A Dawagandist Off the Street

It’s been some months since I engaged Muslims in Facebook groups, but I recently joined one to get a bit entertained with the fox house arguments Muslims build against Christianity and the Bible. I weighed in on a discussion between one Abubakar and another Christian. As it always turns out in such debates, the Muslim’s barks are far out of proportion to his bites.


Abubakar: Ok give me the verse where God himself say that Christianity is his religion? Because as far as I know the name Christianity was first used in Antioch, as we read in the Bible: Acts (11:25,26):

“Then departed Barnabas to seek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

Who had given [them] this name? Neither God nor Jesus. We can mention the following points concerning the name ‘Christianity”:
* The name does not bear the authority from God or from Jesus.
* It was given by the Jews and pagans in Antioch (a city in the then Roman Empire), i.e by foes rather than by friends.
* The name was given after Jesus had left this world.
* The name was used derogatorily, as determined by historians.

So where [did] God himself said this is your religion? In Quran: the religion Islam is given by none other than God Himself “…This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (5:3). And this is the true religion ISLAM.

Victor: Who made up the rule that the name of followers of a person (or a religion) must have to be exactly given by God or Christ to be valid? Does the name “Islam” have the authority of God or Christ?

It was given by the Jews and pagans

Based on what they observed. They saw “the grace of God” in the lives of the people (Acts 11:23); they saw them live out Christ in teaching and action. That is what makes one a Christian. It’s just the same way Muslims today emulate Muhammad in thinking, dressing and action.

What’s amusing is that the same stone where pagans worshipped their demon gods for centuries is the same one Muslims travel to kiss and sacrifice to today. But you have been conditioned to only attack Christianity.

in Antioch (a city in the then Roman Empire)”

One more proof you don’t have a clue of what you’re saying. Antioch “was situated on the east bank of the Orontes River about 27 kilometres from the Mediterranean Sea and 485 kilometres north of Jerusalem” (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1995, 80).

The name was given after Jesus had left this world

But He’s still alive! Big difference. Christ is still alive and He lives in us and changes us to be like Him. Whereas, Muhammad is dead and has remained dead and no Muslim can claim to have a relationship with him. The Quran was collected after his death; he never saw a copy. The hadiths were also made up after his death.

If Muhammad were alive today, which sect of Islam would he approve of? The Sunnis? The Shi’ites? Nation of Islam? Ahmadiyya? Sufism? Which school of fiqh would he endorse? The Hanbali? Maliki? Hanafi? Shafi? Jafari? Will he be part of the Qaedanis [those who strictly adhere to predestination] or the Jabrians [those adhering to free will]?

In Quran: the religion Islam is given by none other than God Himself”

Such a narrative can only work in the mosque. There is no proof that the person speaking in the Quran is God (apart from the many embarrassing blunders in it), unless you want to tell me God speaks as Abraham in one place, as Muhammad or Mary elsewhere, as jinn in a whole chapter and as Satan interspersed all through. Such a “god” must have a multiple personality disorder.

That Sura 5:3 is speaking of meat forbidden for Muslims and the Arabic word there is “islaami” which means submission. At the time this was recited, Islam had not become a fully developed or identifiable religion.

Is that verse implying Islam didn’t become “perfect” until Muhammad came? Where does this “perfect” Islam exists? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Iran? Pakistan? Syria?

If this perfect Islam only exists in your heads and has never existed in the last 14 centuries, then it is time to lay off your pipes and admit that the speaker in the Quran lied. He fooled you.

Abubakar: So simple, just give a verse that Christianity is from God? You can say what you like to say to the Quran because you are Mushrik [idolater]. As far as I can say Quran is believed and Islam is embraced by One third of the World.

So if you believed your Bible, we do also much believed in the Holy Quran. In Quran Allah said “…This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (5:3)

If we compare to your Bible, did God say there clearly that Christianity [is from Him]? Even “Bible” is not mentioned in the Bible, because Bible do not belong to the Book of God. So I can say it is a Book made by man, like Christianity a man made [religion] by Jews and pagans in Antioch. Sunnis, Sufis, Shias, Ahmadiyya etc are not new words from Islam. The Prophet said there will be a 71 or 73 sects all in Hell except the One Islam followed by the Prophet and his companions.

Victor:a verse that Christianity is from God”

This line of argument is fallacious. First of all, Islam came 6 centuries after Christianity, so it’s Islam that has the burden of proof to demonstrate it came from God, not the Christian Faith before it. Second, we can turn the tables around and ask you to show us one verse in the Quran that says “Christianity is not from God.”

because you are Mushrik

The same way your rants against Christianity carry no weight because you are “dead in your transgressions and sins” and you follow “the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Eph. 2:1, 2).

Quran is believed and Islam is embraced by One third of the World

Let me rephrase that: the Vedas is believed and Hinduism is embraced by one sixth of the world.

In Quran Allah said…

Wait a minute, you haven’t yet demonstrated who is speaking in the Quran. For example:

“How can I have a son when age hath overtaken me already and my wife is barren?” (Sura 3:40) – Is it Allah speaking here?.

We come not down except by commandment of thy Lord. Unto him belongeth all that is before us and all that is behind us and that is between these two” (Sura 19:64). – Is it Allah speaking here?

“All praise is due to Allah the Lord of the Worlds … Master of the Day of Judgement. Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help. Keep us on the right path” (Sura 1:2-5) – Is it Allah praying here?

“Lo! We even we are they who set the ranks. Lo! We, even we are they who hymn his praise.” (37:166) – Who is speaking here? Is Allah a multitude?

Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or miss the mark!” (2:286) – Is Allah praying to himself or a superior Allah?

To say the word “Bible” must be mentioned for the Bible to be divine is just like saying: “The Quran is a book of God because it mentions itself” or “The book of Mormon is a book of God because it mentions itself.” I had thought by now reasonable Muslims would have seen the emptiness in this statement, but I’ve learnt not to set up high hopes regarding Muslims think tanks.

Christianity is a man made by Jews and pagans

Which is a statement you will have to prove right now, otherwise you are a liar.

the Prophet said there will be 71 or 73 sects all in Hell except the One Islam

What a hopeless system. So a person will embrace Islam, believe in Allah and Muhammad, practice all the rites of Islam abide by all its laws and still end up in hell because he followed one of 71 or 73 sects of Islam! Tell me, which of the sects of Islam today is the real “one Islam” Muhammad and his companion followed?

The last time I checked, he didn’t name anyone and all through the centuries, Muslims have fought, murdered and cursed one another because one party accuses the other of not belonging to the “one sect” that Muhammad approved.

Interestingly, Islam has splintered into over 150 sects and sub-sects, with each group happily settling their differences with bullets, bombs and daggers all over the world. They even blew one another’s heads off at Muhammad’s grave in Medina this year! What a cherry, loving religious brotherhood you’ve got there.

Abubakar, which Islamic sect do you belong to? The Salafists? Tijaniyya? or ISIS? How do you know your own version of Islam is not one of the hell-bound ones? If only Muhammad was alive today. I’m sure he would have denounced you all since he never saw the Quran or the stuffs attributed to him in the Hadiths.

Abubakar: Very long statement but no clear answer to my post. Why cannot accept that Christianity was first made and used by Jews and pagans in Antioch and no authority from God nor Jesus.

Victor: “Why [can’t you] accept that Christianity was first made…by Jews and pagans”

Because it’s an incredibly false claim based on conjectures and baseless assumptions and you too know that you can’t back it up. It is a rhetoric that works well on the naive; a sort of stuff people pick up from gossip tabloids. The onus is on you to prove that statement. Until then, this discussion is over.


Examining Newman’s “Development” Theory

On November 1, 2016, during the Solemnity of All Saints, Pope Francis further steered the Catholic ship towards New Age spirituality. In his speech, he called for the need “to confront the troubles and anxieties of our age with the spirit and love of Jesus” and since new situations require “fresh spiritual energy,” modern Christians need a new identity card.

With that, he added six “new beatitudes for saints of a new age” to those taught by Jesus. One of them says:

Blessed are those who see God in every person and strive to make others discover him.

Seeing God in every person is straight out of New Age paganism. The downward spiral path Catholicism descends to each day is not shocking. When a truth is being sacrificed for a lie, a time will soon come when there are no more truths left.

In case you are wondering how effortlessly the pope could officially import Hinduism into his system, Newman’s development of doctrine theory provided the ground. This development hypothesis was introduced by John Henry Newman, a former Anglican who embraced Catholicism, in his 1845 work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

It stipulates that over the centuries, Catholic doctrines have become more detailed and explicit even though their essence or substance remained the same. That is, their doctrines evolve and develop – based on situations and the wisdom of Rome – like an acorn seed grows into a tree. This is a crucial aspect of modern Catholic apologetics and it needs to be deconstructed.

Before Cardinal Newman embraced Roman Catholicism, he had written some works attacking it, so not everyone was impressed with his conversion and subsequent work on doctrinal development. In fact, some Catholics received his book with suspicion and dismissed his theory as a threat to Catholic orthodoxy.

Although his hypothesis was crafted to explain the huge disparity between early church beliefs and Roman Catholicism in his time, it could also justify a departure from Catholic doctrines to modernist ideas.

This resulted in a controversy which made Pope Pius X issue an encyclical on September 4, 1907, to condemn “evolutionary” principles that may alter Rome’s dogmas. At the risk of losing their position, Rome’s clergy were made to swear an Oath Against Modernism:

I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

Eventually, Newman’s hypothesis won the day among Rome’s hierarchy, and it became a ground for changing some doctrines at the Vatican II council. From then on, the theology of the early church fathers became subordinate to those of the Scholastics and theirs became subordinate to post-Vatican II theology.

Now, Catholics no longer had the insurmountable problem of trying to prove everything they believed and practiced came directly from the apostles. They could just invoke the “development” magic word and whittle Protestant criticisms.

It also divided Catholicism into 3 main camps:
(1) the Magisterium, Pope and scholars of Rome who embraced Newman’s theory,

(2) the popular, Internet Catholic apologists (largely former Protestants) who embrace this theory but disagree with the liberal scholarship of Rome’s magisterium

(3) the “Rad Trads” – various groups of Catholics who regard Newman as a closet heretic,; Vatican II as a deviation from orthodoxy and the popes from that point on as anti-popes.

But does Newman’s hypothesis really stand up to Biblical, historical, logical scrutiny and doctrinal purity? Let’s see.

1. Biblical scrutiny

A certain Catholic apologist appealed to six Bible passages as support:

a) Matthew 5:17 – This speaks of Jesus fulfilling (Gr: plero) the law and prophets. To parallel this fulfillment with development of unbiblical ideas centuries after Christ or after the Bible’s completion is outrageous.

b) Matthew 13:31-32 – This is a parable likening the kingdom of heaven to a tree springing up from a mustard seed. The illustration of the kingdom in vs 24-30 was also being repeated here. Nothing is said about doctrine.

c) John 14:26 – Here, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will teach us and bring to our remembrance all that He taught. Do the Marian dogmas, purgatory or papal infallibility fall into this category? No.

d) John 16:13 – The Holy Spirit guides us to the truth. To assume Rome speaks by the Holy Spirit is circular reasoning since many of their “truths” contradict, distort and displace the plain teaching of the Bible. God is not the author of confusion.

e) 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 – This speaks of the things of the Spirit being revealed to the believer. In contrast to the cultic grid that whatever issues from Rome is from the Holy Spirit, these passages speak of each believer being personally led by the Holy Spirit to judge all things. This is private judgement and it grates against Catholicism.

f) Galatians 4:4 – speaks of the fullness of time when God sent forth Jesus. This appointed time is in line with Biblical prophecies (Is. 7:14, 9:6 etc). None of the proof text presented in support of this 19th century theory stands up on closer examination.

2. Historical scrutiny

Many Catholics fondly quote Newman: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” This implies that Catholic dogmas – though unknown in the early church – exist in “seed form” at that period, unlike Protestants who can’t trace back their doctrines in history.

But when one factors the lack of historical evidence for the papacy, Marian, indulgences, purgatory etc., this narrative wears thin. Even Newman made some detours on the historical argument:

“Here then I concede to the opponents of historical Christianity, that there are to be found, during the 1800 years through which it has lasted, certain apparent inconsistencies and alterations in its doctrine and its worship, such as irresistibly attract the attention of all who inquire into it” (An Essay, 9).

In his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, he said:
“No Catholic doctrine could be fully proved (or, for that matter, disproved) by historical evidence -‘in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church.’ Indeed, anyone ‘who believes the dogma of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic.”

Of course, this is the only way one can be Catholic or remain one – by blind “faith” in Rome’s authority, not by being deep in history. The main difference between the Catholic and the Protestant view of history is that while the latter appeals to history to show that many of the dogma foisted on Catholics today were made out of the cloth, the former reads back their modern dogmas into church history.

This is revisionism and until a Catholic takes this blinder off, he/she can’t consistently approach history. Interestingly, Newman noted this Catholic “double think” before his conversion:

“I am but showing how Romanists reconcile their abstract reference for Antiquity with their Romanism – with their creed and their notion of the Church’s infallibility in declaring it; how small their success is, and how great their unfairness is another question…they extol the Fathers as a whole, and disparage them individually; they call them one by one Doctors of the Church, yet they explain them away one by one their arguments, judgements, and testimony. They refuse to combine their separate and coincident statements; they take each by himself, and settle with the first before they go to the next” (Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, 1838, 70-71).

This is an argument Newman never succeeded in refuting. When we point out to Catholics one or two church fathers who disagree with what Rome now says they must believe, they quickly dismiss them as “individually fallible.” They use denial as a shield to protect their minds from the reality that history is Rome’s enemy.

When Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Papal Infallibility (1870) which lacked historical precedents as dogmas, Catholic scholars began to dig into their bag of tricks to see how they could reconcile them with the prevalent concept that all Catholic doctrines were complete from the apostles. This was why Newman’s theory became a necessity. History was too dangerous to behold.

Since ancient Catholicity is determined by modern Romanism, whatever direction the pope today blows is where Catholics must follow. Perhaps in the next few years when Mary will be made co-redeemer or co-equal with the Trinity, then it would become so obvious that the margin of faith in Rome is too wide after all.

3. Logical scrutiny

Up until the 17th century, Rome claimed that all her doctrines came unchanged from the apostles. So the Catholic church just sprang up like Athena from Zeus’ skull! In the 19th century however, Darwinian theories became popular and Newman’s theory was in tune with the philosophical spirit of that time.

When Newman suggested that the deposit of faith left by Christ had evolved into the 19th century church, it was a shift from the Athenian to the Darwinian view of church history. But if the logic here is valid for Catholicism, it must also be valid for Protestantism.

If the Latin church developed into Roman Catholicism, we can also say that it further developed into Protestantism. Unless Catholics want to tell us that there is a fixed direction that development must always follow.

The development theory is predicated on the argument that several doctrines in the Bible underwent development e.g. the afterlife, the Messiah, Trinity, the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person, equality of Jews and Gentiles and the Deity of Christ. But it’s theologically invalid to parallel the canonical progression of revelation with extra-canonical development of doctrine.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article V elucidates the Evangelical position:

We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings” (Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine, Inter-Varsity Press: England, 1999, 476).

Dr. William Witt, an Anglican scholar, points out that Newman commits a fallacy of equivocation or ambiguity by not distinguishing between two different kinds of development. The first type of development adds nothing to the original content of faith, but rather brings out its necessary implications (e.g the Deity of Christ, Trinity) which is what took place at the councils of Nicea, Chalcedon etc.

The second type is the new development that does not proceed from the articulation of Biblical teaching e.g Marian dogmas, papacy, penance. The first is legitimate while the second is illegitimate.

Newman gave a sort of disclaimer: “the one essential question is whether the recognized organ of teaching, the Church herself, acting through Pope or Council as the oracle of heaven, has ever contradicted her own enunciations. If so, the hypothesis which I am advocating is at once shattered” (An Essay, 121).

Since the popes and councils have contradicted themselves and still do. Newman’s hypothesis is irreversibly shattered into pieces.

4. Doctrinal purity

Another chief flaw of Newman’s theory is how provides a cover for doctrinal errors and corruptions. The proponent himself said that the Montanist and Novatian heresies were “raw materials” for the church and conceded to Catholicism’s adoption of pagan worship:

“The use of temples, and these dedicated to the particular saints and ornamented on occasions … incense, lamps and candles, votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water; asylums, holy days and seasons, images at a later date, processions, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure … are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church” (An Essay, 373).

On page 355 he says: “feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature … were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared should the occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace as well as the philosophy of the educated class.”

Rehashing the same excuse, Karl Keating wrote in Catholicism and Fundamentalism: “We should expect true religion to be fulfillment of, but not a complete contradiction of, mankind’s earlier stabs at religious truth…on the positive side, ancient religions were remote preparations for Christ’s coming…”

With “development” on her sleeve, Rome has no qualms adopting pagan or cultic religions today. This is why Pope Francis peddles New Age doctrines like a hustler and no whimper is raised from all the Internet Catholic apologists.

But God warned His people “be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same. You must not worship the LORD your God in their way” (Deut. 12:30-31).

The Christian Faith has been “once for all delivered” to us and it’s our duty to contend against any attempt of false teachers to re-tailor, add to or subtract from it (Jude 3). The word translated “delivered” in this verse is what Greek grammarians call an aorist passive participle indicting an act was completed in the past with no continuing element.

This leaves no room for a new faith or body of truth from a pope, organization or guru. God and His Word do not change.