This is the last blog that covers the debate covering the debate sponsored by the Ruah Church, a debate between Samuel Green from Australia and Dr. Nasser Karimian (Alhuda Foundation) - Fishers Mosque on the Christian concept of the Trinity and the Muslim concept of Tawheed.
By Dr. Tim Orr
This is the last blog that covers the debate covering the debate sponsored by the Ruah Church, a debate between Samuel Green from Australia and Dr. Nasser Karimian (Alhuda Foundation) - Fishers Mosque on the Christian concept of the Trinity and the Muslim concept of Tawheed in partnership with Indianapolis Theological Seminary and Midtown Church. Held on Monday, June 10th
Introduction
The theological debate between Christians and Muslims is a rich and intricate one, with the nature of God at its heart. Central to this discourse is the stark contrast between the Islamic concept of Tawhid—absolute monotheism—and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Nassir, a prominent Muslim Imam and polemicist in central Indiana, argues against the Trinity, championing the simplicity and purity of Islamic monotheism. However, a closer look from an evangelical perspective reveals that Muhammad's portrayal of God wasn't entirely new but rather a clever blend of cultural borrowing and theological redefinition. This article aims to dismantle Nassir’s arguments and robustly defend the Christian understanding of God, demonstrating the Trinity's theological coherence and biblical foundation.
This article aims to equip readers with a more sophisticated understanding of how to argue against the Muslim idea of God by delving into the intricacies of Muhammad's concept of God and the theological deficiencies therein. You will gain insights into Muhammad's cultural and theological borrowing, the strategic use of the idea of shirk, and the robust defenses of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This will enable you to engage in more informed and effective dialogues with Muslims about the nature of God.
Drawing on the insights of eminent scholars like Kenneth Cragg, Colin Chapman, William Lane Craig, Mark Durie, Richard Bauckham, Peter Riddell, David G. K. Taylor, and the polemicist Jay Smith, I will explore how Muhammad’s monotheistic vision, while politically influential, lacks the essential attributes that define God according to evangelical Christianity. I will counter Nassir’s arguments with rigorous scholarly analysis, showcasing the profound depth and mystery of the Trinity, which encapsulates God’s unity, diversity, and relational love.
In Islamic theology, shirk is considered the gravest sin, entailing the association of partners with Allah. It directly opposes the concept of Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God, which is the central tenet of Islam. Shirk encompasses various forms, from polytheism to attributing divine characteristics to anyone or anything other than Allah.
The Quran repeatedly emphasizes the severity of shirk. It is an unforgivable sin if one dies without repenting from it, highlighting its significance in Islamic belief:
Shirk manifests in various forms:
Pre-Islamic Arabia was a land of many gods, with Allah recognized as a high god among a pantheon. As Crone (1987) and Hawting (1999) highlight, Muhammad seized upon this existing reverence for Allah, promoting Him as the sole deity. This wasn't entirely new but rather a strategic elevation of a familiar concept.
From an evangelical perspective, this redefinition is problematic. The biblical God is unique, not only as the sole deity but also in His triune nature and relational attributes. By presenting a unitarian view of God, Muhammad’s concept diverges significantly from the Trinitarian understanding that defines the Christian God’s relational and loving essence (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17).
Shirk, the sin of associating partners with Allah, is central to Muhammad’s monotheism. This concept directly challenged the prevalent polytheistic practices of his time. Crone (1999) argues that the denunciation of shirk served religious and political purposes, helping Muhammad consolidate his authority by delegitimizing rival religious practices.
Mark Durie further elaborates on this by arguing that Muhammad's stringent opposition to shirk was not merely a theological stance but a strategic move to unify the diverse tribes of Arabia under a single religious and political banner. By condemning all forms of shirk, Muhammad could eliminate the worship of tribal gods and redirect the spiritual focus solely to Allah, thus centralizing religious authority and reducing tribal conflicts (Durie, 2013). This redefinition of idolatry as shirk allowed Muhammad to assert a form of religious purity that was also politically expedient, enabling him to consolidate power and authority.
Initially, Muhammad used the shirk concept to reject his time's prevalent polytheism. However, as his message evolved and encountered the established monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity, shirk became a tool for polemic against Christian beliefs. Specifically, Muhammad's teachings saw the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ as forms of shirk.
Muhammad's use of shirk to critique Christianity highlights his rejection of the core Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. From an evangelical perspective, this polemic reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian theology and the relational nature of God as revealed in the Bible.
Trinitarian Nature:
The most significant theological deficiency in Muhammad’s concept of God is the denial of the Trinity. Christianity teaches that God exists as one essence in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This Trinitarian nature is central to understanding God’s relational and loving character (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17).
The incarnation of Christ:
Christianity teaches that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, the ultimate act of divine love and reconciliation (John 1:14).
Covenant Relationship:
The Bible depicts God entering covenantal relationships with His people, demonstrating His nature and commitment (Genesis 17; Luke 22:20).
Assurance and Grace:
Evangelicals believe in the assurance of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, rooted in God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).
God’s Fatherhood:
Christianity emphasizes God as a loving Father who adopts believers into His family (Romans 8:15).
Nassir argues that the Bible repeatedly emphasizes the oneness of God, questioning why the concept of the Trinity is not mentioned with the same clarity and frequency. While the Bible underscores God's oneness, it reveals a complex unity in the Godhead. The Old Testament hints at this plurality with terms like "Elohim" and references to God's Spirit. The New Testament unfolds this mystery with clear indications of the Trinity, especially in the Gospels and Pauline epistles (Cragg, 1984). The doctrine of the Trinity synthesizes these biblical data, reflecting the unity and diversity within God's nature (Durie, 2013). The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of Israel's God, indicating a complex unity rather than a simple monotheism (Bauckham, 2008).
Nassir points out that Jesus stressed the importance of monotheism, referencing passages where Jesus affirms the Shema, the Jewish declaration of the oneness of God. Jesus' affirmation of the Shema does not contradict the Trinity but aligns with it. Jesus' declaration of oneness with the Father (John 10:30) and his role in the divine mission highlight the relational unity within the Godhead (Chapman, 2003). Jesus' teachings and actions consistently reveal his divine identity, culminating in the Great Commission, where he instructs his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) (Bauckham, 2008). Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah includes divine attributes, underscoring his unique status within the Trinity (Smith, 2010).
Nassir argues that statements like "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) should be understood metaphorically. Such interpretations ignore the broader context and consistent portrayal of Jesus' divine nature throughout the New Testament. Jesus' use of "I am" (Ego Eimi) in John 8:58 directly echoes God's self-identification in Exodus 3:14, asserting his pre-existence and divinity (Craig, 2008). The Jews' reaction to stoning Jesus for blasphemy confirms that they understood his claim as asserting divinity. This is supported by highlighting the unique authority and prerogatives Jesus claims, surpassing any prophet's (Taylor, 2004). Furthermore, the Johannine literature portrays Jesus as having divine status, equating him with God in a manner consistent with Jewish monotheism but expanded to include Jesus within the divine identity (Bauckham, 2008).
Nassir highlights passages where Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, aligning with the Islamic view of Jesus as a human prophet rather than a divine being. Jesus' prophetic role does not exclude his divinity but rather complements it. Jesus is presented as the ultimate prophet, priest, and king, affirming his unique identity as God incarnate (Bird, 2013). Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, authoritative teaching, and resurrection substantiate his divine nature. The cumulative case for Jesus' divinity is made through his teachings, actions, and his followers' responses (Smith, 2010). Additionally, the New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as more than a prophet, with titles such as "Son of God" and "Lord" that denote his divine status (Durie, 2013).
Nassir points out that the Bible explicitly states that God is not a man and does not change, which contradicts the Christian belief in the incarnation of God as Jesus. The incarnation does not imply that God changed his nature but that he assumed human nature while remaining fully divine. The doctrine of the hypostatic union—Jesus being fully God and fully man—addresses this complexity (Cragg, 1994). The biblical assertion that God does not change refers to his eternal nature and faithfulness, not his incapacity to interact with creation personally and redemptively. The consistent biblical portrayal of God's faithfulness and unchanging character, alongside his active engagement in history, supports this view (Bauckham, 2008). The incarnation is a unique act of divine condescension and love, where God engages with humanity in the most intimate way possible without compromising his divine nature (Riddell, 2004).
Nassir questions the coherence of Jesus praying to God if he is God, arguing this implies either insincerity or a contradiction. Jesus' prayers reflect his authentic humanity and relational unity with the Father. Jesus modeled perfect dependence on the Father in his incarnate state, demonstrating his genuine human experience (Chapman, 2005; Sookhdeo, 2004). This relational dynamic within the Trinity showcases the distinct persons of the Godhead in perfect communion. The prayers of Jesus, especially in Gethsemane, reveal the profound mystery of the incarnation, where Jesus fully embraces his human nature while maintaining his divine identity (Durie, 2013).
Nassir notes the Bible uses the term "Son of God" for various figures, not just Jesus, indicating it does not imply divinity. While "Son of God" can be used metaphorically, the New Testament contextually and uniquely applies it to Jesus in a divine sense. Jesus is depicted as the unique, eternal Son, sharing the same essence as the Father (Craig, 2010). This title, his works, teachings, and resurrection affirm his divine identity. The New Testament authors use the term "Son of God" to signify Jesus' unique relationship with the Father, distinguishing him from other "sons" mentioned in the Bible (Riddell, 2004). "Son of God" about Jesus denotes a unique filial relationship that implies ontological equality with God (Bauckham, 2008).
Nassir suggests Jesus' miracles were signs of his prophethood and connection to God, not indications of his divine nature. Jesus' miracles, authoritative claims, and identity as the incarnate Word distinguish him from other prophets. The miracles serve as signs of prophethood and manifestations of his divine authority and power, corroborating his unique identity as God incarnate (Bird, 2007). The nature and purpose of Jesus' miracles, such as forgiving sins and commanding nature, reveal his divine authority and identity (Bauckham, 2008). Jesus' ability to perform miracles in his name and by his authority sets him apart from prophets who performed miracles by invoking God's name (Smith, 2010).
Nassir emphasizes that the Bible describes God as immutable (unchanging), conflicting with the idea of God becoming a man and experiencing human limitations. The immutability of God pertains to his eternal nature and character, not his ability to assume a human nature. As a divine act, the incarnation does not alter God's essential nature but reveals his capacity for relational engagement with humanity (Cragg, 1994; McGrath, 2010). The hypostatic union maintains that Jesus, as fully God and fully man, experiences human limitations while his divine nature remains unchanged. God's unchanging nature does not preclude him from interacting dynamically with his creation (Bauckham, 2008). The incarnation is a unique and mysterious act of divine self-revelation, where God enters human history without compromising his divine essence (Craig, 2008).
Nassir questions the coherence of the Trinity by asking whether an all-knowing God could become ignorant or an immortal God could die. He argues these concepts are inherently contradictory and do not fit the divine nature. The doctrine of the incarnation and the hypostatic union explain this. Jesus' divine nature remains omniscient and immortal, while his human nature experiences human limitations. The dual nature of Christ addresses these apparent contradictions, allowing Jesus to genuinely experience human life while retaining his divine attributes (Craig, 2003). The mystery of the incarnation involves accepting that God's ways and nature transcend human logic, necessitating faith in divine revelation (Durie, 2013). The coherence of God's nature is preserved in the mystery of the Trinity, where Christ's divine and human natures coexist without confusion or division (Cragg, 1994).
Nassir critiques Christian worship practices, such as prayer and using the term "Son of God," suggesting they reflect a misunderstanding of monotheism. Christian worship practices reflect the relational and communal nature of the Trinity. Prayers directed to the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit embody the interrelationships within the Godhead (Sookhdeo, 2009). The term "Son of God" in Christian worship signifies the unique relationship and co-equality of Jesus with the Father, grounded in biblical revelation (Cragg, 1994). Christian worship, including the Trinitarian language, is deeply rooted in the early church's understanding of Jesus' divine identity and mission (Chapman, 2005). The consistent worship of Jesus in the New Testament as divine reflects the early Christian recognition of his unique status within the Godhead (Bauckham, 2008).
Nassir's critique of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity reveals common misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Christian theology. This article demonstrates the Trinity's theological coherence and biblical foundation by addressing these points through the above scholarly insights. The doctrine of the Trinity, far from being an illogical construct, emerges as a profound and essential revelation of God's nature, showcasing his unity, diversity, and relational love.
Bauckham, R. (2008). Jesus and the God of Israel: God crucified and other studies on the New Testament's Christology of divine identity. Eerdmans.
Bird, M. F. (2007). The saving righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, justification and the new perspective. Paternoster.
Bird, M. F. (2013). Evangelical theology: A biblical and systematic introduction. Zondervan.
Chapman, C. (2003). Cross and crescent: Responding to the challenge of Islam. InterVarsity Press.
Chapman, C. (2005). Whose promised land? The continuing crisis over Israel and Palestine. Baker Books.
Craig, W. L. (2003). The coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity. Philosophia Christi, 5(2), 295-312.
Craig, W. L. (2006). The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus: The Craig-Ehrman debate. New Testament Studies, 52(4), 432-444.
Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Crossway.
Craig, W. L. (2010). On guard: Defending your faith with reason and precision. David C. Cook.
Craig, W. L., & Copan, P. (2004). Creation out of nothing: A biblical, philosophical, and scientific exploration. Baker Academic.
Cragg, K. (1984). Muhammad and the Christian: A question of response. Darton, Longman & Todd.
Cragg, K. (1994). The event of the Qur'an: Islam in its scripture. Oneworld Publications.
Durie, M. (2013). Which God?: Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity & Islam. Deror Books.
Taylor, D. G. K. (2004). The development of early Christian language. Brill.
Riddell, P. (2004). Christians and Muslims: Pressures and potential in a post-9/11 world. IVP.
Smith, J. (2010). Islamic dilemma: The Qur'an and the Gospel of Barnabas. AuthorHouse.
Sookhdeo, P. (2004). Islamic radicalism and the West: The challenge for the Christian church. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 47(2), 327-334.
Sookhdeo, P. (2009). The challenge of Islam to the church and its mission. Isaac Publishing.
Ephesians 2:8-9, New International Version (NIV).
Genesis 17, New International Version (NIV).
John 1:14, New International Version (NIV).
John 14:16-17, New International Version (NIV).
Luke 22:20, New International Version (NIV).
Matthew 28:19, New International Version (NIV).
Romans 8:15, New International Version (NIV).
Surah 4:171, The Quran.
Surah 5:72, The Quran.
Surah 23:102-103, The Quran.
Wansbrough, J. (1977). Shirk and its implications in the early Islamic community. In Quranic Studies: Sources and methods of scriptural interpretation (pp. 75-98). Oxford University Press.
