Once Saved, Forever Saved: A Response

download

The following was my response to a friend on this blog’s Facebook page. It’s about a controversial doctrine that has raged for decades and divided Christians into two major schools of thought: Once-saved-forever-saved (OSAS).

I believe there are sincere Christians on both sides, but the negative consequences of one side (i.e those who teach that salvation can never be lost) is greater than the other side (those who believe salvation can be lost) hence my stance on this has to be clear.

Hi there, is once saved always saved doctrine is right; that repentance is acknowledging God and turning from idols only and repentance not likewise to sins? I listened to this video on repentance by Steven Anderson [an Independent Baptist, KJV-only preacher] during which these questions arose in me. I can’t believe his preaching via his own interpretation but to some point he just seems to [be convincing].

Let me first address the issue of repentance. There are 8 original words for “repent” in Scripture:

Hebrew

1. Nacham – to sigh, breathe strongly, to be sorry (Gen. 6:6; Ex. 13:17; Job 42:6; Jonah 3:10)

2. Shuwb – to turn back (1 Kings. 8:47; Ezk. 14:6)

3. Nocham – regret (Hos. 13:14)

4. Nichum – compassion (Hos. 11:8)

Greek

5. Metanoeo – to change the mind for the better morally, to change the attitude toward sin.

6. Metamellomai – to regret consequences of sin, not the cause (Mt. 27:3; 2 Cor. 7:8)

7. Metanoia – a real change of mind and attitude toward sin and its cause, not merely the consequences of it (Mt. 3:8, 11; Lk. 24:47)

8. Ametameletos – irrevocable (Rom. 11:29; 2 Cor. 7:10)

The surrounding context of the text will show you if the Bible teacher’s definition is right or wrong.

For instance, in Matthew 3:8, John the Baptist charged the Pharisees and Sadducees to produce the fruit of repentance. It obviously means turning away from their sins; they weren’t idolaters.

Regarding the Once-Saved-Forever-Saved teaching which has stirred much debates among Believers, I will address it rather succinctly:

1. Salvation is conditional. It didn’t just fall on us like cherries. We had to repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved at some point. For us to be saved, we had to meet its conditions (John 1:12; 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10). Therefore, a person can reject salvation or lose it.

2. Eternal life is a gift. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

This gift was freely offered to us by God’s mercy and we received it solely by faith, therefore, it can also be rejected and the gift can be revoked if a person is no more in Christ Jesus.

3. God gave us free will – the ability to choose, love, serve, seek and come to Him. Jesus said “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

He also said “These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:40).

In the Old Testament, God also said to His people “Come now and let us reason together…” (Isa. 1:18). Conversely, just as men can come to the Lord, they can also forsake Him. We do not lose our free will when we become saved.

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed. ‘You do not want to leave too, do you?’ Jesus asked the Twelve” (Jn. 6:66-67).

In the OT, we are told of one “whose heart turns away from the LORD” (Jer. 17:5) and people who forsook the Lord: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me” (Isa. 1:2)

The gracious hand of our God is on everyone who looks to him, but his great anger is against all who forsake him” (Ezra 8:2)

Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the LORD, the spring of living water” (Jer. 17: 13b)

They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor…” (2 Pet. 2:15)

The OT alone furnishes us with examples like David who was renewed again after he committed sin (Ps. 51:1-14).

Solomon was once in the Lord as well and experienced His presence, but “his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God” (1 Kgs. 11:4).

Saul is another example of a man who started in the Lord but deviated from His way and eventually died under judgement. God also taught Israel time and again that He would restore them again if they would meet conditions:

Only acknowledge your guilt—you have rebelled against the Lord your God, you have scattered your favors to foreign gods under every spreading tree, and have not obeyed me,’ declares the LORD. “Return, faithless people,” declares the LORD, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:13-15)

Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence. Let us acknowledge the LORD, let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains… (Hos. 6:1-3).

If you, Israel, will return, then return to me,” declares the LORD. If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, ‘As surely as the LORD lives,’then the nations will invoke blessings by him and in him they will boast” (Jer. 4:1-2).

5. In the New Testament, we are taught that we have an advocate with the Father (1 Jn. 2:1-2). This Advocate is not only to procure our sins, but also to restore backsliders to God.

Peter was once converted, confessing Jesus as the Son of God and the Christ, which brings the new birth (1 Jn. 5:1; Mt. 16:16). He even had power to preach and heal and had the Spirit in him (Mt. 10:1-20). Jesus predicted his backsliding and re-conversion (Lk. 22:31-34), proving that a converted man can fall away and still be restored as Peter was (Mark 16:7; John 21:15-17).

Paul taught that God is able to graft men in again (Rom. 11:18-24) and also that even those who have overthrown the faith of others, can come to repentance again (2 Tim. 2:17-26). There are conditions attached to our being in God’s household:

“But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory” (Hebrews 3:6).

“We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end” (Heb. 3;14).

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:2)

Paul also taught that backsliders can be reborn again (Gal. 4:19) as well as those who had fallen from grace (see Gal. 3:1-5; 5:4). He also commanded us to examine ourselves and restore those who have gone astray:

Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Cor. 13:5).

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10).

If it’s impossible for a Christian to wander away from the Lord, these warnings would have been meaningless and irrelevant.

6. In Luke 15, Jesus taught us that a sheep, coin, or boy could be lost and found again. It would be illogical to argue they could be lost and found but once, or that once being found they could never be lost again.

It would be still more unreasonable to argue that if any one of them was lost and never found again that it was never found.

Again, in Luke 17, as Jesus was speaking of the events of the last days, He warned: “Remember Lot’s wife!” (v. 32). We all know what happened to her. She was rescued from Sodom and Gomorrah but she looked back and became a pillar of salt. She left the city of sin but turned back.

The same can happen to a believer (Demas is another example). Otherwise, the Lord wouldn’t have cautioned us to remember Lot’s wife.

7. In the NT, the Greek word kataleipo is used for those who forsake, abandon, give up or leave the faith or places they had been in (e.g Heb. 11:27, Mt. 4:13, Acts 2:31; Mt. 16:4, 19:5 etc).

The Christian faith is also called the right or straight way (Acts 8:21; 9:11; 13:10). Like I said earlier, one cannot be said to forsake or abandon the straight way if one had not been in it before.

The Greek word planao is used several times to mean “to stray from; wander or go astray” in connection with the Christian faith e.g 2 Peter 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:25; Heb. 5:2; 11:38, 1 John 2:26, Revelation 2:20). A person can escape from the pollution of the world and still be entangled in it again (2 Pet. 2:20).

7. The Bible indicates that people’s names can be blotted out of the book of Life. It means they were previously written in it but were removed when they turned away from the Lord (Rev. 3:5 cf. Exo. 32:33; Isa. 48:19).

In the light of Jesus’ teaching that one can be cut from His branch if one is no longer bearing godly fruit (John 15:2), suffice it to say that a person can start out in the Lord and eventually miss heaven.

Let me add that I believe in the divine preservation of the Believer (i.e. God preserving the Believer in the faith) but that is not the complete picture. God will not preserve us against our wills. We must choose to remain steadfast in the Lord.

From my observations, I would conclude that the OSAS doctrine compels those who adhere to it to approach the Bible in a certain inconsistent, slipshod and incoherent way that does violence to sound biblical interpretation. It also tends to promote a lax living towards sin.

Guided by Deceiving Spirits

The strongest evidence for Roman Catholicism summed up in two sentences are: “The Catholic Church is the only true Church on earth because it was founded by Jesus Christ. It is trustworthy because its offices are so divinely guided by the Holy Spirit that they can never go astray.”

This narrative is drawn from the Catholic catechism:

The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit: in the Scriptures he inspired; in the Traditions, to which the Fathers are always timely witnesses; in the Church’s Magisterium, which he assists…” (8:2:688)

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church (par. 4, sec. 892).

This is the typical circular argument of Rome: “We are divinely guided because we say so!” Catholics assert that Protestantism lacks this guidance, hence is not divinely protected from errors unlike the holy Catholic church. But history and current realities, however, present a starkly different picture.

For centuries, the popes, bishops, church fathers, doctors and priests of Rome largely adhered to the historicity of Biblical narratives, reality of Bible prophecy, inspiration and traditional authorship of Scripture. But right from the mid 20th century, a paradigm shift began to emerge among Rome’s hierarchy.

Modern Catholic scholars have embraced modernist and liberal positions that deny the historicity of the Bible, the reality of Bible prophecy, the inspiration and traditional authorship of Scripture. Robert Sungenis, a Catholic apologist, captures how terrible the state of affairs is among Rome’s scholars and clergies:

“I could not recommend any of them to you. To a man (and woman) these teachers believe the Bible is riddled with historical and “religious” errors … For them, the Bible is mainly the work of man, and only a few parts were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit. They do not believe most of the historical narratives in Scripture ever took place (e.g, Adam and Eve, Noah) and they believe much of the Gospels were made up by either the evangelists or the generations that came after them.

“They question the resurrection of Christ, the immaculate conception of Mary, the infallibility of the pope, the existence of the devil or hell, and many other cardinal doctrines of the historic Catholic faith.

“In brief, these lectures are indicative of the sad state of affairs in Catholic academia and scholarship today. Today’s Catholic scholars took over where the Protestant liberals left off at the turn of the 20th century, and they are much worse than the Protestant liberals ever were. They simply do not have the traditional faith of our Fathers and medievals any longer.”

This is the true state of Catholicism today, and it poses a dilemma for its apologists. On the one hand, they defend Rome’s dogmas but on the other, Rome’s hierarchy has relinquished much of its theology.

An average Catholic in the pew is made happy by being told his/her Church has the deposit of truth from the apostles, but the higher ups know better; they know that those deposits have long been emptied onto the sidewalk and the treasury is filled with husks.

Right from the time of Augustine down to the Middle Ages, Rome’s position was that “outside the church there is no salvation.” The Council of Florence (1442) officially declared that “no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But at the turn of the 20th century, a significant shift took place in Catholic theology from exclusivism to inclusivism:

“In other words, Catholic belief moved from holding “outside the church no salvation” to “without the church no salvation.” During the first half of the twentieth century, Catholic theologians came up with ingenious concepts to include within the church any trace of salvation outside it: saved non-Christians belonged to the “soul” of the church; they were “attached,” “linked,” “related” to the church; they were members “imperfectly,” “tangentially”, “potentially” (Paul Knitter, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 1984, 8:50).

This is at 180 degrees of separation from what the Bible says about the unsaved (Jn. 3:18, 36; Eph. 2:1-2 etc). To maintain their apple cart, popular Catholic apologists are frozen up at different eras. Some in the Victorian period; some in pre-Vatican II whilst others follow wherever the current pope blows.

Their own theologians and scholars are their own enemies and this should make a truth-seeking Catholic ask some pertinent questions.

In the final week of April 2017, the tweets from Pope Francis @pontifex said:

April 26: Let’s promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions in order to build a world of peace

April 27: Please pray for my journey tomorrow as a pilgrim of peace to Egypt

April 28: We are called to walk together, in the conviction that the future also depends on the encounter of religions and cultures.

These tweets preceded Pope Francis’ ecumenical visit to a Coptic church and Al-Azhar mosque in Egypt. On April 9 2017, two suicide bombers attacked two Coptic churches, St. George and St. Mark, killing 45 people.

During his visit, Francis embraced the Grand Imam of the Al Azhar mosque, Ahmad al-Tayeb who urged the West (read: Christians) not to hold Islam accountable for the crimes of any small group of followers. If Islamic terrorism is executed by just “a small group” of Muslims why has it persisted in Egypt for centuries?

In his inclusive message, the pope called on Muslims to denounce violations of human dignity and human rights, and expose every form of hatred in the name of religion and to condemn these idolatrous caricatures of God. But such these vices are enshrined in Islam and no amount of pussyfooting with alter them.

You see, Pope Francis is toeing the very politically correct lines as the godless liberal crowd. Barely a month after his visit to Egypt, on May 26 2017, at least 28 Coptic Christians were again killed and dozens more wounded by Muslim jihadists. Nothing changed.

The armies of Allah are completely deaf to jaded ecumenical tropes. After a French Catholic priest was murdered by ISIS members while celebrating Mass in 2015, Pope Francis, instead of denouncing Islamic violence, deliberately gave a carefully worded talk that avoided using the terms “Islam” and “terrorism.” When a journalist questioned him on his politically correctness , Pope Francis replied:

There are violent Catholics! If I speak of Islamic violence, I must also speak of Catholic violence … and no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent … I believe that in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists … We have them. When Fundamentalism comes to kill, it can kill with the language – the Apostle James says this, not me – and even with a knife, no? I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence” (Catholic Online 8/3/2016).

There are a number of howlers in this response, but the most obvious (and annoying) of them was his utilizing an absurd moral equivalence argument to justify Islamic violence. This is simply reprehensible.

Interestingly, after this interview, ISIS publicly replied Pope Francis and others who argue that Islam is a peaceful religion, calling them liars “delivering a false narrative.” They reiterated that Christianity is “a religion of polytheism” and warned that there will be more of their terror attacks.

When one considers the moral and spiritual background of Islam and how the popes have sweetly flattered it for decades, a truthful Catholic must admit that these men are spiritual blind bats influenced by lying and deceiving spirits.

The Magisterium is supposed to be a quality control system divinely guided to safeguard truth – not corrupt, subvert or deny it. But when that institution is found blighted with apostasy, theological detours, moral depravity and outright deception, then it is evidence that it’s not guided by the Spirit of God.

One thing is clear, however, the Holy Spirit of God will never lead a person to deny the cardinal truths of Scripture or pray to a strange god. He “convicts the world of guilt, in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement” (Jn. 16:8).

But a counterfeit spirit makes people smother truth, support sin and avoid calling evil by its name. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, he “guides into all truth” (Jn. 16:13), He doesn’t lead people to embrace false religions like Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism in dubious interfaithism.

The world cannot accept the Holy Spirit “because it neither sees Him nor knows Him” thus, He doesn’t make one seek worldly approval as Rome’s hierarchy constantly does (Jn. 14:17).

You can’t be a friend of God and be loyal to the debased system of the world at the same time. Like some other pseudo-Christian organizations, Roman Catholicism is very much of this world and is under the influence of its spirit. Those who truly want to serve the Lord would have to come out of it.

Murder of Apostates: A Dialogue

In January, I had a dialogue with Miriam, a Muslim lady. She contacted me again this past week, intending to continue her mission in “opening my mind to Islam,” but this time around, it backfired when she admitted what I have been saying all the while – that islam is a death cult.

This exchange reveals how “moderate” Muslims drop the mask when push comes to shove, showing us the spirit behind Islam.
***

Miriam: May I ask why you write a lot against Islam on your blog?

Victor: I began studying about Islam in 2002 and was shocked at what I discovered. I had heard horror stories of mass murders of Christians by Muslims in northern Nigeria, but dismissed these as criminal acts of “Muslim extremists” or “bad eggs” of Islam.

But when I read some portions of the Quran and hadiths and how these acts were legitimised, I began to see Islam, Muhammad and the Quran in a totally different light.

Years later, I saw how Muslims were attacking and misrepresenting Christianity and began to respond to some of them. This led me to study Islam more and I finally realised that there is no way Islam could have been from God (or that Allah is God).

The image of Muhammad in the hadiths was not that of a prophet of God, but a wicked and unholy man. I realised the [eternal] danger my Muslim friends and loved ones were in if they followed Islam, so I began to write these articles to inform other Christians and open the eyes of Muslims.

Miriam: In fact, what you found is extremely untrue. Killing is not legitimised. The word “Muslim” means to follow Allah’s orders, and he strictly forbade murder in the Quran in 5:53 [Victor: Wrong verse] “whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind…”

Then Quran 6:151 says “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” In this verse, murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by a state for a crime is permitted.

It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error” (2:256).

Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Qur’an. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

Victor: That sura 5:32 has been addressed here. Only a person who has not read the preceding and proceeding verses would cite it as you did as “proof.”

That sura 6:151 gives an exception to the rule, that is, there are murders legitimised and permitted in Islam.

The sura 2:256 “no compulsion in religion” was recited by Muhammad when some Jewish women of the Bani Nadir tribe who had vowed to convert their sons to Judaism were being compelled to convert to Islam. Muhammad said they may not convert if they will pay the jizya tax.

This verse has been abrogated by later verses as Ibn Kathir stated:

“[T]his verse is abrogated by the verse of fighting [Sura al-fath 16, 9:73, 123] … therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to pay the jizya, they should be fought till they are killed” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah al-Baqarah ayat 253-286).

By the way, how can the “no compulsion” in Islam be true when Islam mandates imprisonment or death for apostates (murtads)?

Miriam: Many Islamic scholars, but not all, consider apostasy as a Hudud (or Hadd) crime, that is one of six “crimes against God” a Muslim can commit, which deserves the fixed punishment of death as that is a claim of God.

First of all, don’t you see that this would make the one true religion that everyone should follow, like a shop or store which a person can enter when he wants and leave when he wants, and it may encourage others to forsake the truth.

This is someone who has known the truth and practiced the religion and done the rituals of worship, so the punishment is not greater than he deserves.

Moreover, such strong rulings as this are only applies to a person whose life is no longer considered to be useful, because he knew the truth and he forsook it. What soul can be more evil than the soul of such a person? He must be killed because he saw the truth then he became blind.

The establishment of the limit on the apostate is therefore not to be compelled to enter Islam, but to punish him for disbelief in Allah after that it becomes clear to him the true path.

Islam is a whole way to life. It is religion and state, the worship, the leadership, the Koran and the sword, and the spirit which is based on reason and logic, based on evidence and proof, not in his faith. So an apostate should not maintain his life.

Victor: 

1. Your support for people being killed for leaving Islam speaks a lot of volumes, and frankly, it is sheer wickedness. It’s a travesty of human freedom for people to be killed for following the dictates of their conscience.

God has given us the freedom to choose and that is why He doesn’t compel us to serve or follow Him. A god who can’t guarantee freedom of conscience cannot guarantee salvation of the soul.

If Islam is a “religion of truth” as you claim, then why should those who leave it be killed? If a person is convinced that a religion he had adhered to is a deception, he should be free to reject it.

Who is this deity you serve who rules over his kingdom with so much tyranny and sadism? It’s just like a king who claims to be the only true king on earth yet decrees the death of anyone who goes to another kingdom.

If a king has shown his subjects his love and grace, even when they find reasons to leave his kingdom at first, they will be eager to return – by their own volition – because he had shown them some qualities that another king couldn’t.

By decreeing the killing of apostates, it clearly shows that Allah is a false, insecure god who has many ugly secrets in his house.

If Allah is the true God he would seek after those who have walked away the same way a shepherd goes after a lost sheep, or a person searches for a lost coin or like father awaits the return of a prodigal son. This is a quality of the God of the Bible (Lk. 15:3-18).

How horrible to serve a god who slaughters backsliders! Allah is no different from Seth or Satan. And why should we forsake our loving God to bow to such a vicious deity?

2. You said an ex-Muslim deserves to be beheaded because he has “known the truth and practiced the rituals of worship.” Can this also translate this way: “if a person who has known the truth and practiced the rites Hinduism and then embraces Islam should also be killed.”

“Or a person who has known the truth of Judaism and then embraces Islam deserves to be slaughtered also because he left the truth.” Agreed?

The fact is, as humans, our ideas of “truth” can change. People change their views on different subjects for different reasons, whether based on emotion, conviction or experience, so to license death for leaving Islam should also translate to licensing death for embracing it. It ought to work both ways.

If a person is shown sufficient evidence that Islam is a false religion, or that Muhammad was a false prophet, he has every right to dump it. A religion that decrees the killing of apostates is deceitful and its rites are worthless.

Who gets to decides whose life is “useless”? By what criteria do you (or your religious leaders) decide that a fellow created by God is “useless” and should be exterminated like a laboratory rat?

This is what your much vaunted “religion of peace” actually boils down to – supporting cruelty and murder.

3. You said Muslims must “punish (an apostate) for his disbelief in Allah.” If Allah is God and he is so offended because one of his slaves no longer believes in him, he should be the one doing the “punishing,” not sitting back like a gangster godfather, relying on his brainwashed followers to do his dirty job for him.

If Allah has failed to prove his existence to his slaves, why should they continue to love and serve a figment of a man’s imaginations?

A true God should be able to defend his name and reputation, and a god who replaces reason with compulsion is not worthy of worship. The God of the Bible said: “Come now and let us reason…” (Is. 1:18).

But Allah doesn’t reason with anyone; his topmost priority is to have those who leave his religion killed. Then what makes his Islam different from Satanism?

I read an article today, that apart from football matches, another “public entertainment” in Saudi Arabia that makes Muslims gather outdoor, enduring the discomfort and harshness of the desert sun is beheading!

Both the young and old gather to watch a fellow human being decapitated by an executioner while chanting “Allah Akbar!” And people wonder why Muslims are quick to violence.

You have been so exposed to sheer evil and cruelty so much that you have become immune to it. This is psychopathy – when a person lacks human empathy and justifies every act of barbarity. It’s funny how these same people then come on social media to claim “ISIS are not real Muslims.” Yeah sure.

4. You said Islam is “based on reason and logic…evidence and proof.” This claim has lost its bite with your previous lines.

If Islam has a shred of proof or evidence for its beliefs, there wouldn’t be any need for the sword or jihad. If I tell you 2+2= 4 and you say “no,” I can easily prove my stance by placing two sticks on a table and adding two more to it. That settles it.

It becomes clear to everyone who is right and who is wrong. I don’t need to bring out a sword and say “You blasphemed my belief by disagreeing, so you must die!” Only loons do that.

Now where is the evidence that Muhammad is God’s prophet or that the Quran is God’s Word? These are fun topics. You prove Allah with Muhammad, prove Muhammad with Allah, prove the Quran with Muhammad and prove Muhammad with Muhammad’s own words.

You call that “evidence,” but we call that fideism – faith in faith.

Sura 5:101 says to you Muslims: “Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you may cause you trouble.” What is this, if not blind faith?

Reason and logic thrive where there are questions, criticism and scrutiny, but in Islam, you cannot question what you believe; you can’t doubt; you can’t reason and you are not even free to walk away! That’s bondage.

Miriam: You are misunderstanding Islam and searching for the dark sides. But our doctrine is complete and pure and the image is clear to us, but not to you.

Maybe it’s true that you searched and read a lot about Islam but what you’ve learned is extremely untrue. Maybe the books you read were written by islam’s enemies. Just because there are a lot of Muslims not applying islam and they don’t represent their religion.

Try to make your mind wide open, millions and millions are entering Islam every year, do you think that people didn’t think well or didn’t search about Islam before taking such an important decision? You [research] about Islam but your results are 100% false.

Victor: I have seen both the theory and practical of Islam and I understand them. The former are in the Quran and hadiths while the latter are seen in the savage, barbaric and subhuman atrocities Muslims are perpetrating in my own country and other nations of the world.

The recent Orlando massacre by the ISIS jihadist is just an example.

I don’t have to “see” Islam from your perspective because you are still trapped in the bubble and truth appears flurry from that end.

Anyone who justifies the murder of murtads first needs a human heart and a new spirit from God, before he/she can begin to see things from a Godly perspective.

My facts are based on the original sources of Islam. I’ve heard that accusation of being “spoon-feed by enemies of Islam” many times, but when I ask you Muslims to refute the facts being presented, you either run for the hills or change the topic.

And I’m putting it out to you to demonstrate my “100% falsehood” and I will publish it on my blog, so that everyone can read you expose my untruths or see who between us is peddling untruths.

It’s a good thing that not all Muslims are applying Islam. Imagine how awful this world would be if every Muslim was beheading people or flogging women for uncovering their hair. You have already shown me the spirit behind islam by your appraisal of death for apostasy.

You also said “millions are converting to Islam.” On which planet? By the way, if every religion incorporates death penalty for apostasy, will Islam have any figure to boast of?

To imply that a religion is true because many are embracing it is a fallacy of appeal to numbers. It’s just like telling me garbage is suitable for human consumption because so many flies are perching on it. That’s ridiculous. You think God is a respecter of numbers? Not at all.

The Bible says “The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God” (Ps. 9:17). It means everyone who practices or justifies wickedness (beheading, stoning of rape victims, jihad etc.) is going to hell and “all the nations that forget God.”

There are many nations today wallowing in pits of rebellion against God. They sin boldly and even deny God’s existence.

There are also nations that claim to be religious but practice all sorts of evil under the shroud of religion. They rape captured women, destroy church buildings and kill others to appease a god who promised them a brothel paradise. They have rejected the true God as revealed in Jesus Christ. They will all face the ax.

God is not a respecter of human feelings. He is no respecter of men – their race, religions, philosophies or zeal. “He does not play favourites” (Rom. 2:11).

If nations will not be spared from hell, what makes you think millions of Muslims will be spared? Because false religions and sin have multiplied, so “hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure” to swallow more people (Is. 5:14).

Your only hope here and in eternity is to trust in Jesus Christ as your Saviour. It doesn’t matter how deep you have gone in Islam or how the fear of leaving it assail you, God will preserve you with His mighty hand.

Please think about this because there is no evidence that Islam is of God.