the Bible unequivocally emphasizes that God has given each person an adequate degree of cognizance to discern HIS presence, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” [Emphasis Mine] (Romans 1: 18-20, ESV).

            That degree of cognizance is more than adequate to perceive God’s existence. However, that measure of perception which motivates an individual to believe in the existence of God or the Lordship of Jesus Christ may not be sufficient to comprehend the philosophical arguments corroborating God’s existence or the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth or the demonstration of HIS bodily resurrection as a valid historic event.

            Such Christians would have a hard time defending their faith. It’s not that they believe that their faith in Jesus is inexplicable, but they either are ignorant of the evidence or struggle to comprehend those evidence.

            Third, if an ability to perceive a preliminary notion of God is within our natural ability, then a basic understanding of each theistic religion is well within our epistemic grasp. This brings us to the simplicity of the Historic Christian narrative.

            The Historic Christian narrative is simple to comprehend.

            According to Historic Christianity, God creates mankind. Every man is a sinner who will eventually die a physical (bodily) and spiritual death (eternally). So God gave HIMSELF, in the form of Jesus Christ (God incarnate), to die for our sins, to resurrect and ascend to the right hand of the Father. Thus, those who repent of their sinfulness and believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ will be saved (from the spiritual death). The saved will be with God forever and ever after their physical death.

            God bore the brunt of salvation (the suffering death on the cross), whereas man’s role is merely to believe in what God did for him. This is precisely why the Bible specifies that salvation is God’s gracious gift to man, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV).

            Thus in the Christian narrative, salvation is a gracious gift of God, through our faith, on the foundation of Christ’s sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension.

            As you see, the Christian narrative is rather simple when compared to that of the other major world religions - Hinduism and Islam.

            Fourth, the means of salvation in Christianity, as already seen, is God’s gracious gift to man. Salvation in the Christian worldview is logical.

1. God, by definition, is maximally great, perfect, infinite, and sovereign.

2. Man is finite, imperfect, and limited.

3. Therefore, in order to save mankind, the all-wise and all-powerful God should play a major role.

4. The Bible teaches that God plays a major role in man’s salvation.

            In the Christian salvific system, God does not burden a man to play a major role; rather God plays that major role.

            It would be illogical for man to play a major role in salvation when the all-powerful, all-wise God is sitting and watching the weak and powerless man struggling to save himself. God, in this salvific paradigm, could be construed as sadistic.

            Christianity teaches that in order for man to be saved he should repent and believe in the Lord Jesus. Man’s good works have no role in his salvation. The emphasis is that man need not struggle to save himself; rather God saves mankind by making the process of salvation easy upon man.

            On the contrary, a cursory observation of the competing worldviews reveal an espousal of a doctrine of ‘salvation by works.’ Under the salvation by works paradigm, man has to either struggle to live innumerable lives or struggle to do good works to be saved.

            Fifth and finally, the Historical Christian worldview justifies God more than that of the competing worldviews. The God of the Bible offers a man a free gift of salvation whereas God, according to the competing worldviews, makes a man work hard to gain his salvation.

            So who’s a loving God? Is it a God who makes salvation easier for man? Or is it a God who makes a man work hard to gain salvation? The answer is rather simple; the God who makes salvation easier for man is a perfectly loving God. Otherwise, man would have been better off not being created.

            Would Historic Christianity disintegrate if there is no evidence for it?

            No! Even if there is no evidence, people could be Christians because of the simplicity and the logical nature of salvation in the Christian worldview, and because the Christian worldview justifies God.

            A Christian cannot be wrong if he places his faith in the Lordship of Christ without examining the evidence that corroborates the case for Historic Christianity. 

            Does this slash the need for every Christian to learn the evidence for Historic Christianity? Not necessarily! This merely guarantees that every Christian who lives a faithful life in Christ is indeed genuine about his/her faith.

Endnotes:

¹At this juncture, a point of clarity is required. This article will strive to convey certain elementary thought patterns of a lay-Christian. The intent of this article is not to either discredit the Evidential² method of Christian apologetics or honor the Plantingian model of Reformed Epistemology.³ Philosophical sophistication of that magnitude is not the intent.

²Evidential Christian apologetics appeals to the evidence from history and nature to argue for the veracity of Historic Christianity.

³Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might, in fact, be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief-forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). Source: https://www.iep.utm.edu/ref-epis/

Website last accessed on 20^th May 2020.

Sin & Salvation In Islam & Christianity: Accord and Discord (Part 2)

ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY: ACCORD & DISCORD

            In the first part, the pertinent teachings from both the worldviews (Islam and Christianity) were presented. The next logical step is to observe the areas of accord (agreement) and discord (disagreement) between these major world religions.

ACCORD IN ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY

            Islam and Christianity are theistic religions, believing in the existence of God. The scriptures – the Quran and the Bible, are considered to be God’s revelations to mankind. These revelations affirm that Satan is the author of evil and sin entered the earth through him.

            The sovereignty of God, especially with reference to the final judgment of sins is affirmed by both the scriptures. The reward for belief and punishment for sin, whereby believers gain paradise or heaven (eternal life) and unbelievers the hell (eternal death), is clearly emphasized in these worldviews.

DISCORD BETWEEN ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY

            Even though Islam and Christianity have the same belief with respect to a few points related to sin and salvation, it is to be affirmed that there are disagreements also. Islam and Christianity differ and contradict each other on many counts.

            Let’s consider five points of disagreement between Islam and Christianity:

            First: The First Sin. A conflict occurs as early as in the account of the first sin. Even though the Quran records that Adam and Eve sinned, it also records that they realized their sin and pleaded to Allah for forgiveness (Surah 7:23). As a result, Allah forgave them (Surah 2:37) and Adam was accorded the status of a prophet.

            On the other hand, the Bible does not record this instance of repentance and forgiveness. The Bible states that Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden and were forbidden to eat of the tree of life.

            Islam believes in salvation by works that is initiated by man, so it records in Adam’s account that Allah will only forgive those who truly repent. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that Adam was banished and forbidden to eat from the tree of life. This sets the scene for God to initiate salvation by grace, so that only those who truly repent and believe in Christ are saved.

            Second: The Transmission of Sin. The Quran teaches that sin is not transmitted into posterity because “all people are born as true Muslims, innocent, pure, and free (Qur’an 30:30).”³⁹

            The Biblical teaching thoroughly disagrees with this line of thought. The Bible teaches that man is inherently sinful, sinful at the time of his birth.

            This disagreement implies that a Muslim will be forgiven by Allah if only he realizes his sinfulness and asks for forgiveness. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that man can only be saved by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose one-time perfect sacrifice gained salvation to all those who truly believe in Christ.

            This leads us to one of the core disagreements between Islam and Christianity, which pertains to one’s salvation.

            Third: The Means of Salvation. Islam is a proponent of salvation by works theology, whereas Christianity unquestionably asserts salvation by grace through faith. These teachings radically oppose each other.

            Either a believer believes in his works (salvation by works) or he believes in God’s work (salvation by God’s grace). The finitude of a believer whose logical implication is imperfection can never offer perfect works during his lifetime. A man cannot believe in both God’s work and his work, for the one denies and nullifies the other.

            If a believer cannot offer perfect works to the perfect God, then God, if HE chooses to accept the imperfect works of man, devoid of another equivalent act of making the imperfect perfect, then God would reveal an innate form of injustice - not a hallmark of a perfect being.

            The metaphysics of God would not allow God to accept the offer of imperfect sacrifices from man. God, who is ontologically perfect, cannot accept/tolerate imperfection of any manner or kind, whatsoever. Salvation by works would therefore be metaphysically impossible doctrine.

            Even the grace of God cannot compensate for man’s imperfect works. For grace is an attribute of an ontologically perfect God. Perfection is God’s ontic essence, whereas grace is an attribute of God. Metaphysically, any attribute of a perfect being should complement its ontic essence and shall not be in conflict.

            Fourth: The Means of Salvation – the Persons of Mohammed and Jesus Christ. This discord revolves around the central figures of Islam and Christianity – Prophet Muhammad and the Lord Jesus Christ, respectively. As the prefixes indicate one is a prophet and the other, God.

            Islam claims that Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet and an intercessor. Christianity asserts that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, and the Savior of mankind.

            Salvation within the Christian framework is personal, for a man is saved by the grace of God through faith in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            Salvation in Islam is entirely dependant on a transcendent God, but not dependant on the person of the prophet Muhammad. A Muslim’s focus is more on the law than the person of God.

            A Muslim grows in the law, whereas a Christian grows into the likeness of the person of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. A Muslim knows his law, which supersedes the person of the Prophet Muhammad, whereas a Christian knows his Lord Jesus Christ.

            Fifth: The Assurance of Salvation.  Islam does not seem to provide its believers with complete and convincing assurance of their salvation. A Muslim is always dependent on his transcendent God, who decides the eternal fate of a Muslim.

            But Christianity provides complete and a convincing hope for the believer’s presence with God (Rom. 8:38), through the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

CONCLUSION

            Given the points of agreements and disagreements, a logical conclusion is that the points of discord far outweigh those in accord.

            Islam and Christianity differ in the basic foundational aspects of the topics of sin, salvation, and assurance. In fact, we are well aware that Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. So Islam and Christianity do not teach the same truths.

            However, it is interesting to note that both religions claim their Scriptures to be divinely revealed or inspired. Because of the prevalent fundamental and foundational contradictions, it is only plausible that a person will go to God through either the Islamic way or the Christian way, but certainly not through both the ways.

            Given this situation, it is the reader who should make a choice. But how would we make a wise choice if we do not read our Scripture completely, or even think our faith through?

            Let’s pray that every seeker of the truth would be humble and honest in his endeavor. The living God would illumine every seeking soul with the knowledge of his presence and the understanding of HIS truth.

            Even as I researched and authored this document, I should confess that my faith and conviction in Christ has only been strengthened. My love for Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away my sins, has only increased.

            The brutally profound words of Millard Erickson present an apt conclusion, “…throughout life, a person says to God, in effect, “Leave me alone.” Hell, the absence of God is simply giving that person at last what he or she has always asked for. It is not God, but one’s own choice that sends a person to hell.”⁴⁰

            So it is only through belief in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that one would gain eternal life. The loving and the living God will act according to his good and perfect will to continually draw his people closer towards him. Amen.

Endnotes:

³⁹Badru D. Kateregga, and David W. Shenk, A Muslim and a Christian Dialogue, (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1997), 45.

⁴⁰Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, (Michigan: Baker Academic, 1998), 456.