The Baptism with the Holy Spirit: A Distinct Experience

There are sincere Christians who have been taught that when you receive the New Birth, you receive the Holy Spirit. This is true.

But where they introduce a degree of falsehood is when they teach that there is no other experience for you beyond the New Birth, that at the moment of salvation, you received the baptism with the Holy Spirit and have all the Holy Spirit you can have.

To remove this blindfold, we need to back away from “denominational positions” and allow the light of Scripture illuminate our minds.

Paul Enns, mentioned in the first article, wrote that:

Pentecostals tend to confuse the terms for baptism of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit. They suggest the same Greek phrase (en pneumatic) is used to describe believers being placed into the body of Christ at salvation (1 Cor. 12:13) and being empowered for service subsequent to salvation (Acts 1:5). (The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Publishers: Chicago. 2008 p. 677)

At this juncture, I’m not convinced that this scholar is accurately presenting the beliefs of those whom he disagrees with.

He obviously subscribes to the argument that the Holy Spirit baptism is indistinguishable from regeneration. A Bible passage often appealed to is Ephesians 4:4-5

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (RSV)

This verse is used to teach that there is only one baptism available to the believer but in context, it is referring to baptism into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. This occurs at the New Birth. It is a baptism in (or by) the Holy Spirit that Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 12:13, which was discussed earlier.

But the type of baptism conferred by Jesus on members of His body, which we are discussing, is the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).

Hebrews 6:2 speaks of  “the doctrine of baptisms” (plural). This is referring to all the baptisms available in the New Covenant: first is the baptism in or by the Holy Spirit – which saves us, then we have water baptism and there is also baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Once you note the prepositions used, you can distinguish the first one from the third.

Knowing the difference

Another distinction between the New Birth and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit can be seen in what Jesus did when He appeared to the disciples after His resurrection:

“So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21-22)

Just as God had breathed into Adam the breath of life at creation, Jesus breathed resurrection life into His disciples. It was an act of recreation – an impartation of life into their spirits by the Holy Spirit. This is what we call the New Birth or regeneration.

Yet, it’s clear that the baptism with the Holy Spirit was still in the future for them:

I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49)

“For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:5)

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8)

Earlier, Jesus had declared them clean by the Word (Jn. 15:3) and He breathed the Holy Spirit into them making them born again. But Jesus didn’t say they “already received all the Holy Spirit that’s there to have” because they still needed to be clothed with power from above. They received this infilling and outflow of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

A man may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and still not be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

In regeneration there’s an impartation of life, and the one who received it is saved; in the baptism with the Holy Spirit there’s an impartation of power and the one who receives it is fitted for service.

Consider the following passages:

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4)

“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” (Acts 10:44-46)

“He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:2-6)

God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?” (Heb. 2:4)

Notice the phrases used in the NT to describe one and the same experience: “baptized with the Holy Spirit,” “clothed with power from on high,” “filled with the Holy Spirit,” “the Holy Spirit fell upon them,” “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out,” “receive the Holy Spirit,” “the Holy Spirit came upon them,” and “gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

From the question Paul asked the Ephesian believers in Acts 19:2 and their response, it’s clear that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a definite experience of which one may and ought to know whether he has received it or not.

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is God’s gift reserved only for His children; it’s not for the unsaved. The world can’t receive or know the Spirit of Truth, and that’s why we don’t preach the Holy Spirit to the world. Jesus said:

“If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13)

But Jesus Christ is God’s gift to the world (John 3:16). That’s why we preach Christ to the world, so as many that accept Him will be born again. So it requires a travesty of logic to confuse the New Birth with Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 8, the Bible separates out these two experiences that one would have to be mischievous to conflate both.

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”

The Samaritans were saved when Philip preached Christ to them, they were also baptized in water as a public demonstration of their salvation – they had the witness of the Holy Spirit within them – but the apostles Peter and John certainly didn’t think the new converts had all the Holy Spirit they could have.

The apostles came down and prayed for the Samaritan believers, not to be saved, but to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit – a subsequent definite experience!

Saul of Tarsus was converted on the way to Damascus. He believed in Jesus as Lord and surrendered his life to Him. Then the Lord appeared to another Christian, Ananias, in a vision and instructed him to go to Saul and lay hands on him:

“Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 9:17)

Notice two things, Ananias addressed Saul as “brother” and he didn’t say “the Lord sent me here to lay hands on you so you could get saved.” Why? Because Paul was already saved, but now he needed to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit for the assignment God had for him.

Yet it may shock you that some teachers will tell you that the book of Acts is merely historical, so we can’t derive doctrines about the Holy Spirit baptism from it. That’s a cop out because:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16)

Since the book of Acts is part of Scripture, it is profitable for doctrine. We can’t dismiss it because the events describe in it conflict with our presuppositions.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not just an event described in the NT, it’s also a doctrine and an experience that is real today.

Next, I will be discussing the nature, purposes and possibility of the Holy Spirit baptism.

 

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit: the Seal and the River

If there is one doctrine that I think has united the church and unfortunately, divided it along denominational lines for decades, it would be the teaching regarding the baptism with the Holy Spirit. This doctrine still remains controversial in several denominations today, and yes, a flash point point of mordant disagreements.

My experience reading and listening to pneumatological positions, polemics and musings – on both sides of the fence – leaves me with an impression that many who reject the reality of the baptism with the Holy Spirit today are largely influenced by denominational tenets, wrong teachings, misunderstandings and selective attention to Scripture, which have all ossified into “traditions” over the years.

In some cases, many believers have been burned by fanatical teachings and practices espoused by movements that have gone off the ditch with spiritual experiences and then ended up in an opposing extreme position – becoming a cessationist and rejecting all spiritual experiences altogether.

It seems we all struggle with this anomaly of going off into a doctrinal ditch on one side only to come out of it and swerve right into the ditch on the other side of the road.

But we need to find a biblical middle ground on this, because if something is clearly set forth in God’s Word, we have no right to deny or dilute it.

In a bid to rightly critique the Word of Faith movement, a theological reference work made a statement that denied the baptism with the Holy Spirit as a distinct experience subsequent to salvation:

The command to “ask Jesus for a baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not found in Scripture. The Holy Spirit baptizes all believers into the body of Christ at the moment of salvation (1 Cor. 12:13). (Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Publishers Chicago, 2008, p. 677)

Let’s first look at this verse:

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13).

Our attention needs to be drawn to three things here. First, the context of this verse points more to the unity of the body of Christ, than a doctrine.

Second, if we followed the rendering in the original Greek, the first part of this verse would read as: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” The Greek preposition here is en which means “in,” not “by.” Another Greek preposition that usually follows the verb baptizo is eis meaning “into.”

The clarity of the verse in question was hampered by translational dynamics.

Third, the word baptized in this verse in the past tense (not the perfect tense) and it refers to a single event that already took place at a certain moment in our past experience.

Granted, some Christians have jumped on this verse and inferred that unless you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, you’re not yet in the body of Christ. This interpretation stems from flawed bible hermeneutics.

To understand what that verse was saying when it used the words “baptized into,” we need to consider four parallel passages in the New Testament where the same terms were used. (All quotes, unless otherwise stated, are from the NKJV)

Baptism into repentance

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance…” (Matthew 3:11)

The Greek preposition rendered “unto” (or “for” in other bible versions) is eis which means “into.” So literally, it reads as: “I indeed baptize you with water into repentance.”

The people whom John baptized had already repented before they were baptized into repentance.

That baptism was only an outward acknowledgement of the repentance that had occurred inwardly. In fact, John the Baptist abruptly refused to baptize those who didn’t show any proof of inner repentance:

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance.” (Matt. 3:7-8)

Baptism into the forgiveness of sins

“When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:37-38 NIV)

Be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins” in the Greek is literally “be baptized…into the forgiveness of sins.”

As explained earlier, their sins were already forgiven by their repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. It wasn’t the baptism at Pentecost that washed away their sins, it was only an outward testimony of the forgiveness of sins they had received.

Baptism into Christ

“Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:24-27)

Again, we see that they were already children of God through their faith in Jesus. They were already in Christ before they were baptized into Christ. Their baptism was simply a public acknowledgement of the spiritual adoption they had received.

Baptism into death

“How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:2-4)

Here, we see that being “baptized into” is used in connection with being baptized into the death of Jesus Christ. Baptism is then spoken of as a burial which indicates that the person first dies to sin through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ before baptism (“the burial”) which publicly acknowledges that spiritual state.

Now, in the light of this understanding, let’s look again at 1 Cor. 12:13

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.”

It means we were already in the body of Christ, regardless of our race or class, just as the people whom John baptized were already in repentance, just as the people baptized on the day of Pentecost were already forgiven of their sins, just as the people referred to in Galatians were already in Christ, and just as the people referred to in Romans were already dead to sin before they were buried in baptism into Christ death.

So, the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a public acknowledgement of our membership in the body of Christ. Therefore, it can be defined as the supernatural seal that is given to each individual member of the body of Jesus Christ by which He acknowledges them as a part of Him.

Now, I am going to provide another definition of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as I address the second aspect of the quote from Paul Enns earlier. He argued that nowhere in the Bible do we find an express command that Jesus should baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit.

But this argument is specious in the sense that there are several Christian doctrines that we adhere to today that were not expressly commanded, but merely implied from biblical narrations, descriptions and deductions.

The Bible presents doctrines into two ways: as commands or statements, and as description of events or experiences. When we combine both statements and events, we then have a complete picture of what the Bible is saying.

Even from the NT, we see many different men baptized with water, but John pointed at Jesus Christ and declared, “this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33 RSV). Jesus alone has been given the privilege to confer this supernatural seal on the members of His body.

The term “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is an instructive description, because one of the symbols of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is water.

God knew some people would confuse the New Birth – which places us in the body of Christ – with the distinct experience subsequent to it, called the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which confers its outward acknowledgement on us.

Thus, in the NT, Jesus used the image of water to picture both the Holy Spirit dwelling presence in the New Birth and the infilling of the Holy Spirit. First, in John 4, Jesus told the woman at the well of Samaria:

10 If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

13… Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

Here, Jesus is talking about receiving eternal life – just as he told Nicodemus in John 3. The work of the Holy Spirit in us when we become saved is what Jesus likens to a fountain of living water. This well of salvation is for our personal benefit.

But in John 7, Jesus speaks of another experience in the Holy Spirit:

“On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:37-39)

He is comparing the receiving of the Holy Spirit to the act of drinking which then leads to an outflow of rivers (note the plural) of living water. This is an apt description of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, there are two experiences in the Holy Spirit. There is water in a fountain, and there is water in a river. The water is essentially the same, but they have their different purposes.

It’s from this ambit that we can also define the baptism with the Holy Spirit as the supernatural infilling and overflow of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer making him/her a channel of God’s power to others.

To confuse the New Birth with the Holy Spirit baptism would be as fatal as confusing justification with sanctification.

I will be continuing from here in a series of articles where I’ll be discussing the distinction, nature of the Holy Spirit baptism, the conditions of receiving it as well as respond to some objections to it.

Ah, but Prophet Muhammad was Sinless!

I was recently talking about slavery in Islam on a social media network when the report of African immigrants being dehumanized Saudi Arabia was trending.

Several Muslims responded to me in that thread, with a few challenging me to prove my stance and I proceeded to document not only the legality of slavery from Islamic sources, but also highlight the fact that in almost every instance where the hadiths make references to Muhammad’s slaves, they were either Jews or Africans.

This unearthing of bare bone facts didn’t (expectedly) go over well with our Muslim friends who resorted to their well-worn tactics when confronted with ugly truths about their prophet:

  1. Dismiss the quotes from the hadiths as “weak narrations.”
  2. Allege that the statements or deeds quoted were fabricated by the Jews or “the west.”
  3. Claiming that the opponent is maliciously quoting the source out of context to paint Islam or its prophet in a bad light.

When one of them realized that his trump cards weren’t bringing out the best result, he told me as a matter of fact that dehumanizing non-Muslims wasn’t really bad, after all, they were thinking and planning bad stuff against the powerful prophet:

“It was dehumanizing for the enemies, yes. You wanted them to be honoured after wanting to kill the Prophet? Even though they were enemies when they were prisoners of war, they were treated like eggs by the Muslims, they were fed like children and were allowed to earn their freedom.”

This line of thinking is quite problematic. First, it trades on a circular argument (“our prophet said he believed that his victims wanted to kill him so I believe it too”) and accepts the accusations and performative violence without any objective proof.

Second, he’s trying to find a moral justification for capturing, enslaving, torturing, dehumanizing and sexually assaulting other people as long as they are labelled as “enemies.”

This is similar to the excuses of most hardened criminals (“I raped her because she made my blood heat up” or “We beheaded them because they deceived our parents.”)

The most striking part was his egregious lie. Where in their hadiths were slaves “treated (carefully) like eggs”? None.

Even in his desperate bid to defend the indefensible, he contradicted himself. How on earth do you admit that slaves owned by Muslims were dehumanized and in the next sentence claim they were treated with care and “fed like children”?

You see, none of these lurid accusations levied against Muhammad’s enemies were documented, Muslims have had to invent most of them because they needed to uphold an underlying tenet of their religion: the alleged sinlessness of prophet Muhammad.

Muslim scholars are of the opinion that prophets are either sinless or at least free from all major sins or faults. One scholar wrote:

“All the prophets of God were men of good character and high honor … Their honesty and truthfulness, their intelligence and integrity are beyond doubt. They were infallible in that they did not commit sins or violate the Law of God.” (Abdalati Hammudah, Islam in Focus. American Trust Publications: Indianapolis, 1975, p. 27)

If a Muslim should admit that Muhammad actually committed acts of wickedness by enslaving, raping women, or assassinating people, he would also be admitting that he sinned, and that ultimately destroys his belief in isma (impeccability) and the other Islamic lies that go with it. It’s like a chain; it’s only as strong as its weakest link.

“Yeah, he was sinless,” said my Muslim opponent, “name one sin [he committed],” he ordered.

This is like someone challenging me to prove that the sky is blue. It’s a philosophical paradox that it’s easier to prove the ominous than to prove the obvious. It’s easier to prove that angels are real than to prove that grasses are green.

If a person is demanding evidence that zebras have stripes, you will wonder if his eyes and brains are functioning right. It’s just the same as someone who has refused to see enslaving others as sin but is now asking me to name a sin his guru was guilty of.

The fact is, the burden of proof is not on us to prove that Muhammad was a sinner, it’s rather on the Muslims to prove to us where the Quran or Hadiths ever stated that Muhammad was sinless.

When we look into these sources, we see that Muhammad was just like every other man – he sinned.

In Sura 18:110, Allah commands him: Say (O Muhammad): “I am no more than a human being like you; one to whom revelation is made…”

Muhammad was simply a man like his followers, the fact that he received a revelation doesn’t make him infallible.

Sura 40:55 says “So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [Allah] with the praise of your Lord, morning and evening.”

Sura 48:1-2 say: “Indeed, We have granted you a manifest triumph. That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future and complete His Favor on you and guide you on the Straight Path.”

Sura 47:19 says: “So know (O Muhammad) that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest.”

The only way a Muslim can successfully weasel his way out of these passages is to argue that Allah was wrong to ask Muhammad to ask for forgiveness because he had nothing to forgive! A damning admission, that one.

Yet, Muslim translators have dug into their bag of tricks to work some “abracadabra” on these passages.

The Arabic word “dhanb” or “thanb” was used in the texts, which according to The Hughes Encyclopedic Dictionary of Islam means, “a sin or a crime, or the charge of such.” The word is used in several other places and rightly translated as sin or crime (see Suras 3:11, 16, 31; 5:18, 49; 6:6; 7:10 etc).

But Muslim translators cannot allow Muhammad to be a sinner or criminal as their book says, so in those passages where dhanb was used, they deliberately rendered it as “fault” – a minor mistake or mild error that can be overlooked.

One English translator even smuggled in the words “attributed to you by Meccan polytheists” in parenthesis after “your sins” in Sura 48:2. His doctrinal presupposition was so strong that he had to bring up a sledgehammer and beat the text into conformity with it.

The doctrine of isma was actually a later innovation in Islam. It was first formulated in the creed known as the Fiqh Akbar II where it was stated that:

“All the Prophets are exempt from sins, both light and grave, from unbelief and sordid deeds. Yet stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part.” (Arent Jan Wensinck, The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development, p. 192).

Even the hadiths which attempted to don Muhammad with a legendary clothing tell us the same thing: that he was a poor sinner in need of forgiveness and redemption:

The Prophet used to say, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth…”(Bukhari 8.379:  Narrated ‘Aisha)

The fact that Muhammad kept praying for forgiveness and seeking refuge from the punishment of the fire of hell is proof that he was a sinner, his sins were indeed serious, and he knew their consequences were awaiting him beyond the grave.

The Prophet used to invoke Allah with the following invocation: [Arabic translation] “O my Lord! Forgive my sins and my ignorance and my exceeding the limits of righteousness in all my deeds and what you know better than I … Forgive my sins of the past and of the future with I did openly or secretly.” (Bukhari 8.407:  Narrated Abu Musa)

What do you say in the pause between Takbir and recitation? Muhammad replied, I say, “O Allah, set me apart from my sins as the East and Westest are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned from dirt. O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail.” (Bukhari 1:711 Narrated Abu Huraira)

The Prophet used to say frequently in his bowings and prostrations, “O Allah! Our Lord! All praises are for You. O Allah! Forgive me.” (Bukhari 1:781 Narrated ‘Aisha)

I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to him in repentance more than seventy times a day.” (Bukhari 8:319, Narrated Abu Huraira)

Muhammad’s wife, Aisha records that the early Muslims didn’t regard Muhammad as sinless (but rather as one whose sins were forgiven).

They said, “O Allah’s Prophet! We are not like you. Allah has forgiven your past and future sins” (Bukhari 1:19).

“The Prophet entered my house when a Jewess was with me and she was saying: Do you know that you would be put to trial in the grave? The Messenger of Allah trembled (on hearing this) and said: It is the Jews only who would be put to trial. Aisha said: We passed some nights and then the Messenger of Allah said: Do you know that it has been revealed to me: “You would be put to trial in the grave”? Aisha said: I heard the Messenger of Allah seeking refuge from the torment of the grave after this.” (Muslim 4, No. 1212, Narrated Aisha)

If Muhammad was only guilty of minor mistakes and little faults, why did he tremble and why was he earnestly seeking refuge from the torment of the grave?

These narrations give a lie to the fantastic claims of Muhammad being “cleansed” by angels as a baby or being untouched by Satan at birth.

In the hadith Mishkat al Masabih (1990 ed.), Aisha said Muhammad used to say: “O God, I seek refuge in Thee from the evil of what I have done…” (p. 525)

Indeed, Muhammad did many evil acts – raiding, gruesome murders, and sexual depravity.

In the same hadith, Abu Musa al-Ashari quotes Muhammad saying:

“O God, forgive me of my sin, my ignorance, my extravagance in my affairs and my frivolous sins, for I am guilty of all that; O god, forgive me my former and my latter sins, what I have keep secret and what I have done openly.” (p. 529)

Ah, but Muhammad was sinless! No he wasn’t. In fact, his religion and rituals failed to cater for his own sins much less the sins of his followers.

But as the centuries ensued, many Muslims who realized from the Bible that Jesus Christ is absolutely sinless and their guru was inferior, in ways more than one, tried to tailor their prophet along that line by attributing miracles to him and adopting isma, but the skeletons keep falling out of the cupboards.

Jesus didn’t have to pray for forgiveness or seek refuge in fear from the fire of hell, for he had declared: “For the prince of this world [Satan] is coming. He has no hold over me” (Jn. 14:30). 

We invite our Muslim friends to come to Jesus Christ, the Righteous One who has the power to save one from sin and deliver one to the uttermost.