Khalid Yasin and Inconsistent Islamic Arguments #4

A non-Muslim says, why do you think it is not logical for someone to be held responsible for their actions, like Jesus dying for the sins of the world? Well, first of all, in all fairness, if Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, I mean, how many years ago was that?

That was like 2 ,000, 2 ,004 years ago? So if Jesus died for the sins of the world, if that is a principle, now, Jesus didn't say that, but somebody else said it. But let's just say that that's a principle.

Now, if Jesus died for the whole world, that means whatever sins anybody committed since Jesus died, ain't no more judgment for them. Wouldn't that be right?

Now, it's pretty obvious that Khalid Yassin is unfamiliar with the issue amongst Christians, even evangelical Christians, regarding the issue of the atonement, the extent of the atonement, the intention of the atonement.

Wouldn't expect him to really be overly familiar with that, but it is interesting to note that, in essence, in this entire clip that I'm going to be examining in his answering this audience question, what he says never would have any relevance whatsoever to someone such as myself, who holds to the Reformed understanding of the atonement, that specifically God joined a specific people, the elect of God, Jesus Christ, so that his death becomes their death, his resurrection becomes their resurrection, that the elect of God are not chosen on the basis of anything that they themselves do.

It is not God looking down the corridors of time, seeing who's going to accept him, and as a result, accepting them. No, this is a free and sovereign choice on God's part. And it is the exemplification, the demonstration of his mercy and grace, for none of those who are chosen deserve to be chosen.

All deserve to receive the wrath of God, but God chooses to demonstrate his mercy and his grace by electing a certain people unto salvation. Those who are not elected receive divine justice and receive the wrath of God that is due to their sins.

So, for example, this objection that is just given would have no meaning to someone such as myself, because it just doesn't even reflect an understanding of that. And even for those who do not hold to the Reformed understanding of the atonement, even then, Yassin's argument really isn't overly relevant, because they would say, well, God intends, even if the atonement is this general atonement that they believe in, still, it has to be applied in time.

He's ignoring, in fact, almost all the Islamic objections I've heard that follow this line, ignore the fact that Christ's death in time has to be then applied to those who did not even live at the time of Christ's death.

And anybody, no matter what position they hold, really does have to present that idea, because even someone such as myself, who believes the elect are united with Christ, I don't believe I've been eternally justified as a result.

There is a point in time in which God applies that which was accomplished for me in Jesus Christ. And so, there really isn't a lot in what Yassin is saying that is directly relevant to what I believe, but even then, I hope that the Christian person will think about how they would respond to this kind of objection and take it back to the Word of God and ask the question, why does Matthew 121 say that Jesus will save his people from their sins?

Does it say he will try to save them, or that he actually will save them? I love to present to the Muslim people a powerful Savior who perfectly accomplishes the Father's will for him in the salvation of his people.

That is a tremendous message to proclaim to them.

The Scope of the Atonement and “the Whole World”

Now, the second thing is, how could it be that Jesus died for the whole world, and at the same token, every child is born with sin? Now, tell me how that would hook that up for me.

Explain that to me. Well, from a biblical perspective, there isn't any problem here at all. A couple of problems. When he says, die for the whole world, of course, I understand that to mean the same way it's interpreted in Scripture.

That is, that by his death, Christ has made us to be a kingdom and priest unto his God. Men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. Whole world, for me, means, and I believe biblically means, people from every kind of people, from every nation, from every tongue, from all over the world, Jews and Gentiles is the primary application of all the world, not every single individual.

That's not really a biblical parameter that the biblical writers would have been using in that way. And so, again, the objection really isn't to me. But even when he says, well, if you die for the whole world, then why are they still born with sin?

As if, somehow, there cannot be an application. That it somehow has to be applied pre-birth or something, so it would remove the curse of sin or something like that. It's completely ignoring the idea that God can have a purpose in how he applies the work of Christ in regeneration, repentance from sin, the demonstration of his mercy and grace, etc., etc.

So this is a very, very, very surface level kind of apologetic and attack upon the issue of the atonement.

Double Jeopardy and the Calvinist Response

Now that would be double jeopardy for Jesus and the newborn child. That would be double jeopardy.

That doesn't make sense. And that's not based on scripture. Well, this is a good reason to be a Calvinist. Because one of our arguments is, against general atonement, is the double jeopardy argument. The idea that the wrath of God falls upon Christ and also abides upon, for eternity, those who Christ atoned for.

The idea that his wrath is against sin twice and is fulfilled perfectly twice. I would agree is double jeopardy. But again, it's not an objection to the person who goes, no. There is, of course, the perfect work of Christ.

I suppose you might say, well, but even for you, that wouldn't make sense for the elect. But again, it completely ignores the idea that it is going to be applied to the elect infallibly. There's no question of that.

And secondly, that God can have a purpose to apply this at a point in time in the individual's life. Along with all the other work of the Spirit of God. That is, regeneration, repentance, faith, adoption of the family of God, the creation of the new heart.

All those things. The work of God in saving his people. That can be, obviously, take place at a point in time. And by his decree, does take place at a point in time in the believer's life. And it doesn't have to be before birth.

I'm not sure where that assumption is coming from.

But it's not a valid assumption. That's based upon another theory. And another set of principles. That a group of people came up with. That we don't need to discuss right here. Because our discussion is not about the Pauline Doctrine.

Or the Council of Nicaea. Or the Council of Ephesus. Or any of those doctrines. That's not our discussion. The issue here is that that's not based on Scripture of Jesus Christ. And it's not consistent with the Scripture of any prophets.

So we don't accept that.

Scripture, Paul, and the Islamic Reading of the New Testament

Well, we once again have the hunt and peck method of using the New Testament. Where you make Paul against Jesus. And you cut things apart. Of course, the fact that Paul gives us a tradition that had been delivered to him.

That goes all the way back to the very earliest days after the cross. The Gospel that he delivered. All that's just ignored. And I have no idea what Nicaea or Ephesus has to do with any of this. Because the idea of atonement.

The idea of the giving of the life. All of these things. You cannot extract it from the New Testament without just simply cutting it into ribbons and pieces. And just ignoring its very heart and soul.

Which is what the Muslim is forced to do. Because of, of course, as I've described many times, Islamic anachronistic eisegesis. You look backwards through the lens of the Koran. And this is what you have to do.

Because the Koran is wrong. It contradicts the New Testament. Muhammad thought he was teaching the same thing. He wasn't. His modern followers have to destroy the testimony of the first followers of Jesus.

So as to maintain fidelity to Muhammad. Of course, I would invite all those who follow Muhammad to discover that to follow Jesus Christ is to follow the one who is your creator. Your Lord. Every breath you take.

Every heartbeat that is yours comes from his hand. And in his hand is eternal life. I hope that you will come to discover that. And to follow him. Thanks for watching.