When one studies 2,000 years of church history, there will certainly be a lot of heretics and heresies. Many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have written collections of polemics against the multiple heretical groups of the day. For example, we have Irenaeus of Lyons, Epiphanius of Salamis, and John of Damascus just to name a few. They’ve all written collections of polemics against certain heresies. Other saints have written extensively against one or a couple different heresies. Saint Augustine is a good example with his works against the Donatists and the Pelagians.
Now, like all other times in Church history we have heretics, but they are different than the heretics of old for a very important reason. I will talk about two heretics from the first millennium, Arius and Muhammad.
We know Arius as the one who denied the deity of Jesus Christ. He said that the Son was created and therefore not eternal. I will plainly say that Arius was a smart guy. He knew the Scriptures well, but he simply made a mistake. His primary mistake was on his interpretation of Proverbs 8.
Muhammad is another example. I believe that if Muhammad would have encountered the better theologians in his day, he would have easily embraced orthodox Trinitarianism. In 634, Sophronius became the Patriarch of Jerusalem. However, he was a distinguished monk before that and he knew the doctrine of the Trinity very well. He was a warrior for Chalcedonian Christology in a day when monophysitism was everywhere. He was also a good friend of the Pope of Rome. Another option is Modestus of Jerusalem who was the Patriarch prior to Sophronius and a monk before that. He’s known for his Mariology. Both of these men would have been monks in the time of Muhammad.
Muhammad did meet two clergymen that we know by name according to the later Islamic narratives. These two men are Bahira and Waraqa. However, Bahira was early in his life and Waraqa was very early into his prophetic career. There is no evidence of the doctrine of Tawheed at this point. Muhammad eventually debated some Christians from Najran but we don’t know the calibre of their theology. Najran has never been known for having great theologians unlike Syria, Palestine, and Egypt where Sophronius, Modestus and others spent their time. We know that Muhammad accepted the Torah and the Gospel as authoritative Scripture as Surah 5:68 shows us. If he had met these theologians, they could have convinced him from the Scriptures that Muhammad accepted that Tawheed was bogus and Trinitarianism true.
Now in regards to Arius and Muhammad, we can at least say they had good intentions and they were trying their best. Arius simply made a mistake and Muhammad didn’t have access to enough knowledgeable people or documents.
Compare these two and many others with todays heretics such as the homosexualist and sodomite priest Fr. James Martin. He knows very well what the Church, scriptures and tradition says about sodomy yet he chooses to promote it either way. Matthew Vines can be added to this group, though he’s less of a threat now since he made the mistake of debating Sean McDowell and was shredded.
So, we can see the difference between Arius and Muhammad over against the modernist heretics. The modernists should know better as they know what the sources teach. Because of this, we should confront them in a very straight forward and encountering manner. They know what the sources say and what the great saints have said. Because of this, they’re extremely dangerous.
It is easy to have some sympathy with men such as, Arius and Pelagius; they were learned, sincere and devout. However I am unsure why you decided to bring Mohammed into this. You are being very charitable to assume that Mohammed would have been receptive to Christianity. He did not appear to be inclined to listen to the Jews and Christians of the time. He may have been sincere in the very beginning in his desire for the Arabs to have something better than polytheism, and the most charitable explanation is that he was deceived by a demon when he had his first vision in his cave (incidentally this was his first reaction). However later on it becomes clear that Mohammed just made up revelations to suit whatever his present policy and desires were. He was ignorant of scripture and became drunk with power.
You are quite right to point out the dangers of the modern heretics. Men such as Arius tried to help us gain a better understanding of God, the modern heretics are trying to remould religion to suit themselves.
Well, I knew bringing up Muhammad would be a bit controversial, but its also true that he didn’t have access to the great monks of the day. If he lived in Syria things would have been different. Surah 5 is the last Surah reveal and it shows us that he didn’t understand the Trinity. Maybe if he had met some good monks in the Meccan period, things would have changed. Once he gets political(Medina), it seems less likely that he would have changed.
On the subject of Mohammed, and the origins of Islam, you may be interested in the following:
https://www.excvbitor.com/pious-forgery-how-islam-remade-its-origins-its-own-image
Well put and thanks for the link.
I have read Tom Holland’s In The Shadow of the Sword, Robert Spencer’s Did Muhammad Exist?, and Peter Townsend’s The Mecca Mystery. As well as watched and read Dan Gibson’s work on Petra and its relation to the Hadith and Tarikh. And the many presentations by Jay Smith summarizing all these findings. So I am familiar with what Popp is theorizing.
I’d sure love to hear what Shabir Ally thinks of all this information other than dismissing it with a handwave, since he is so enamored by hyper-skeptical liberal theories about the New Testament! (I hear but have not had it confirmed that he has already gone Quran-only.)
But I thought Petra was next door to the Roman province of Syria IYKWIMAITYD
–Muhammad eventually debated some Christians from Najran but we don’t know the calibre of their theology.–
Well it seems they knew enough to point out inconsistencies in Muhammad’s own theology – possibly the multiplural implications of Quranic passages like Sura 42:10, Sura 51:47-52, and Sura 70:39-41 – which made him go home for the night, and then come back the next day to revert with the very longwinded ‘Shut up, stop thinking about it and go away’ of Sura 3 (v7 in particular).
–So, we can see the difference between Arius and Muhammad over against the modernist heretics. The modernists should know better as they know what the sources teach.–
Or the latter could have finally encountered actual, orthodox Christian teaching too late – by this time he was powerful and comfortable, but had already painted himself into a corner theologically, and was unwilling to admit error and open himself to embarassment or loss of confidence among his followers.