*The following is an email I wrote to a student from Wayne State University with whom I've been dialoguing by email since November. I originally met him at what I call a conversation table in the Student Center building, and he is a Muslim. I thought this would be fitting for Easter. =) Let me know what you think. -Scott
Dear Ibrahim,
Greetings. Well, you're about halfway through the semester now and I hope your classes are going well for you. I understand that exams have been "on your back", but spring break was just last week, so I hope you got to rest a little more than usual. Don't worry about how much time it takes you to respond to this, though, it doesn't matter to me. We don't have to push other things aside. Besides, you're much faster then me. Incidentally, I was on campus 3 times recently....Too bad I didn't have the pleasure of seeing you in person.
In this email I've tried to do 2 things: 1) Respond to your argument that Jesus didn't really die on the cross based on the non-canonical "Apocalypse of Peter", in apparent agreement with the claims of the Qur'an. 2) Elaborate on the foundational theological truths of the gospel message that all true Christians must embrace. So I'm addressing part of your chosen topic and mine at the same time.
By the way, I trust you have had time to read through the online article "Adha in the Injeel" by Fuad Issa (http://www.injil.org/Books/adha.htm). If not please do so now. I will expound much more on points 2 and 3 of that in this email.
First, you are fond of apocryphal writings that seem to cast doubt on the Greek testament of the Bible (NT). I can understand why. You have admitted that some of them are questionable, but you seem to have confidence in the "Apocalypse of Peter". Odd...but ok. We can analyze that document to determine its true measure of credibility, as many scholars have done over the centuries. And we will do that, but not right now. When we do that we shall be looking for the preponderance of evidence. This shall be one of our criteria.
Concerning the Apostle Peter, did you know that he wrote parts of the Greek Scriptures that we do have in the canon of the Bible? (You know what I mean.) I suspect you did. So you see that immediately we have a dilemma, don't we? If each claims to have been authored by the same Peter, but they clearly contradict each other, then only one of them can be true, authentic and historically reliable. Therefore we must determine, again, which one it is by examining the preponderance of historical evidence. As I said, we'll go into that discussion of textual criticism, but I'm going to postpone it until later.
First I want to highlight some of the theology of the canonical Peter. Again, this is my chosen topic, and I want you to consider it carefully. Let's look at chapter 1 verses 3-5 below:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
In this passage you see that Peter affirmed the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He did so to make a statement about salvation, that through [the death] and resurrection of Christ we can "be born again to a living hope...to an imperishable inheritance, kept in heaven for those who trust in him." And those who do trust in him are "being guarded through faith for that salvation." So here Peter ties salvation to faith in Jesus's resurrection from the dead. He also describes salvation as though one who trusts in Christ can have a sense of confidence about it, that he doesn't have to guess and wonder his whole life whether he'll land in heaven or hell.
Later in chapter 1 verses 10-11 Peter talks about the prophets, that they prophesied, searched and inquired about Christ and his sufferings to come, as though it was God's plan all along to have Christ come to earth and suffer for the sake of "the subsequent glories" (not shame).
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories."
Still later in that chapter (vv. 15-21), the Apostle Peter says some other important things that make up the message of the gospel and the theology that flows from it (i.e. faith and conduct):
"...as he who called you is holy, you also must be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."
First he says that God is holy. That's a concept that was already introduced in the "Adha in the Injeel" article and one with which you readily agree as a Muslim. And it's absolutely paramount in the biblical Christian faith. Further, the text goes on to say in vv. 15-16 that believers must also be holy. Why? Because God said this of himself in Leviticus 11:44-45, "I am holy". (See http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Lev.+11%3A44-45). Then, in Hebrews 12:14 we are told that without holiness "no one will see the Lord". It is this standard that sets up the problem of the human condition: God has very high standards, and we don't even come close.
In 1 Peter 1:18 we are told that we (i.e. true believers) are "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [our] forefathers." This is also a part of the human problem, that the ways of humans are futile, and that they have inherited their futile ways from their predecessors. The Apostle Peter says in vv.18-19 that there's a type of "ransom" involved in our salvation, and that the ransom is accomplished by "the precious blood of Christ". And again, the book of Hebrews tells us that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins". (9:22)
The Apostle Peter goes on to say that this ransom was "foreknown from the foundation of the world", and also that God "raised him from the dead...so that our faith and hope are in God." And in the last sentence of chapter 1 the Apostle Peter says, "And this word is the good news that was preached to you." It is good news! for you and for me and for the whole world.
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."
In chapter 2 v. 24 the Apostle Peter said, Here even Peter says that Jesus bore our sins "on a tree" to show that this is a figure of speech that is synonymous with cross. Then he states the purpose of that act in a unique way: "...that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." This means that only through the risen-from-the-dead Christ can we truly die to sin and live to righteousness (or holiness) in God's eyes. There is no other way.
In chapter 3:18 and 21 the Apostle Peter tells us that the reason Christ suffered for sins and rose from the dead was to bring us to God.
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh he was made alive in the Spirit." (the word "resurrection" is used in v. 21 as the complement to his having been put to death.)
Finally, in chapter 5 the Apostle Peter speaks of himself as a first-hand witness of all these things:
"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ..."
This is very important to recognize: the testimony of a first-hand witness is vastly more credible than that of someone who only claims that they have received a divine revelation. All of the true Apostles were first-hand witnesses of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. In 2 Peter we have this statement by the Apostle:
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,' 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain." (3:16-18)
Here he's referring to a time when he and James and John were with Jesus and he personally witnessed something amazing. You can read that here: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Mark+9%3A2-10
Now, here is the most important point, the one that I've been building up to all along: If Jesus Christ did not die on the cross and rise from the dead, then the Christian faith is utterly futile. Paul the Apostle testified to this himself:
"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised...17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ [died] have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:14-19)
Some people at that time did not even accept the possibility of a physical resurrection. So the Apostle Paul made this hypothetical argument to make this point, that the resurrection [and death] of Jesus is not some minor or optional doctrine or myth . If it did not happen, there could be no Christianity. Period. But there could also be no forgiveness, no salvation, no reconciliation or peace with God, no eternal life whatsoever. You and I would both be found to come up short on holiness in the final judgment. ...Way short.
If the death and resurrection of Jesus did not happen, we would both be found guilty of crimes against God; of a huge debt to God that we did not (and could not) pay; of breaking every one of God's righteous laws in spirit or in deed; of desiring everything that we should never desire by the standard of holiness, and not valuing all that God values by that same standard; of failing to love God with every fiber of our being, and in fact, despising him in reality. Indeed, you and I would merit only the wrath of God, and we would have no hope of being received into paradise. In short, Ibrahim, you and I would both go to hell where we deserve to be according to own merits.
But if Christ did rise from the dead, well now, that is a different story altogether. There is hope indeed!
Sincerely, Scott
No comments:
Post a Comment