The Results of Liberal Theology

Gerd Eva Cecilia Brunne (born 7 March 1954) is a bishop in the Church of Sweden. She became the Bishop of Stockholm in 2009. She is the first openly lesbian bishop of a mainstream church in the world and the first bishop of the Church of Sweden to be in a registered same-sex partnership.

Lesbian bishop wants church to remove crosses. (so Muslims won’t be offended)

As J. Greshem Machen wrote years ago, “Liberalism is another religion.” (Christianity and Liberalism, 1923) It is not Christianity at all.

Here is the forward and introduction to this great book:  with a new forward by Carl Trueman.  (2009)

Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist.  (Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, Introduction, page 12)

“As Machen himself set up the contrast: It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.” Carl R. Trueman, xv

Posted in Liberal Theology, moral corruption of culture | Leave a comment

Who focuses on context?

Paul Williams exhorted me to look at Bassam Zawadi’s article here:

Ken get yourself up to speed on the primary sources:

here  (at Bassam Zawadi’s “Call to Monotheism”)

Here is what I noticed about he treated Surah 2:79:

Bassam Zawadi on

Surah 2:79

Allah says in the glorious Qur’an…

  1. Surah 2:79

    Ýæíá ááÐíä íßÊÈæä ÇáßÊÇÈ ÈÇíÏíåã Ëã íÞæáæä åÐÇ ãä ÚäÏ Çááå áíÔÊÑæÇ Èå ËãäÇ ÞáíáÇ Ýæíá áåã ããÇ ßÊÈÊ ÇíÏíåã ææíá áåã ããÇ íßÓÈæä

    [ I don’t know why Bassam Zawadi leaves this as is, as one can get the Arabic and paste it.

    I will even supply that here:

    فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ


    Therefore woe be unto those who write the Book with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

    Here we clearly see that Allah is warning those (Jews) who wrote the scripture from their own selves and then claimed that it was from God. A clear charge of TEXTUAL corruption. The verse is clear is clearly stating that whatever the Jews wrote, they claimed it was from God.

    Some Christians say that the Qur’an is only talking about a specific group of people and that else where in the Qur’an it speaks about the People of the Book positively…

    Zawadi is not very credible on this verse, because he left the context of Surah 2:75 – “a party of them” = a specific group; and he left out verse 78, which tells us important information that affects how we interpret verse 79.
    I am the one sticking to context.

    أَفَتَطْمَعُونَ أَن يُؤْمِنُوا لَكُمْ وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيقٌ مِّنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِن بَعْدِ مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ

    Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

    Surah 2:75

    وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا أَمَانِيَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَظُنُّونَ

    And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.

    و برخی از آنان بیسوادانی هستند که کتاب خدا (تورات) را جز یک مشت خیالات و آرزوها نمی دانند، و تنها به پندارهایشان دل بسته اند.

    Surah 2:78

    Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess.

    They are just hearing things, not reading, not knowing, not focusing on the text; which is what seems to have happened to Muhammad himself.

    Therefore, Zawadi is refuted at the beginning of his article, since he left out the main context information, and jumps to other verses in other Surahs and avoided immediate context.

    I looked at his comments at 2:79 and he never even addressed 2:75 or 2:78, which are in the context; after that I scrolled through the whole article and there is nothing in their about the immediate context. He jumps to 3:113-114 and 3:199; and the rest are quotes by scholars and a few Hadith, but totally avoided 2:75 and 2:78, both important to immediate context.

Posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Historical reliability of the Bible, Islam, Muslims, Paul Bilal Williams, Truth | Leave a comment

So, Why did Allah substitute an innocent animal in the place of Abraham’s son?

I wrote this several years ago (2010) at another blog, “Beggar’s All Reformation and Apologetics”, that is owned by James Swan.  I have updated it, and taken out one issue that I will write on in a separate article.  You can see the old article here. 

In the photo below,(a post card from Turkey) you can see Ibrahim (Abraham) (pictures of a prophet drawn by Muslims!), Ismail, the angel Jabril (Gabriel), and the substitutionary ram; and verses from the Qur’an in Arabic, including Surah 37:107 (see below) and a phrase in the Turkish language, “Ibrahim offers his son Ismail as a human sacrifice”.

* “Kurban Bayram” is Turkish; “Eid Al Azha”   عید الاضحی   is Arabic; and “Eid-e-Qurban”  عید قربان   is Farsi.  They all mean the “Feast of Sacrifice”.

In the debate, “Was Jesus Crucifed and Died as a willing sacrifice for the Sins of His People?” James White vs. Shabir Ally – (Which I highly recommend); Shabir Ally says, as all Muslims also do, that “God does not need a sacrifice to forgive sins”. He also said that there is a great difference between “ransom” and “sacrifice”; and that the concept of the substitutionary nature of Christ paying for the sins of others is unjust. Shabir Ally said, “there is a difference between sacrifice and ransom; they are two different things, . . . until Anselm”. He also referred to some of the early church ideas of “ransom to Satan”, which is not Biblical at all; and he seemed to imply that “ransom” in Mark 10:45 was the “payment to Satan view”.

Yet the Qur’an testifies that these concepts of ransom and sacrifice are tied very closely together in one act; from the Old Testament story of Abraham. Even in the Qur’an, there is a key verse that includes both concepts of “ransom” and “sacrifice” together in this one act of Allah providing a substitute for Abraham’s son.

In the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, the Qur’an says:
وَ فَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ

“And We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice.”

Qur’an 37:107

فدیناه  = “we ransomed him”

بذبح = “by sacrifice” or “by slaughter”

ب   =b = “with” or “by”; ذبح   (zbh)= sacrifice, slaughter, slain victim

The cognate Hebrew word for sacrifice is similar, ZBH, זבח

غظیم  = “great”, “mighty”, “tremendous”

We are not going to deal with the question of which of Abraham’s sons this was, except to affirm the Bible’s testimony that it was Isaac (Genesis 22:1-18); and to point out that Muslims have traditionally held that it was Ishmael, although the text of the Qur’an does not say this specifically. It is interesting that only Isaac is mentioned by name in this context. (Surah 37:112-113)   Most Muslims believe it was Ishmael, but Muslims who are knowledgeable have admitted that one can believe that either one was the son who was about to be offered, and that one can not be dogmatic about that issue.  You can go to this web site  and do searches there to find lots of information on that issue, whether the son was Isaac or Ismael, in Islamic sources and theology.

When sharing the gospel with Muslims, at the beginning of the issue, it is not necessary to argue over which son of Abraham it was that was to be sacrificed; especially when you will want to focus on the more important issue of the gospel and the substitutionary sacrifice/atonement of Jesus Christ (Isa Al Masih) for the sins of people from all nations/cultures/tribes/tongues. (Revelation 5:9, John 1:29, Mark 10:45; I Corinthians 15:3-6; Romans 5:9) I have seen former Muslims (Iranians); after becoming Christians, be surprised to find it was Isaac when they read Genesis 22; after they already studied the NT and came to faith in Christ as their Savior, substitute for sin; but they immediately said, “Ok, it is the word of God, I accept it.” (that it was Isaac)

My focus in this article is on the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice of the Messiah; and that the story of Abraham and Allah’s command to sacrifice his son, and the ram who was substituted is in the Qur’an and actually shows some basic understanding of the truth of the concepts of sacrifice and ransom. In this verse, 107 of Surah 37 (Al Saffat, “Those who set the ranks”), both words are used there together of the substitute, ransom (fedieh – فدیه ) and sacrifice ذبح  – zebh ); this word is also used a few verses earlier in verse 102, “Oh my son! I have seen in a dream that I offer you in sacrifice.”). We have both of these Arabic words in Farsi (or Persian) also. So, Shabir Ally should have understood this, that God has spoken of both ransom/redemption and sacrifice in the Old Testament, the “Taurat- e- Mosa” (the Law of Moses) and the Qur’an affirms it here.

Christians believe that the substitute points to the Messiah to come and was a prophesy of the Messiah and His substitutionary atonement.

Fedieh, or the root, “fada”, are also used of Muslims who voluntarily are willing to give their lives in the front lines of fighting the enemies of Allah in “holy war”, (Harb (war), Qatal (fighting and killing), or Jihad (striving and struggling) Harb حرب  means “war”; Qatal ( root = قـتـل )means “fighting”, “slaying”, “fight to the death” (see Surah 8:39; 9:5, 9:29); and Jihad means to “exert effort”, “striving”, “struggle”. All are used in contexts of military fighting against the Kufur/kaferoon, or unbelievers, infidels, or blasphemers.

For an excellent study of Jihad in Islam, see:   “Jihad” in the Qur’an and Hadith.

You may have even heard of the “fadayeen”فداییان (Farsi, those who sacrifice themselves) in the news, they are those who volunteer to fight against the enemy. So there is a sense in which Islamic culture and history should understand Jesus the Messiah’s death as a voluntary sacrifice for others. Another word, “qorban” (قربان ) is related to the Hebrew/Aramaic term “Corban”. (mentioned in Mark 7:11; the Hebrew is in Leviticus 1:2 twice, and other places.) When Iranians greet one another, we say, “Ghorban-e-shoma!” قربان شما  (“I am your sacrifice or ransom!” – a term of devotion and love and friendship.) When the Arabs converted the Iranians (the Persians) to Islam, it took them about 300 years, but a lot of Arabic came into their language so that, today, Farsi is about 40% Arabic.

In an online Arabic dictionary, looking up the word ransom (“fedieh”, “efteda فدیه، افتدا  ) is defined as “freeing or releasing from sin”or “freeing from slavery or bondage”.

In sharing the gospel with Muslims, some key verses to use are:

John 1:29 – Muslims believe in John the Baptist as a prophet ( He is called “Yahya” یحیی ) “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

Mark 10:45

“The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom (Greek: λυτρον, Farsi = فدا ) for many.” The Farsi versions of this verse have the same root concept of this word, “fada” فدا  , from “fedieh” فدیه  .

John 10:17-18 – Jesus voluntarily , out of love, laid His life down.

For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”  John 10:17-18

Muslims say it is unjust for God to “force” Jesus to die and pay for the sins of others. John 10:18 shows that there is no “forcing” or injustice in this.  Jesus willingly and out of love came down from heaven and willingly allowed Himself to be treated unjustly by sinful men, and they killed Him on the cross. (see Acts 2:22-23)

The cross is where God’s holiness/justice/wrath against sin and His pure love and mercy for sinners meets together. “Loving-kindness and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” (Psalm 85:10)

John 10:18 shows that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit – see Hebrews 9:14) decided together to accomplish the work of redemption. As Dr. White said in the debate, “Redemption is Trinitarian; the Father, the Son, and the Spirit work together in perfect harmony.” (I am paraphrasing from memory.)

Revelation 5:9 – God is loving by redeeming people from all nations, peoples, tongues, and tribes. God demonstrates His love by sending His Son to die for us. Romans 5:9

God is both just (wrath against sin) and the justifier (love for sinners). (Romans 3:24-26) The cross preserves the holiness of God and the love of God together! That truth is beautiful and amazing! In the atonement of Christ, He became flesh (John 1:1, 14) and lived a perfect, sinless life ( 2 Cor. 5:21; John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26-27; I Peter 2:22; I John 3:5). Even the Qur’an calls Jesus the Messiah a “faultless”, “sinless son” ( Surah Maryam 19:19). Jesus willingly and voluntarily let Himself be the ransom and sacrifice for human beings from all nations. (Revelation 5:9) (John 10:18; Luke 22:42; John 12:27) He knew He was going to be killed and crucified; and that He would rise from the dead; and He predicted it. (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; Matthew 16:21; 17:22; 20:17-19)

So, ask your Muslim friend, “Do you believe that Al Masih (The Messiah) was sinless?” (Qur’an 19:19) Was Al Masih born of a virgin? (3:45-47; 19:19-21) They must answer: “yes”. He had no human father. (Emphasize this again; see my earlier article on explaining to Muslims how Jesus is the Son of God. 

Ask your Muslim friend: “Do you believe in the story of Ibrahim (the way a Muslim would say “Abraham”) and when Allah commanded Ibrahim to sacrifice his son?”  In response, I have had Muslims say to me, many times, “Yes, Allah O Akbar! We believe in all the prophets!” They usually will start talking about their belief in the prophets – let them explain that and be a good listener.  Being gracious and listening to the Muslim when he wants to explain his religion is the right thing to do.

Then ask, “So why did Allah substitute an innocent ram (sheep or lamb) to be killed instead of Ibrahim’s son? Let them struggle with coming up with the answer.

When witnessing to Muslims, if they are from another country, it is important that they read the New Testament in their own heart language. Find out what is their heart language and order a NT from an on line source and give it to them as a gift. Google the New Testament in the language and order one as a gift. Watch the Jesus film together in their language. Have them read in their own language, whether it is Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Urdu, Pushto, Uzbek, Kurdish, or English, about the sins of the heart in Mark 7:20-23. Point them to Matthew 5-7. Show them that not committing physical adultery is not enough to be righteous; sexual lust in the heart condemns them to hell. (Matthew 5:28ff) Not murdering is not good enough for being righteous; hatred and anger in the heart is enough to condemn us to hell. (Matthew 5:21-26) Un-forgiveness cherished in the heart can condemn to hell also (Matthew 18:21-35) After death comes the judgment. (Hebrews 9:27) Self righteousness, hypocrisy, lack of confession that one is a sinner, and pride will condemn us also; there is no justifying grace for anyone who will not confess he/she is a sinner and is in need of forgiveness. (Luke 18:9-14)

Ask your Muslim friend, “Do you believe in Yahya ( John the baptizer)?” Muslim: “yes, Allah O Akbar! We believe in all the prophets!” Then listen to what he said, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)

Muslims celebrate the “feast of sacrifice” ( Eid Al Azha عید الاضحی  or Eid e qorban  عید قربان ) by remembering the event of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son. It was a test and a trial, which we agree with (Genesis 22:1), but it was much more than that. It was a prophesy of the Messiah to come in the future. Muslims, at the feast of sacrifice, will slaughter sheep, goats, bulls, lambs, cows, and sometimes even a camel.

Millions of Muslims, over a billion people take part in this slaughtering all over the Muslim world in this re-enactment of the concept of substitution, yet they are taught that it means nothing; just go through the motions, read the verses from the Qur’an, slaughter the animal, and give the meat to the poor. They remain ignorant of this great truth and are told a great lie, that Jesus did not die on the cross. (Surah 4:157) Dr. White calls this one verse, “40 lonely Arabic words”, because it is the only place in the Qur’an that denies the death/crucifixion of Jesus and no commentary is on this verse in the Hadith collections.

Muslims popularly “feel” they are doing something for God in this. They “sense” and “feel” that doing this sacrifice will protect them from evil or tragedies. Many Muslims have testified of this to me over the past 33 years. Where do they get that idea? Is there somehow a sense of “appeasing the wrath of God” in their minds and hearts?

I will never forget seeing the sheep lined up ready for slaughter and bleeting, “baaaaa baaaa”. The sheep is blindfolded and some words are spoken; prayers, readings, “bismillah Al Rahman Al Rahim” (“In the name of Allah, the most compassionate, the most merciful”) “Allah O Akbar!” (=”God is the Greatest!”) A large knife comes out and the cutting begins. The animals writhes in pain and struggles to get free. The men hold him down. The pain is terrible. Blood squirts, tendons snap; bones crunch and then that last breathe goes out of the animal.

When I saw that feast of sacrifice for the first time in Turkey in 1987; The Old Testament sacrifices and the powerful meaning of it was made alive in a dynamic way. Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), the book of Leviticus and Isaiah 53 came alive for me like never before!  I really understood the wrath of God as the justice of God against sin in a fresh and powerful way.  The saddest thing though, it that Muslims are taught that this does not mean any kind of substitutionary sacrifice for sin.  The Muslim says, “No one can pay for your sin; you must pay for your own sin.”  Yet, deep down, at least with Iranians, the feeling and understanding is that this sacrifice will protect them from a future calamity or tragedy.

The violence of the slaughter is a picture of the wrath of God against sin. My hair on the back of my neck stood up and I almost threw up from the smells and violence of the thing. When we say “the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin”; it means the violence of shedding the blood; the fact that an innocent, sinless victim became our substitute and took our place. The violence and shedding of blood is a picture of God’s justice against sin.  So, the wrath and anger of God is a holy justice.  Jesus took the justice for us on the cross!

See also here:  Islam could not get rid of the idea of substitutionary atonement.

Posted in Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Gospel Truth, Islam, Muslims, Salvation, Substitutionary Atonement, The Atonement of Christ | 28 Comments

The New Testament claims to be revelation from God

Paul Williams, a convert to Islam, who claims to be a former Christian, which means he is an apostate (see Hebrews 3:12) wrote this:

The evidence is simple: the New Testament does not claim to be Revelation from God. The onus is on Christians to prove that it is.

see the discussion here.

John 17:8
For I have given them the words that You [The Father] gave Me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

John 17:17
“Your Word is Truth”

The Words of the Father were given to Jesus the Son and He gave them to the apostles and sent the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all the truth and bring to their remembrance all that He taught.
John 14:26 and John 16:12-13

Eventually, they wrote down their preaching, all by the end of 1st century.
Mark for Peter; Peter is eyewitness
Luke as traveling companion of the apostle Paul
The Lord brings Paul into that apostolic band of revelation – Acts 9, Acts 15 (Peter, James, and Paul all agree on the essentials of gospel message), Acts 22, 26; I Corinthians 9, I Cor. 15; Galatians 1-2 – visits Peter, John, James and they affirm his gospel message as the same as theirs.
John – eyewitness, disciple
Matthew – eyewitness, disciple

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, eitherby our spoken word or by our letter.

Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

“so now I say again” = I am saying this through my writing this letter of Galatians.

1 Corinthians 2:10-13

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” [quote from Torah, Deuteronomy 25:4]
and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” [quote from Gospels, Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7; also in 1 Corinthians 9:14]

2 Timothy 3:15 – the sacred writings you learned as a child” = OT / Tanakh

2 Timothy 3:16 – “All Scripture is God-breathed” = expands to NT Gospel and books

In principle, includes even books not written yet ( 2 Timothy written in 67 AD, before Paul was executed by Nero)

Also 2 Peter 3:16 claims all of Paul’s letters are Scripture, on the same level as OT (with 2 Peter 1:19-21). So the New Testament does claim to be revelation from God.

It does not matter if you think 2 Peter was written later than 67 AD and not by Peter; it is still part of the New Testament and claims that it is revelation from God.

the book of Revelation also claims this for itself – Revelation 22:18.

Jude 1:17 – remember the words that were spoken to you beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ”

The way to remember them was to read them when they wrote them down.

2 Peter 1:12-18 – I am being diligent by writing this letter to you before I die so that you will have something to read and remember the truths you have been taught.

2 Peter 3:1 – this is the second letter I am writing to you by which I am stirring up your sincere minds in order to remember the truths you have been taught

Paul Williams could not argue with those verses, so he then asked,

And what about Acts/Luke do you claim Luke thought he was writing God’s Revelation?

Luke 1:4 – “in order that you may know the certainty of what you have been taught” = I am writing this down, so you will know the certainty of the truth of the gospel revelation that you were taught, which is what all those other verses above was about. Luke confirms Paul’s preaching as God’s revelation; and Acts chapter 1 shows he is writing about “all that Jesus began to do and teach”, means Luke is writing about what Jesus continues to do through His apostles and His Church. The Greek verb tense here is very important and clear that he is continuing to show what the Holy Spirit does through the apostles and the church, the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son together – Acts 2:33-36.

  • ” Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.” Acts 2:33

    So, yes, Luke is claiming that same thing in both books as all the other verses I gave you.

    In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,

    [ the verb indicates Luke is writing about Jesus now continues to do through the Holy Spirit in the apostles in the ministry of the church ]

    2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
    3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

    4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;
    5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

    Acts 1:1-5

    The silence seems to indicate that they cannot refute the argumentation that the NT writers understood that they were writing revelation from God.

Posted in Apologetics, Bible Study, Canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura, Truth | 12 Comments

Sola Scriptura – Part 5


Part 5 of Dr. White’s series on “Sola Scriptura”.

See John Samson’s link with all 5 in one place.

Posted in Roman Catholic false practices, Roman Catholicism, Sola Scriptura, Tradition | 1 Comment

Hitler admired Islam


“Nazi theology” – chapter 11 in Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas

Adolf Hitler said basically, as he rejected the Christian religion of the history of Germany:
“Why couldn’t we Germans have a manly and warlike religion like Islam (he called it “Mohammadan”) or the Japanese religion – one that fights; not the wimpy and weak and meek Christianity.” (my paraphrase)

Here is his actual quote:

“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas

Addendum (October 20, 2016)

Besides Hitler admiring Islam, the chapter in Eric Metaxas’ book on “Nazi Theology” is very interesting and informative, because he tells of some of Hitler’s inner circle and Nazi leaders, such as Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Alfred Rosenberg were even more anti-Christian than Hitler was, and wanting to go all out against the church in Germany and create a new German religion based on war and the ancient pagan German gods. But, Adolf Hitler was more pragmatic; and sneaky, he used the church and used deception and told Himmler and Bormann and those guys that they had to wait until they won the war because they needed the people to think they were Christians, but they were not. Chapter 11 is very interesting. (pages 165-175)


Reading the details about Karl Barth and Niemoller, the theologians of “The Confessing Church”, that had to go underground, those who opposed Hitler and wrote the “Barmen Declaration”, increased my respect for Karl Barth, even though he did not believe in inerrancy, and his “neo-Orthodoxy” was certainly sub-Biblical. But Barth’s stance against Hitler was great and heroic.


Pastor Tim Keller wrote a very good Foreward to this book by Eric Metaxas on Bonhoeffer.   Here are some highlights:

“How could the “church of Luther”, the great teacher of the gospel, have ever come to such a place?  The answer is that the true gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace, had been lost.  On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism.  That meant going to church and hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it doesn’t really matter much how you live.  Bonhoeffer called this “cheap grace”.  On the other hand, there was legalism, or salvation by law and good works.  Legalism meant that God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and are trying to live a good, disciplined life.”

“Both of these impulses made it possible for Hitler to come to power.”

The church had become very liberal in the 18th, and 19th centuries, and had “left its first love” (Revelation 2:4-5)  They, as a whole culture, had fallen away from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12)  Therefore, they lacked discernment.  The drifted slowly away from God. (Hebrews 2:1)

Keller asks,

“This lapse couldn’t happen to us today, surely, could it?  Certainly it could.  We still have a lot of moralism and legalism in our churches . . .

many Christians . . . don’t like talking about Jesus death on the cross to satisfy divine wrath and justice.  Some even call it “divine child abuse”. ”  (Steve Chaulk, a heretic for sure)

“yet it they are not careful, they run the rist  of falling into the belief of cheap grace – a non-costly love from a non-holy God who just loves and accepts us as we are.  That will never change anyone’s life.”

Tim Keller, Foreward, Pages xv-xvi, Bonhoeffer . . . by Eric Metaxas

Posted in Hitler, Jihad | Leave a comment

Response to Ijaz Ahmad on textual variants issues and claims

Dr. James White did an excellent job of refuting a Muslim named Ijaz Ahmad; his claims about John 20:28 and 9:38.

Even Paul Williams, another Muslim, wrote:  “James White demolishes textual corruption claims by Ijaz”


On John 9:38, this is a well known textual variant. It is discussed in Philip Comfort’s book, (which Dr. White recommends) – New Testament Text and Translation Commentary

See also here on the Reliability of the New Testament Text. 

Posted in Bible is not corrupted, Historical reliability of the Bible, Reliability of the Bible, Textual Variants | Leave a comment