A False Islamic Accusation of Heresy Refuted

What you just saw is the mainly the conclusion to a video produced by a Muslim. Accusing me of being a heretic now of course. Any Christian is a heretic to a Muslim because I do not believe that Muhammad was a prophet.

He did not believe what the Apostles of Jesus Christ believed and taught Though he claimed to be consistent with them and therefore he is a false prophet. But that's not actually the charge of heresy that this particular Muslim is attempting to present.

Instead he tries to present the idea that I'm a modalist that I'm a patra passionist. And while he correctly identifies what patra passionism is he completely blows the application of it and Falsely accuses me of something that I do not believe and let me just say right from the start That I challenge this Muslim to Call the dividing line.

I do a twice-weekly live webcast toll-free number the information is found at www .aomin .org. And if this Muslim will contact me we will set aside an entire program Wherein I will be able to demonstrate to him that or her I suppose, but that's doubtful That this individual is completely wrong and then that same program would be happy to defend the deity of Christ Against whatever he has to say as well.

So that challenge is out there if you want to try to back up your claims With something more than just the rather poor argumentation in this video. Then that invitation is available to you, but in essence what we'll see here is that the writer After somewhat accurately identifying some of the early church context goes on to completely Misunderstand my comments on John 20 28.

Where I defend from the Greek text and he doesn't refute this by the way. But defend from the Greek text the fact that Thomas identified Jesus as Kodios and they asked he goes over to 1st Corinthians 8 Completely different context and in essence Forces the context of 1st Corinthians to be identical to that of John and even though obviously Thomas is not identifying Jesus as the father he tries to make that connection and then accused me of Heresy as a result as we just saw in that little video clip.

So I'm gonna put this together for you. So you can see what the argumentation is. Then of course will demonstrate that once again the Muslim has no concept of context no concept of exegesis. And therefore the conclusions once again are refuted and false.

Let's take a look at it. One of the problems many Christians have in dealing with Muslims is that they tend to use Argumentation that we do not find convincing at all against the chief elements of the Christian faith.

For example in attacking the deity of Christ they frequently use very poor argumentation. Argumentation not nearly as good as we are accustomed to dealing with from pseudo-christian cults for example from pseudo-christian cults pseudo-christian cults pseudo-christian cults for example.

Not to this point we have to agree that there were.

Heresies in the early church that Modalism or patra passion is in civilianism whatever forms whatever names you want to use for that dynamic dynamic Monarchism there all sorts of different varieties That were attached to these early heresies.

They did exist. The irony is that a Muslim is noting this. Why is that. Well because Muslims are? very quick to use the very same text that Trinitarians would use to demonstrate that clearly the father is distinguished from the son as a Person.

Now they probably wouldn't get into the demonstration of the eternal pre-existence of the Sun Which is found in such texts as the Carmen Christi in Philippians 2 5 through 11 or in John chapter 1 Texts like this, but John chapter 17.

But they would agree with Trinitarians that the modalist the patra passionists are in error Using the very same texts. I should note that the the really cool music and color Really helps with theological dialogues and discussions.

I thought that was Jesus is not the father neither is he the spirit and yet as the perfect man He uses the spirit in the service of the father. There's nothing contradictory here unless dr Mike just simply doesn't understand what the doctrine Trinity is which is quite a possibility unfortunately.

When Thomas identified him as his Lord and his God in John chapter 20 verse 28 Jesus did not rebuke him instead. He accepted that recognition of his deity and he identified the words of Thomas as a statement of faith a godly now.

Let's remember what patra passionism says. It is identifying the father as the son. Nowhere in John 20 28 is Jesus identified as the father. Instead our Muslim opponent here Commits the common error of assuming Unitarianism.

Instead of proving Unitarianism you just assume Unitarianism. So if Jesus is identified as the OS and since we know the OS can only be one person Then this somehow is identifying Jesus as the father. The fact that Paul for example utilizes different terminology but at times uses both the OS and courios of Jesus seems to escape the notice of this individual.

And so as we will see when he tries to go to first Corinthians 8 now skipping out of the context.

That he again never even comes close to proving his charge of patra passion is now in reality.

What we have in first Corinthians chapter 8 is a text that interestingly enough I even read at one of the recent Islamic debates to one of the Islamic debaters because they had only quote a portion of it because as a number of scholars have recognized here you have the being in essence Christianized and explained in the Christian perspective and you have a clear distinction between the father who is described as the OS and The son who is described as courios.

There is no confusion of the father and the son Just as there is no confusion of the father and the son in John chapter 20 verse 28. This gentleman is making a completely unwarranted error by Taking two texts and assuming the authors are speaking about the same thing and using the same terminology.

That is not only completely unwarranted and hence his error and hence he stands refuted In his false assertion against me and I would invite him to withdraw it as he should as any honest person would.

But likewise he needs to recognize that the Apostle Paul himself in other contexts uses the OS of Jesus in Romans 9 5 or in Titus 2 13 and. So when one simply allows of this a little bit of context Into the discussion this charge of patra passion ism is therefore Completely refuted.

But having refuted it it is somewhat interesting to see the very end of the video right here from pseudo-christian cults pseudo-christian cults pseudo-christian cults for example.