Yesterday a friend of mine was over at my house. We were discussing how to engage Muslims in debate and about how to bring them into the Christian faith. She said something that I hear a lot of believers say. Something very unfortunate. She said that she would try to show them that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Sadly, about 80% of Christians in the West who engage Islam fall into this trap. I’ve even heard apologists like James White and David Wood make this mistake. Robert Spencer pretty much bases his entire anti-Islamic career on this error.
When we engage in evangelism and apologetics, we’re defending the Christian faith and nothing else. God never mandated that we need to believe in democracy to go to heaven. We do have to believe in Christianity to go to heaven. There are some Muslims who believe in democracy but that won’t help them before the judgment seat of God. In fact, it won’t help anyone before the judgment seat of God.
Democracy isn’t the only extra baggage I see Christians burdening themselves with when engaging Muslims. They often defend freedom of speech, freedom of religion, American foreign policy, the State of Israel, and many other things. Most Muslims in the world have this false notion that Christianity = West. Although this is false, we don’t help our case by adopting and defending modern “Western Values” alongside our Christian faith.
God never mandated that we believe in these values. We can believe in them but let’s not defend them deeply as if they’re eternal issues. If a Muslim converts to Christianity, he’s our brother in Christ. It doesn’t matter if he’s still anti-West.
Having said this, I would go one step further. I would condemn many of the things that the Muslim condemns. We who live in the West, need to recognize that the West in anti-Christian. Before 1789 this wasn’t the case, but it is now. In fact, think how much inroads we’d be able to make with Muslims by saying: “Yes, the modern West is an abomination. Now let’s discuss religious truth.”
When Muslims realize that Christianity has nothing to do with the modern West, they’ll be more open to our message. After talking to me, a Muslim that I know said that he has much more respect for Christianity. He has not yet converted but he’s closer to the truth than he was before I discussed these issues with him. He’s certainly more open to the true faith than he was before.
So the best advice that I can give when debating a Muslim is not to defend the West or any other extra baggage. In fact, we should all go one step further and condemn the anti-Christian West with our Muslim friends.
Are you referring to something specific in history by the year 1789 ?
Yes, but I do realize those dangerous ideas which exploded and showed their ugly face in 1789 were bubbling to the surface before then.
1789 = The French Revolution; I guess, is what you mean.
But 1776 in USA happened earlier.
As Dr. White said recently, that according to some scholars, they argue that the seeds of ideas of humanism and secularism were inside of some of the aspects of the political and social aspects of the Reformation, even though the main issues were theological and Biblical. And those humanism/secularism seeds were the poison that eventually destroyed the faith in western Europe – because of the sacralism (Protestant state churches – infant baptism, nominalism – thinking the physical act of baptism in water is going to somehow bring grace into the soul, etc. )
It destroyed the reality of God’s grace in converting the soul by the work of the Spirit upon hearing the gospel and resulting in repentance and faith is what true conversion is. (Mark 1:15; John 3:1-21)
Yes, that is true. They were sister revolutions. I suppose that I stand corrected on that.
“As Dr. White said recently, that according to some scholars, they argue that the seeds of ideas of humanism and secularism were inside of some of the aspects of the political and social aspects of the Reformation, even though the main issues were theological and Biblical. And those humanism/secularism seeds were the poison that eventually destroyed the faith in western Europe – because of the sacralism (Protestant state churches – infant baptism, nominalism – thinking the physical act of baptism in water is going to somehow bring grace into the soul, etc. )”
I agree with everything in this accept blaming it on sacralism. Sacralism existed in Europe from Theodosius until the French revolution and the faith in that time was strong. It is revolutionary ideas that destroyed the faith in Europe. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of religion, representative democracy, etc.
Yes, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the traditional Protestant Churches have infant baptism. We both agree that sanctification is a process. It happens throughout the life of a true believer regardless of when they’re baptized. All pedobaptists believe in sanctification and God’s grace working in the soul of the believer. In other words, baptism is not the end, but the beginning of a Christian life.
Ken, I want to understand your position here. Are you saying that the faith of the West has been destroyed(at least primarily) by the belief of infant regenerative baptism imported via sacralism?
Infants cannot repent or believe – the Scriptures say “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15)
even Colossians 2:11-12, a text that is ironically used to support infant baptism, says “through faith in the power of God, who raised Him (Jesus) from the dead”. This proves that baptism is suppossed to happen AFTER repentance and faith, as Peter says, “not the removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a good conscience” = heart repentance. ( 1 Peter 3:21)
Yes, sacralism and infant baptism together result in dead nominalism and are the results of everything that was bad (pertaining to causes of deal nominalism and formalism) from Theodosius onward.
getting a baby wet and saying words over them does NOTHING.
The Spirit of God works through the gospel preached and hearing and understanding that one is a sinner and needs a Savior/redeemer from sin.
see Ephesians 1:13-14 – having heard, believed, then sealed with the Holy Spirit.
baptism does not cause regeneration; rather water baptism is the outward sign and picture of symbol of the reality of the first inward baptism of the Holy Spirit that happens at conversion (repentance and faith).
Even Justin Martyr understand that a person must first repent and have faith and then is baptized and then partakes of the Lord’s supper.
First Apology 65
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, . . .
“who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching”
That comes first
Then baptism
Then the Lord’s supper
Well then, I think that by your standards, there was never true faith in the West. It went from nominal “Christian” to nominal secularist with a few rare true believers sprinkled pre and post 1789. In other words, the West never lost its faith as one can’t lose what is doesn’t have. It’s as Godless as it was in 1789, 1500, 1000, or 390 under Theodosius. I don’t think you’d disagree with this.
not true, because many who got wet as babies grew up and later did true repentance and faith – like Athanasius, Augustine, Cappodician fathers ( maybe they were still doing believers baptism – I don’t know – seems both were done from 215 AD onward; but there is no evidence of infant baptism before 215 AD. The first clear reference is Hippolytus’s (attributed to him, not for certain by him) Apostolic Constitutions. ( ?)
You totally misunderstand what I am saying; but the unity of church and state is wrong and infant baptism is wrong. When I say that, I am not saying the west never had ANY true faith from Theodosius to the modern enlightenment / Deism / Revolutions of 1776 and 1789, etc. I am saying that true conversion has to be individual first then it affects families, groups, society, governments, not the top down way of sacralism and nominalism.
I don’t doubt there were many true believers between 380 – 1517, it is just that their true faith and repentance did not happen when they got wet; it came later; and some were baptized properly after repentance and faith.
I never said that you said there were no true believers from Theodosius to 1789(or 1517 if you want). I did indicate that you thought they were in the minority. You probably believe there are true believers in the West today but you’ll say they are in the minority. This is probably similar to your views throughout Church history. Hence, from your perspective, I don’t think that you can say the West was ever Christian, only that it had Christians in it. Therefor you couldn’t say that the West has lost its faith.
Also, Athanasius and the Cappodocian Fathers never lived in the West. St. Augustine did but his portion of the West hasn’t had any Christians for hundreds of years. It’s not typically the area that we’d consider “The West” today. I acknowledge that Theodosius never lived in the West either but his dominion extended over Western Europe so he was the de facto ruler of the West.
Also, Athanasius and the Cappodocian Fathers never lived in the West.
Technically true. What I mean is that their Christian theology of the Trinity, Deity of Christ, 2 natures of Christ, canon, etc. was spread to the west and influenced all of western Christian thought.
St. Augustine did but his portion of the West hasn’t had any Christians for hundreds of years. It’s not typically the area that we’d consider “The West” today. I acknowledge that Theodosius never lived in the West either but his dominion extended over Western Europe so he was the de facto ruler of the West.
Same as above; all of them are more of a part of western Christian heritage because their writings and doctrines went west; whereas those areas were later conquered by Islam. The church over-all had left it’s first love (Rev. 2:1-7) and God removed their lamp stands. Just as He removed Israel from His sight in 2 Kings 17 and He removed Judah from His sight in 2 Kings 23, 24, 25.
Hence, from your perspective, I don’t think that you can say the West was ever Christian, only that it had Christians in it. Therefor you couldn’t say that the West has lost its faith.
It was Christian as a culture, morality, overall traditions, etc. but nominal. Don’t you know what nominalism is? Lots of people follow traditions and rituals without regeneration (truly being born again by God’s Spirit. John 3:1-21)
We could technically say that the West is Christian as a culture today. Most people will say that they are Christian when they’re clearly not. However, we still get Christmas and Good Friday off from work and public nativity scenes at Christmas time. I would concede that the morality is lacking though. However, it’s true that most people don’t go to Church today as they would have at other points in history. I suppose it’s a different kind of nominalism than they had in prior centuries.
Yes, the morality has changed, especially in the last 60 years in the west.
We have made improvements in race relations and racial discrimination issues, but sexual morality, adulteries, pre-marital sex, easy divorces, abortion, homosexuality, trans-gender stuff, with materialism, pornography, violence, drugs, pride and arrogance, etc. has brought morality low.
They were sister revolutions only in the sense that Cinderella and Ugly #2 were sisters.
The French Revolution extolled secular humanist atheism and devolved into The Reign of Terror.
The American Revolution was in no small part kicked off by opposition to the Anglican Church’s attempts at extending its authority from England, and the large Calvinist & Puritan congregations considering King George to have broken the rulership covenant. And whatever the Founding Fathers believed, they were far from liberal agnostics.
Hi Scott,
I think the reason that the two Revolutions looked different outwardly is that one happened in a Catholic culture and one happened in a Protestant culture. Protestantism cannot offer the kind of resistance that Catholicism can since it’s divided into numerous sects with contradictory confessions.
If the colonies were Catholic, with Cathedrals, monasteries, public processions, monks and nuns walking through the streets everywhere, grottos and statues of Saints in public areas, the American revolution would have looked very similar to the French revolution. Since they only encountered splintered Protestants groups, there was no religious opposition so it didn’t have to reveal it’s really ugly side.
You seem to believe that New Testament Christianity is suppossed to be like Theocratic Israel.
Many of these ‘Western’ ideals have their roots in Christian concepts of equality, justice, mercy and inalienable God-given rights. No matter how much liberalism would like to erase that fact.
Hence, they are fundamentally incompatible with Islamic belief in many places due to the wholly different basis for morality. The solution of many ‘modernist/moderate’ Muslims (like Edip Yuksel) is to contort the Islamic moral code to try and fit the Western liberal mindset.
But this is tantamount to surrendering their basis for morality to suit ever-changing whims. So sure they now say that women have rights, and kuffars do not need to die – how long before they next say that homosexuals can be married, or that polytheism is as valid as monotheism?
I actually find that ISIS is truer to their moral basis – they reject alien moral codes and hold only to their true basis of morality. If sex slaves are allowed by the Quran, who are these infidels to say that it’s an immoral practice? Who decides what is moral – humans, or Allah?
But related to that, why do so many Muslims still feel drawn to ‘Western’ values? Why do modernists who actually read their Quran and Hadith feel terribly conflicted by the values espoused within (e.g. Nabeel Qureshi and Mohammad’s blessing of the rape of captive women)? Why don’t Christians face a similar conundrum?
It’s because Christianity is the truth, based on revelation from the true God who created humanity in His image and knows best the way to live out that humanity. We who hold this truth find no conflict with peace, love and kindness to all. They who hold to an untruth will find that their untruth conflicts with the values of the true God.