Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Well good afternoon and welcome and a really fascinating topic for you this afternoon. In fact it's been a long long time really since we did this in a muslim christian context. The trinity. Does belief in the trinity lead to polytheism is basically what we're talking about.
Does it necessitate polytheism? It's if you like been one of the paradoxes of the christian faith for millennia the idea that God exists as three in one one in three and here to help us understand that from a christian perspective is James White.
James is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries in the United States. It has a wide brief really in terms of christian apologetics. James debates many different types of people but has been over here in the UK debating muslims for the last week and will be doing quite a high profile debate with Shabbir Ali.
That's taking place on Monday the 17th of November from 7 30 p .m and it's going to be at Twineholme Baptist Church. Am I.
Pronouncing that correctly. James. Or maybe you're not the best person to ask. You're asking a person from Arizona how to pronounce the British word.
It's either Twineholme or Twinholme Baptist Church. It's in Fulham Cross and you can get there on Monday from 7 30 to listen and to well witness that debate. So I do encourage you to get along there if you'd be interested in that.
Thank you for coming on this afternoon James and tell us a little bit about yourself. You obviously live out as you say in Phoenix Arizona.
You must be enjoying our British weather. I am actually enjoying the weather. We have about 360 days of sunshine in Arizona. We've seen 50 degrees in the shade there which is 122 for us and so it's a little bit different than here in London.
But I'm an elder in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. I'm an adjunct professor at the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. I teach have taught Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, church history issues along those lines and especially in apologetics.
But since 1983, 25 years now, I've been the director of Alpha Omega Ministries which is a Christian apologetics organization and we do engage in a wide variety of apologetic interactions. I've written over 20 books on a number of subjects including the doctrine of the trinity and also textual critical issues.
A book that I wrote against the King James only controversy has been used as a textbook in the U .S. for quite some time now and so that's really where a lot of my interest lies is in the original languages and the texts of the New Testament and the Old Testament.
Well it's great to have you with us and I'm sure you would be fascinated on all kinds of subjects not just the trinity but that obviously is what we'll be looking at today. And to my mind probably when I meet Muslims that's probably one of the first things that they will bring up as regards to why they don't see Christianity as coherent or believable.
I mean so it's an important one to address in many ways isn't it James?
Well it is and for not only the apologetic reason of an encounter with Islam or any of the other world religions but also for the fact that I think that especially evangelicalism has been impoverished as our people have become less and less familiar with their own faith and especially with the doctrine of the trinity.
Christianity does not present a god that we worship that we don't know and in fact the biblical command is for you to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. And so I think that our worship is impoverished when we do not understand what the bible reveals about the relationship of the father son and holy spirit.
What that means to our worship even the gospel itself. I believe it's a trinitarian gospel. It finds its origination in God the father and is the son who brings about the very means by which the gospel can take place that is that transaction upon the cross.
It's the spirit that comes and makes that gospel come alive. So it's a it's a trinitarian religion all the way through and so when we have people who don't understand it for themselves that impacts their life.
And then of course if you don't understand for yourself you certainly are going to struggle to try to explain.
It to someone else. Well we're going to be looking into this with the help of Abdullah Al-Yusufi. Abdullah your first time on the program as well so welcome along to the program. Pleasure to be here.
Great to have you. Now you are obviously a Muslim and tell us a little bit about yourself. Have you always seen yourself as a Muslim and sort of how did you arrive at this place you are now of engaging in these kinds of debates etc?
Well I haven't always been a Muslim. I used.
To be a Christian Church of England Christian. Really? Up until I was a teenager and I chose Islam after a kind of a very long and arduous search for the truth and I analyzed every religion that you can think of Jainism, Shintoism even Rastafarianism every kind of religion regardless of where it came from its background or whether it's culturally outside what I would recognize.
I researched all these different religions and Islam was last on my list because I didn't think that Islam would have anything interesting to say about the truth of the world in the universe in existence and then I came upon the laws and the rules and the understandings and the theology of Islam and it's very much agreed with my rational search and so on.
So I became Muslim after that point and then after this I kind of looked into understanding more about Islam, understanding more about the world not just religions but also politics also sociology and psychology of human beings and so on to deepen my understanding about the human existence on earth and about how we interact and so on so forth and why is it that you know many people around the world you know they have common phenomenons that they experience like you know spiritual experience and so on whichever religion you're from.
So I wanted to kind of research everything to get a kind of a bigger world picture than just make a narrow world view for my particular religion or a particular viewpoint and so on. So and that's what basically what led me to discussing theology although my main lines of social activity or political activity is along the lines of I debate most with secularists, I do social work with Muslim youths and I do political work in terms of trying to work for and revive the kind of Islamic system in the Middle East and so on and to bring you know for justice and so on.
Obviously I raise causes of injustice around the world both Muslim and non-Muslim so these are the kind of activities that I am engaged in and so on and this I mean I don't usually deal with philosophical discussions but because I've obviously I researched it when I was choosing religions and I researched it when I was investigating Islam and on the comparative religion I think it's kind of like a bit of a.
Pastime I can engage in now and again. Well thank you so much for being with us and I know that you're a regular as it were on YouTube. I've seen a couple of your tapes there and if you want to see Abdullah in action go to youtube .com forward slash Mujtahid 2006 that's Mujtahid 2006.
James White you can visit his website at aomin .org so a-o-m-i-n .org. So those are our guests on the program today do join us again in just a couple of minutes time and we're going to get into this discussion on the trinity.
It is a central part of Christian doctrine but can Christians defend it and does it make sense? Those are the kind of questions that Abdullah is going to be asking of James White our Christian apologist on the program today so do hope you can join us again.
In a couple of minutes time. You're listening to Unbelievable on Premiere Christian Radio.
Welcome back yes we're talking about the trinity this afternoon and it is often something that I think Christians probably do find hard to express to those who ask them about it. And James White well his job really is making clear things that sometimes seem to be mysterious in many ways and he's going to be explaining what he believes are the biblical if you like explanations for the trinity why Christians can and should be confident in a belief in a triune god.
Well all this talk we'll find out from Abdullah this afternoon is he's mystifying to Muslims and we'll find out why he believes that Christians have to believe in a polytheist god if they believe in this trinity.
That's the question we're asking this afternoon does belief in the trinity lead necessarily to polytheism? That's the topic of the show this afternoon. Do hope you can stay with us through till four o 'clock this afternoon and don't forget you can find us online at premiere .org .uk forward slash unbelievable lots of other interesting debates between Muslims and Christians in our archive there.
Right gentlemen so let's launch into this. I'll start with you Abdullah. I mean you said you were searching as a young person was as it were the reason you're leaving at least a sort of childhood sort of embrace of what is one of the reasons this trinity issue did that come up in your sort of.
Searchings as it were? Well I mean as a young boy and growing up to being a teenager I don't think and I think for other Christians around me we didn't really have this concept of trinity as Jesus being God because for a child you grow up and you see you see God you know God the father and you see you know it's our father right in heaven and you say that the the Lord's Prayer and then you see Jesus so as a child there are two concepts there is Jesus and then there is the the father and so when you pray you're praying to the to the father and Jesus prayed to the father and when we saw the the title of the son of God we understood that as a kind of metaphorical title praise so but it wasn't specifically the trinity per se that actually got me out of Christianity because I didn't think I understood the trinity fully at that point but rather it was that I saw that Christianity in my view lacked any comprehensive system by which human beings can be organized, politics, economics, all these things that we live on earth and if our purpose in life obviously is to worship God then every aspect of our life should be should revolve around this purpose and the thing that trained me to Islam was that it's very comprehensive and it deals with all these subjects on a political social and private sphere so that was the main law of Islam but again that wasn't the the first thing that came to my mind initially because I went through a whole bunch of different religions I was researching but when I was researching different religions it brought interesting questions such as when I looked at Hinduism or I even looked at ancient Greek mythology how do I know that there is no multiple gods, there are no multiple gods, there are no, you know, politism is not the existence of the divine, it is politism, how do I know this for sure and so I had to encounter these ideas at that stage when I contemplated it I realized obviously that if there is obviously more than one God then there's more than one infinite being and the question would arise as to which one has more power than the other or you know and so on they would equal each other out and then they would basically limit each other and then how can God be unlimited and plus if there's like 10, 20 or 100 gods then or 100 beings then who created them in its plurality you know why is it that.
It was 10 or 20 why not 21 or 30 or 100. So do you actually regard Christianity not as being a monotheistic faith in that sense if the trinity. If we believe in this trinity do you regard that as in actual fact Christianity is a polytheistic faith?
It depends how you define Christianity.
I mean if I was to say that it's a polytheistic faith a lot of Unitarian Christians would become very upset with me and rightly so because they don't believe in the trinity but they affirm that they are Christian.
Obviously historical scholars have affirmed that some early Christians were Unitarian up until within one generation after Jesus for Ebionites and Nazarenes so on and so forth. Now I'm not going to debate as to obviously which doctrine is more closer in history to Jesus or not but rather I want to focus on the actual the idea and I think that although the Trinitarian Christians you know who call themselves obviously monotheists believe in one God I think that it's really a kind of a polytheism but masquerading as monotheism because they try to reconcile the one God but then they want to include Jesus and the Holy.
Spirit in this. James in many ways Islam the birth of Islam through Prophet Muhammad was in response to these what he saw as polytheistic beliefs wasn't it. In Mecca he saw polytheism both in as it were pagan religions and in this nascent Christian religion and said this has taken us away from the worship of the one true God and hence in many ways it is the trinity if you like.
That is partially accountable in some ways for the growth of Islam from the.
Very outset. Well there's a lot of question as to exactly what Muhammad's knowledge the doctrine of the trinity was. What kind of Christians he had encountered. There's a lot of question as to that he only encountered Nestorian Christians or or even Christians who had any knowledge whatsoever of the doctrine itself or have any solid knowledge.
It's it's hard to say. But I think it's important to emphasize that the reason that I believe in the doctrine of the trinity is because I believe that the Bible is the word of God. I believe as Jesus said that the scriptures cannot be broken as Paul said that all scripture is God breathed or as Peter put it men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
And so when I read those scriptures I see three foundational truths that are clearly presented in those texts. First of all there is only one true God in the Old Testament the tetragrammaton Yahweh which we slaughter in English as Jehovah.
But Yahweh is the one true God. He is the creator of all things he is owes his existence to none. He is timeless. There is nothing that exists outside of his will. And yet that same name when we come in the New Testament though the Greek New Testament does not contain the name Yahweh those texts that talk about him are applied to three persons the Father the Son the Holy Spirit.
And so we have a biblical monotheism. There is only one true God. All the gods the peoples are idols. Psalm 96 5 before me there is not no God formed. There should be none after me. Isaiah 43 10. But then we have the introduction in the New Testament of these three divine persons clearly distinguished from one another.
The Father is not the Son of the Son is not the Spirit. In John 14 Jesus says refers to the Father. He talks about the love that exists between he and the Father. In John 17 he says he shared glory with the Father before creation itself came into existence.
And then he speaks about sending another comforter the Holy Spirit who proceeds forth from the Father. So we have these three persons. And then they're described as possessing the attributes and nature of God.
The Father clearly. So the Son is described as the Creator. He is described as having eternal existence. In John 1 1 he is described as God in numerous passages. Thomas after the resurrection when he sees Jesus cries out to him.
The text cannot be taken in any other way other than saying my Lord and my God to Jesus. Jesus does not rebuke him. He accepts this as a confession of faith. And then we have the Spirit. When Ananias and Sapphira lie to the Spirit of God you've not lied to men but to God.
He's identified as God. He gives the gifts to the church as he wills. So he's personal in 1 Corinthians 12. And so we have these three persons. But then we have the question well could it be that that we are somehow violating our Old Testament monotheism.
No. Every person that writes in the New Testament was a monotheistic Jew would say the every morning from Deuteronomy 6 4. Here Israel Lord our God the Lord is one. And so we have the equality of those persons presented to us in scripture not identity.
Because clearly the scriptures differentiate between the Father Son. The Spirit was not. It was not the Father who became flesh it was the Son. It's not the Son or the Father who indwells us. Now they instead have sent the Holy Spirit and by means of that Spirit and dwell believers.
And so you have these three foundations absolute biblical monotheism the teaching the existence of three divine persons and then the equality of those persons. Which is the reason why if you accept sola scriptura scripture alone is the sole rule of faith for the church and tota scriptura all the scripture you are forced to the doctrine of the trinity.
By taking all that information together do you see.
The trinity is something that we only really find though in the New Testament or do you believe it.
Exists in the Old Testament the concept the the doctrine of the trinity is actually revealed in the coming of the Son in flesh and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And all of that takes place between Malachi and Matthew.
The New Testament then becomes the record of that revelation of the trinity. Each of the writers in the New Testament is an experiential trinitarian. Think of someone like Peter. Peter stands upon the mount of transfiguration.
He sees Jesus transfigured he sees the glory of Christ. He hears the Father speaking from heaven. He's now indwelled by the Holy Spirit. He is an experiential trinitarian. And that is why the language of the New Testament is soaked in trinitarian terminology.
Why it's so easy for example for the New Testament writers to speak of the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ in the same passage going back and forth between the two. Because there's no there's no conflict in their understanding.
And so uh the the revelation is it prophesied in the Old Testament. I believe it clearly is in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6. We have this prophecy of this one who is to come. And there we are told that a child will be born to us.
And the term born there is the standard term in the Hebrew language for natural birth of a child. But then it says a son will be given to us. The government will be upon his shoulders. In English shall be called wonderful counselor mighty God everlasting father prince of peace.
Who is this. Who is this one. Who is who is to come. That such exalted language could be used of him that is only used of Yahweh. So while I don't think that the Old Testament is quote-unquote trinitarian in that sense because the revelation hasn't taken place the prophecies of that coming one.
Psalm 2 speaks of one that we are to kiss the sun lest he be angry. He rules over the nations. And so we can see in this fulfillment in the New Testament that the one who's to come is is not merely uh just a a prophet but is in fact uh divine knowledge.
Abdullah. Um I mean I would say my point of that is I find it highly conspicuous that the whole of the the Old Testament or the belief the Jews and Judaism there's not there's no revelation of the issue of trinity.
Now if the uh I mean regardless of the Christian interpretation of the New Testament which we can go into it doesn't really matter what what tradition you have the the actual doctrine itself when you think about it rationally um why is it that if we we are required to believe in a doctrine which the the Jews didn't know about for thousands of years uh in you know in the Old Testament why it took the New Testament to have this revelation and so on which itself is disputed among between different Christian factions.
But uh and so on and also other I mean other issues such as obviously the uh total scriptura and so on that we have to take the older scriptures again. Where where's your your your basis for taking all these scriptures.
What scriptures. What all the scriptures are you taking. What goes into the you know what did you just give a contents page about which books are going to be the everything you're going to be you're going to accept.
So I think that it brings up a lot of questions about the the origins of the issue of the trinity and and it's just very conspicuous for to anyone which I would say.
So so you'd say just into it. Firstly there is no trinitarian conception that obviously springs out of a reading of Jewish you know the Jewish history. But on top of that for you there's simply a logical problem of the idea of three gods but one or three persons but one god.
I mean that for you is a central you know whatever interpretation you make of the New Testament that's still going to.
Be a problem. Yeah I mean I think when the uh perhaps when when certain Christians during the history of Christianity encountered um well they wanted the need to basically write say Jesus divine but the problem is it was brought up while he was praying to a father and so how do you reconcile that we want to make him divine but who's this other person he's praying to.
And obviously okay I think the Holy Spirit might be brought on later on or so. But whatever the case um in order to reconcile these contradictory things you believe in one god because Jesus said you know one god but at the same time you want to make Jesus divine and I think it's a human phenomenon that you want to make a god.
You can see someone you can personally interact with for example in India right now Sai Baba who's currently living is revealed as a god as a god incarnate by by Hindus. Haile Selassie was revealed as a god by the by the Rastafarians.
And there's been many human beings who've been revealed as god incarnate throughout the history of humanity um from from Hercules to um Krishna and even more contemporary ones as I gave them that's okay so I would say that um the the main the problem that I have is that when looking at the uh the history or at least just looking at the actual the conception you want to have three things which you want to make into one so how do you reconcile this.
Well the Christians came up with an interesting play of words instead of saying three gods three gods in an alliance they said no we'll say one god but three persons but I want to know and this is something I mean I've you know I've read Augustine's book on the trinity and I read um in a few contemporary explanations of the trinity and I think it doesn't make sense is what is a person how do you define these these person is just the name to that was brought up is it's a semantical word game to justify free whereas if you actually dig into it when you ask for example you say right if Jesus Jesus is eternal fine um Jesus was not created fine so he wasn't uh made by anything so if he wasn't made by anything then he's independent he doesn't need anything he's not a dependent being like we are so if he's not dependent then what need does he have of the father.
And so on. When he prays to the father how does that make sense. I mean so I mean Christians have tried sometimes James to sort of define the trinity in ways that might be helpful they've maybe talked about.
Well water comes in the form of ice steam uh liquids. And or think of a a block you know which has in a sense two-dimensional faces but as a whole is a three-dimensional object. I mean do are those helpful or do they.
Kind of. Are they red herrings.
In no I don't. Uh obviously the we believe that God exists in an absolutely unique fashion. Therefore any type of analogy to the created order is going to fail at some point. And so I in my book I have discussed the various failures of the uh uh the three-leaf clover and all the rest of stuff that people have attempted to use over time.
Uh obviously we believe that God exists in a unique fashion. And again we come back to the issue of whether this is a divine revelation or whether this is something that man comes to in some rational thought process.
And we need to be consistent. For example Abdullah just raised well well how do we know what the scriptures are. Well how do we know what the uh what the islamic scriptures are. I mean we know that sir al-baqarah existed as a separate book in some people's minds even outside the Quran in the early years there are all sorts of questions we can ask about uh with man's revision and all those types of things.
Every religion has to answer those questions. The fact that people ask those questions does not mean there's not an answer to those things. That's the first thing. Secondly I said we do have to look at what the new testament says.
And the new testament writers are monotheists. They are not saying well we have three gods. How do we figure out how to make them one god in any way shape or form. The fact that there is one divine name we're baptized in a single name.
The fact there's one divine name that monotheistic jews are going to recognize in the old testament the greek translation the old testament the name yahweh was rendered by the greek term kurios which means lord.
It's interesting to me that that's jesus's normative term throughout the new testaments. He is kurios only by the holy spirit. Can we say jesus kurios. Jesus is lord. And so uh it's not a matter of us trying to quote-unquote figure this out.
We have a divine text. Uh in this divine text jesus says unless you believe that i am using the very same terminology yahweh uses it himself in the old testament you will die in your sins. So it wasn't generations later someone trying to go well we want to make jesus a god because we want to have a god that we can see.
No they have these inspired texts and they are attempting to do with them what the muslim attempts to do with the quran. When i interpret the quran i try to look at all the quran has to say i think it's unfair to pull one part out and say well i'm going to isolate this out.
And the muslim agrees with that. But when it comes to new testament they operate on a different standard. Instead when we come to the new testament it's very very clear. John says in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god.
Here you have in three phrases the description the fact that the logos the word who becomes flesh in john 1 14 has eternally existed. He did not come into existence at a point in time in the past. Secondly that there's been an eternal relationship between he and the father as john 118 says that god is being spoken of here as the father and that he is as to his nature deity.
Now if that's in your inspired text along with the assertion there's only one true god. Then you have to accept what that text says. It's not it's not some uh well we just have to. We want to change things after the revelation has taken place.
This is an inherent part of the revelation itself. There can no question of that before we get a.
Response from abdullah you if you're listening you're listening to a um a discussion on whether the christian doctrine of the trinity leads to polytheism. That's what many muslims believe and abdullah al-yusufi is one of them.
He's with me here in the studio along with christian apologist james white. Don't forget you can give us your comments on the debate today by emailing unbelievable at premiere .org .uk. Or you can phone me your phone response to this discussion on 08456 525252 and select option five.
You can do that whether you're listening live this saturday afternoon or you're listening to the podcast i can pick it up and play it out on next week's program and indeed pass on any relevant pieces of information to my guests.
Um you're so uh let's just get back into this discussion. Because i've done that james is saying. Look we're not trying to make you know sense of something after the event. This this stuff about the trinity is inherent in in the original stuff.
You know that this isn't something that a later council tried to kind of force onto the text. In some way i mean what what do you make of that. Well the bible is not a diary.
It's not a personal uh a personal account of someone thinking hmm i want to go you know make. How do i do this. Okay i'll do it like this. No it's the finished document. It is they've you know produced work.
I mean uh and no one's gonna say we're gonna put three girls into one. They're gonna give a spin on it. For example um pro-lifers as i'm no doubt i think james would be against their position. They don't call abortion killing of children.
They call abortion abortion just like you know abortion choice of the woman to uh to basically choose what happens. So you mean pro.
Choice rather than pro-life. You said pro-life. So yeah pro choice the um so the people use.
Euphemisms to you know and word games to change the the actual you know meaning of uh of uh to give a different spin to a to what essentially is something else they're doing. So i believe in calling a spade a spade and so on.
If you you know in terms of the actual uh text i mean i'm obviously we're not here to to to say right. Well you know this uh this text and and uh where did it come from. And so on so forth. Yes this question can be asked and this is very interesting question where that can lead but i think in the case is that god gave us a mind and god is not author of confusion and he gave us a mind to you know choose between and be able to kind of tell between falsehood and truth.
So if something doesn't make sense regardless of which book it comes from i would i would say i mean i'm very i'll say i'm consistent in this. If the quran says something which is irrational i'll throw out the quran and i'll cease being a muslim.
I have no compunction about saying this. But likewise i would i would like the christians to approach their bible in the same way or their interpretation of the bible or however or wherever they derive their belief from.
I'd like to them to approach this because end of the day there's something that we all agree on which is that we all have minds and we all agree on. Obviously we can see the universal and existence around us.
So this common this uh common language the universal language of rational thinking which god has given us is an enable human beings to determine the truth and not just blindly accept texts. What if uh you know if uh the the harry potter became forgotten then 2 000 years ago they came up with a book out of the ground and some believes it without critical without critical reasoning on this see now what james white might condemn as um label scholarship is uh is actually just critical reading of the text.
And i think um there's something else james mentioned that we know we shouldn't use analogies. We shouldn't compare the divine uh to any analogy to explain it and so on. And i and i agree with this although you know in in his video on youtube trinity versus oneness debate part one he used an analogy to explain uh the divine the trinity by saying that all the humans in the audience we are all of the same substance same uziah but we are all different persons hypostasis different persons.
Now he used an analogy in that he did in that case and i would say that that's actually a very interesting analogy because um he's saying that all these people in the audience are all one substance but different persons.
Well of course but there's multiple people in the audience no doubt the greek pagan gods are all made of the same substance but they're all different gods. So i would say that you know it's for reasons like this which i think the trinity um you just can't justify it logically.
And it i mean would you agree there james. That that i mean you've said analogies do break down.
Yeah and that was an analogy i was using on the trinity at all. I was uh abdullah has misunderstood me. I was simply illustrating the difference between two terms. And that is being in person. And i illustrated the fact that we as human beings always differentiate between these terms.
We recognize that even inanimate objects have being a pick up a rock toss it somebody else. That will be empirical proof that a rock has being. Uh but rocks are impersonal you can insult a rock all you want.
It's not really going to care because it's not personal. And i was saying we as human beings share the same kind of being. Our being is limited in time and space but each one of us is personal and we differentiate on those levels.
I was not in any way describing the trinity with that analogy. So uh that that's a misunderstanding. But uh i am not a rationalist. I believe that god has given us our minds to think his thoughts after him.
I believe that we are to be consistent and all the rest of those things. But i'm not a rationalist. I do not sit here and say that that man's mind is a measure of god's existence. And i do not believe there's anything irrational in recognizing the difference between being in person.
Uh your being and my being. We are limited in time and space. Uh right now i am seven hours ahead of my family back in in phoenix. It's made it's very difficult to call home and get the chance to talk with him at the right time.
Um i cannot bilocate between those two locations. I am limited in time and space. God is not. And while my being is probably only shared by one person upon what logical irrational basis do we say that god's being being infinite cannot be shared by three divine persons fully and completely.
That is an issue of divine revelation. Is it not god's business to reveal to us exactly how much he wants us to know of his of his divine being. Jeremy 29 29 says. The things are revealed belong to us and to our children.
The secret things.
Belong to the lord our god. I suppose one of your arguments abdullah might be though. But if god wants to reveal himself to us and wants us to believe in him why would he do it in a confusing way that we can't grasp with our mind.
I mean is that what you're getting at that that when you say god is not the author of confusion this is a confusing i didn't say we can't grasp it with.
With our mind i didn't say that uh i did not. I wanted to make sure. Because if you're going to answer a question it needs to be based upon what i'm saying. I am not saying that we cannot understand the doctrine of trinity.
What i'm saying is that on god's most basic level i cannot comprehend how he's eternal. I cannot wrap my mind around timelessness. And if that's the most and that's something we both agree about about god.
And if i can't wrap my mind about around that then i'm certainly not going to demand uh that the highest level of his revelation about himself that somehow i am to derive that solely from uh something other than divine revelation we'll get a response from.
In a moment because we're just coming to the end of this section of the program if you're listening then do do tune in again in just a moment's time after a short break and we'll continue discussing the trinity and its implications.
And don't forget that you can listen back to this program on the premier website at premier .org .uk forward slash unbelievable that'll take you to the unbelievable web page you can listen back to past programs there on the archive you can get the podcast do tell your friends about it and many many people now listening via podcast so welcome along if you're listening by that medium and we'll be back in just a short moment.
We stopped recording to unbelievable on premiere christian ring that is what the name of the show.
Is unbelievable. Um and is the doctrine of the trinity necessarily unbelievable. Well that's the way that uh abdullah feels. He's our guest on the program today. And uh taking if you like the muslim stance on the doctrine of the trinity and our christian guest is james white from alpha and omega ministries in the united states.
Do check out their website at aomin .org that's a o m i n dot org and you can find out more about abdullah al-andalusi at his uh youtube uh page if you like www .youtube .com. Forward slash mujtahid 2006.
Gentlemen um we uh we're going back and forth on these these questions about the trinity and whether it was a later if you like clarification in some ways. Uh is what you were arguing. Abdullah. You've been saying.
James. No. We need to see this as inherent in the earliest texts that this was something that monotheist jewish people believed. Um as it were. And and for you we need to be very careful about having some idea that the trinity is some kind of later development.
I think that's sometimes the way it's painted as as this was thrashed out at some kind of later church council.
That this is what we believe as a christian like i said naomi staven i'm a biblical trinitarian. Uh as a person who believes in solo scriptura has defended solo scriptura the sufficiency of uh. And that's one of the things that's interesting in the christian muslim dialogue is that we both believe that god has spoken in fact the quran says that god has sent down books plural.
Uh and that we are to believe in these books. Uh plural. And so we both believe god has spoken. That's one of the things that that's one of the reasons that abdullah was saying he engages in in the secularists and atheists and things like that that our our worldviews coincide at that point.
But obviously from my perspective uh then we need to look at what those texts say. And earlier abdullah had been saying you know this spinning that somehow christians are spinning something to make the trinity work.
This language is a part of the original new testament itself. In fact the book of hebrews clearly written before the destruction of jerusalem in a .d 70. So we're talking within one generation of the time of christ.
Uh listen to after god spoke long ago in various portions in various ways to our ancestors of the prophets in these last days he has spoken to us in the sun whom he appointed heir of all things through whom he created the world.
The sun is the radiance of his glory the exact representation of his essence and sustains all things by his powerful word. I mean when we're talking about the greek term there is character from which we get character.
And if you had a signet ring and you would press it into wax it would leave an exact representation. That's what the earliest documents are saying about jesus's relationship with the father. These are words that can never be said of a mere prophet.
This isn't just some later generation wanting to exalt someone because we found these in the very words of jesus he says things that no mere prophet could ever say. Well i mean the responsibility to.
That jesus said book of john i myself can do nothing. Um as i hear as i as i hear i judge. No one knows uh when the day or the hour will come. Not the angels in heaven nor the sun but only the father.
And um also uh do not touch me for i've not yet returned to the father go instead to my brothers and tell them i am returning to my father and your father to my god and your god. Now can a god say this.
And i think this is i mean and i guess james white's responsibility yes but i'm picking and choosing my my text. Well of course. But all that i mean to highlight that point is merely to illustrate the inconsistency within your own book.
And if i was in that position i wouldn't advertise these contradictions. And i think these issues cast doubt. But again um outsider you know just putting the bible aside for one second. Um if we were if i was a soldier on the front line and i was fighting for a side and then i get again order from my general which tells me to uh let's say uh kill my own people shoot my my own friends and so on and then and uh and burn my own army.
Now the order might have come through on my radio or however the orders are received by the soldiers. But i'll say wait a second hold it a second. Now it seems to have come from my my hq but this doesn't look like something my hq would say saying my my my my.
Likewise if the uh if the bible or the interpretation of the bible is saying something which is against um what we know of of uh of god as in you know being infinite or powerful or knowledgeable being not an ignorant being an all-knowledgeable being.
Yeah jesus is ignorant about uh. Well you know the one fact. So if he's ignorant then how can he you know how can he be god in in this respect. Um furthermore i mean i think that the the basis is what we have to agree uh james white earlier on said that how can we uh understand god.
You know god is infinite and timeless. And how can we understand this. Well um i mean obviously we can't comprehend what is infinite. Can we comprehend this. But we understand what it means. Infinite in latin means not finite simple not finite.
The only definition for god is by what he's not. That's the only definition that we have timelessness independent not dependent unlimited not limited. The only way we can define god is by what he's not.
So then if someone says to me no uh i have this belief that this god is limited finite in any way shape or form and independent as a way a second because this this contradicts with my with a fundamental understanding that god is not these things the only way we can define him is that he's not these things.
So can god be limited and unlimited at the same time and.
That's what you would say a christian has to believe. If they believe jesus in his incarnate form he's the son of god. Yeah that. That's the the dilemma. Well of course. Logically. Upon what.
Basis do you say that the creator of all things who himself in his essence is unlimited cannot if he so desires enter into his own creation. I've never had an answer to that. It's just well. We just don't believe he can't.
What is the logical reason if he created if he made it. Remember we're not saying that the essence of god somehow became limited or ceased being eternal. The father did not become flesh. The spirit did not become flesh.
The son becomes flesh. He enters into human existence. And that's the one speaking when for a purpose the time of the time of the coming is not a part of his limited knowledge as the god man. That's not the case today.
He still remains the god man. But there was a purpose for that in john chapter 20 when he speaks of god as my god could god speak that way. The god man can. And upon what basis do we say he cannot. Each one of those texts that were just cited by abdulah.
If you were to go into the context there is no contradiction whatsoever in john chapter 5 when he says he does what the father he speaks with the words the father's given him. That comes right after the fact that jesus has claimed not only to be lord of the sabbath but to have the exact same right to act on the sabbath that god has.
And the jews understood he was making himself equal with god. John chapter 5 is jesus's explanation. He's not some renegade deity. He's not a secondary deity. There is perfect harmony between he and the father.
And so when we simply ask to be allowed to do what every muslim demands for the quran. That is allow the book to speak for itself read it in its own context. When you do the same thing for the christian texts then this is the tea.
This is why. What about the context of the other one. Um.
Abdulah mentioned which is um no one knows the time. Yeah i just mentioned that. Okay sorry. So so.
You're saying in that context we see in the context of the god man when jesus himself he lays aside his glory voluntarily there are the exercise of his divine prerogatives. He lays aside. Look at the carmen christi of philippians 2 5 through 11.
This is one of the fragment of an ancient hymn of the church which probably comes within within 10 years of the time of christ. And what is that that section talking about. It's talking about how jesus does not consider the equality he has with god the father something to be held on to at all at all costs.
But instead he voluntarily makes himself nothing. How does he do that. By taking on a human nature and becoming obedient even to the point of the death on the cross. And so here you have a divine person pre-existing who is equal with the father but does not consider that equality.
Has the father something to be held on to. But instead he takes on a true human nature and the limitations that come from that. The miracles he does he does by the power of the holy spirit of god. He gives us that example.
It's a perfect man. But again when we allow the context of those texts to enter into the picture and we allow uh the whole testimony. I don't demand uh that uh a muslim accepts the modern orientalist views of the quran that see it as a compilation of many different works put together.
I don't demand you go. Okay i'm going to chop up surah abakara into all these different parts. And you can't interpret any of these parts in the light of other parts. They're going to say wait a minute.
You have to let the quran speak. You can't just start with that kind of presupposition. I'm looking for consistency on that same level when they start looking at my text which preceded the quran by 600 years and which in the quran i am told as a one of the al-anji or the people of the gospel.
I am told to judge by what is revealed therein. And that's.
What i'm trying to do well i mean my response i'd say is um if the if people want to discuss the orientalist opinions about the quran then bring it on. Really i mean you know i don't care who says it if it's a liberal or not liberal.
Let's look at the facts. And if they present some facts then fine you know we'll discuss it. But in terms of um what he said about uh the sabbath you know jesus said for example wouldn't. You know only god could break the sabbath.
Well i mean even in islam there are obligations upon us that we can't break. But there are exceptions to those obligations. So now i think in that case jesus was highlighting the an exception. You know for example as a muslim you know we can we can eat pork if that's the only food available to us and our survival depends on it.
So you know are we god. Now we're breaking these rules. No it's just an exception to the rule. But um in terms of uh what james was saying that you know i guess what he's the gist of what he's saying is that we're putting a limit on god by saying god can't do these things.
But you see the thing is that um why why can god do anything. God can do anything because he his nature is unlimited he's infinite. That's why he can't he can do anything he wishes. But as a muslim we say yes.
We say god can do anything but he is not anything. He is not finite. That's that's what i'm saying. You say god's infinite. You're already telling god so to speak what he can't do. Or what he can't is if you as soon as you call god infinite you're saying that he's slightly can't do.
Instead so you're saying that there is logically things god can't. I mean some people say don't expect god to make a rock heavier than he can lift because that's a logically inconsistent thing to ask him to do.
And you are you saying the same thing that if you have called god infinite it's logically inconsistent to ask him to become a finite being. Well yeah i mean i'd also say that.
The god obviously he's infinite now obviously. Could he choose to find by himself. Um yes. But then he'd be he would cease to exist because then uh what maintains existence is the infinite. And if god definites himself it's the same thing as him destroying himself the same thing as him.
Creating another god the same thing as uh this is always the philosophical objection except no one.
Believes it because christians are not saying god became finite. No one has said that the father did not become flesh the spirit did not become flesh. There there is a a one of three divine persons enters into human flesh by taking on the human nature.
That human nature is finite. Yes. But the essence of god does not cease being infinite. So there's no christian at least no knowledgeable christian who is saying oh yeah well god was infinite. Now he's become finite.
No that that is not the case. I mean the question is can he who is infinite enter into human existence take on a true human nature and live and dwell amongst us. Even in the old testament did not yahweh appear multiple times in physical form.
Who is abraham walking with it specifically says by the oaks.
Of mammar that he met with jehovah god. What. I remember doing a debate um an easter sort of themed debate between a christian and a muslim and the muslim was horrified. He found it abhorrent the idea that god could be said to have died on the cross which is sort of in a way what christians say when they say jesus died on the cross.
They say god was in our place on the cross. If you like i mean the god man the god man. Now i mean do we need to make a distinction here between i mean are you trying to say jesus was. It was not. We say jesus was fully god.
But but in what sense was he also not god. In the sense that we don't say we say we say he was fully god and he.
Was fully man. And obviously the divine essence cannot cease to exist in any way shape or form. And so what jesus does voluntarily on the cross is he gives his life as the perfect man without sin without any penalty lying upon him.
And he gives his life voluntarily upon the cross as a sacrifice for sin. Now when we say that god died what we're saying in as as acts 20 uh expresses it. He gave his own blood because as philippians 2 says he took on a true human nature but without our fallenness.
That's why he's paralleled with adam as the second adam for example by the apostle paul and romans and corinthians. And so we're not saying that god ceased to exist. I've actually heard people say well then who was running the world when for the three days.
And again it assumes unitarianism. That's one of the biggest problems that that we have in this discussion. That's one of the biggest problems that i have as a christian apologist dealing with jehovah's witnesses for example one is pentecostals is the assumption of unitarianism rather than the proving of unitarianism.
They're not recognizing that the father is not the one who became flesh. The father was still running the universe. That was the point i think abdullah misunderstood me. I was actually talking about in john 5 17 through 18 when jesus said my father is working until now.
And i too am working. He was claiming the same prerogative that god had to keep the stars spinning in space on the sabbath day. And that's why the jews said he's calling god his own father making himself equal with god.
That's what he was was going on there. And that's what we're. What we're saying is you need to recognize the distinction that we make between father son spirit. Uh. And hence when when we say that jesus is the god man died we're not saying the father died.
We're not saying that the spirit died. Uh there were people in the early church called patrapassionists. Uh who who denied the doctrine the trinity. And in essence said that the father suffered. That's what patrapassionism means.
Uh that's clearly not what the new testament documents are revealing to us. Well i mean i would say that.
In when if uh well in that particular case when jesus said that you know god's working i too am working. And i think that's the same thing as me saying that god is merciful and i shall show mercy because god is merciful it doesn't mean i'm now god is my father and i'm his uh his son.
In that sense i do agree with what james said when um you know god didn't change his nature the father didn't become flesh. I exactly agree with that with that statement if you're suggesting abdullah.
That james is somehow interpreting the statements of jesus in a some kind of divine sense. Then i think james's objection that then why did the jewish authorities take exception to that kind of stands.
I mean would they not have been the first person to see that he was just making sort of some general rabbinic claims or something. I mean why did they believe he was making these if you like heretical claims to be equal to god.
Well um i think i think it's the it's the same.
Reason that in in the world today you see all kinds of oppression and political dissidents being arrested and tortured. So jesus was a radical quote so to speak. Yeah he believed in a in a whole different interpretation of the of the old testament to what the current understanding of it of it was.
I believe he was trying to reform uh reform the understanding and revive the old understanding of mosaic of moses and mosaic law which is what the the jews who have become stuck in very extreme uh uh literalist interpretations uh you know were still so narrow not to not to see.
So they call everything that jesus said which contradicted their narrow interpretations or literalistic interpretations. They accuse him of blasphemy and heresy and you see the the like of it today throughout the world in christian muslim and even jewish communities of today the same thing occurs.
Um also i mean the issue is i mean i i guess that they weren't.
They were. I mean what you're saying is jesus wasn't making the claims that they said. He was making the ones that they basically crucified him for that he claimed to be god. I mean you're saying.
He didn't make that claim. Well i mean if we want to go towards if we want to basically take the of the enemies of jesus as as uh proof of what jesus said then we might as well go to the the talmud and midrash and look what it said about jesus.
You know it made insults about his mother. It made insults about him. He said that he's burning in hell using this very disgusting uh terms talking about him. So we have to be consistent on this issue.
If we're going to take the enemy's statements of jesus then take all the enemies enemy statements there's a problem with that.
Midrash is from uh two and a half centuries later. The talmud six centuries later. What we're saying is in this context. When these people come to the conclusion that jesus is identifying him he says his words.
John 5 18. But he was calling god his own father thus making himself equal with god. Jesus's response to that is to say i am in perfect unity with the father. Everyone's to honor the son just as they honored the father.
Again. What human being knowing our own sin our own imperfection can utter the words that jesus says. Every word that comes out of my my mouth is in perfect harmony with the father. You to honor me. Clearly jesus does not correct an errant uh understanding on their part in any in any of these places.
In john 8 when jesus says before abraham was i am the jews pick up stones to stone him. Does jesus say oh you misunderstand. John 10 i am the father of one pick up stones to stone him. Does he say that you misunderstand me.
So that it all ends up coming into. In john chapter 19 when the jews say we have a law and by this law he must die because he made himself out to be the son of god. Uh that is the the testimony of the new testament documents.
We'll get a response from abdullah just again a quick chance to say if you're listening you're and you're enjoying this debate on. We've really kind of nearing the end of the program gentlemen so um perhaps i'll give you that as an indication.
You should prepare to sum up your arguments on the program. Today time flies even in the context of you know an hour or more of uh discussion time. It's amazing how quickly these things go but abdullah i mean as we come to the end of the program.
Any response firstly to what james was saying just before that. Well i mean i.
Think um interpreting any book um sometime will depend on the assumptions you make before you enter this book. Now obviously those interpretations he mentioned there are. There are other um ways of looking at them and i guess we can discuss that all day.
But i wanted to focus on the issue of the trinity because i believe that we should look at the concept first to see if it actually is something that is uh is god could could do or could say about himself.
And then uh we should and make our further judgments after this. The issue of god as i said um god doesn't change. Even malachi uh in the book of eloquent agrees with this but it's a rational point wherever it's in the text or not.
It's a rational point god doesn't change. Why. How could god um adopt any nature adopt a you know adopt a human nature make a change to his nature adopt something make any changes to himself uh within this him being eternal and unchanging likewise.
And there are things which i i would say that rationally um god couldn't do he can't obviously he can he can't change his uh his nature from infinite to finite and then be able to still be able to do uh be unlimited because he's changed himself.
What makes him uh with no limits is his nature. And i think even that the the old testament would agree with this rational point whereby i said that it's impossible for god to lie for god is not a man that he should lie not a son of man.
And then it goes on now these are these are all points which is a rational points regardless of whether the text says it not. These are rational points which i think um every uh christian who believes in the trinity has to ask themselves that does this trinity.
Does it really come from god. Am i making a mistake here. Because blasphemy and obviously polytheism is a very big sin with god and we have to ask ourselves are we going to be the ones upon when we go to jesus on a day of judgment.
And we say my lord my lord i i preach in your name. And he said i know you're not. You see so um okay fine whether whether he said this or not. I'm from the christian perspective they have to ask themselves.
This question absolutely yeah we we need to be uh responsible for the things we do. And um uh thank you for joining us on the program today. Uh final thoughts from yourself. Uh james as as we. Well i.
Think it's very important to recognize uh that when for example malachi tells us that god changes not that doesn't mean that god does not act. It does. It simply tells us that god's essential essence does not change.
And of course dr trinity is not saying that i've already said we are in no way saying that the infinite ceased being infinite. We are not saying that uh that god ceased to exist for for after jesus death on the cross or anything along those lines.
So those are quite quite honestly misrepresentations of what we believe. Instead we believe what paul said that the son eternally existed as the son that he did not regard equality with god something to be held on to at all costs but he emptied himself by taking the form of a slave.
There is no logical irrational reason why you have to say god does not have that capacity if he so chose to enter into his own creation so as to bring about his own glory through the redemption of the people.
There is no logical irrational reason that can be argued against that. If again what's the foundation. Well we believe in revelation even malachi's revelation. And so you can't say what's just a rational thing.
Well so is philippians 2. If malachi 3 6 is a rational thing though so is philippians 2. And it has revealed to us what god has done in jesus christ. That's why i believe in the dark and the.
Trinity thank you gentlemen so much for being with me now for being on the program with me. Thank you. It was a really interesting discussion. And don't forget if you'd like to respond uh the email address is unbelievable at premiere .org .uk.
Okay well that was our discussion for today. Let me tell you what we'll be talking about next week here on the.