This article is the second in a trilogy which addresses the three-pronged approach
Truth For Muslims takes in confronting the challenge of Islam. It follows part
1, “Muslim Evangelism,” in which John Marion discussed the need of all mankind
for the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and specifically how to witness to
Muslims. In this issue, he and Ben Adams explain what is meant by “Apologetics”
and how it responds Biblically to the theological challenge of Islam. Part 3,
“Accountability,” will discuss political Islam.
What Is Apologetics?
A good question deserves a good answer. The first task is to introduce the idea of apologetics to those who are unfamiliar
with it, and to define it as Scripturally as possible. The best place to begin is where the word is actually used by the
Bible, in I Peter 3:15. But first, some context:
But if indeed you suffer because of righteousness, you are blessed. I Peter 3:14a
Therefore apologetics is not primarily a way to avoid persecution or counter derision.
And do not fear the fear of them, and do not be troubled; but sanctify [set apart] Christ as Lord in your hearts—always
being ready to give an answer [α̉πολογία] to every one asking you for a reason
[λογός] concerning the hope that is in you; I Peter 3:14b-15
So neither is apologetics the response of fear, i.e., giving an answer because of threats or terror. It is not
“apologetic” in the sense of being self-deprecating or weak-kneed, nor is it begging forgiveness for having
given offense—“apologizing” for the Crusades, intolerance, etc. Repentance and reconciliation are good, but
they are not apologetics.
Giving an Answer
So the preceding context of this verse tells us what apologetics is not. The word itself tells us what it is.
The term “answer” (or “defense”) in verse 15 is the Greek α̉πολογία (apologia),
from the preposition α̉πο (apo) “against, contra, opposed to” + the noun λογός
(logos) “word, reason, story, argument, logic.”
Apologetics, then, is literally a “counterargument”: a reasoned, logical,
carefully argued answer—an answer not to mockery or threats or derision,2 but
rather a strong, polite answer to a genuine question from a skeptic or seeker.
It is not admitting wrongdoing, but rather defending what is right. It is
argument, but it is not quarreling. It may sometimes take the form of debate,
but it is not an attempt to destroy an opponent, nor is it a mere intellectual
exercise. The next verse gives us the purpose of apologetics, and thus the way
in which it should be carried out:
—yet do this with gentleness and fear, having a good conscience, in order
that while you are spoken against, the ones abusing you may be shamed by your
good conduct in Christ. I Peter 3:16
Here for a third time is the word fear, φόβος (phobos)—but a new kind of
fear, a fear now sanctified by the Lordship of Christ and by “the hope that is
in you.” This is not the same fear of verse 14: it
is a fear that does not fear persecution; a righteous and courageous fear; a
holy dread of the majesty of God and a recognition of the awesome responsibly of
speaking persuasively to the nonbeliever.
The Reason for the Reason
And why ought we do this? “In order that the ones abusing you may be put to
shame by your good conduct in Christ.” There is no room left here for spiteful
language or contentiousness, shabby straw-man arguments, or Bible-thumping.
Indeed apologetics rightly practiced is a form of doing good to our enemies, and
thereby heaping burning coals of shame on their heads. The task—the very
difficult task—is to hold an irrefutable argument, and present it with such love
and grace that the opponent is shamed, persuaded, and ultimately drawn at least
one step nearer to God.
Apologetics is answering the critics, meaning those outside the faith. It is not
about intramural debates over interpretations, but about defending the core
doctrines of Christianity: the fundamentals.
The Rational and the Personal
The process of persuasion and conversion occurs on many levels inside the mind
and soul, and apologetics does not address those which are emotional or
instinctive. One can be argued into a position, but not into an entire upheaval
of one’s worldview and belief system. Instead, apologetics addresses the
rational parts of the soul and provides arguments why Christianity is
reasonable, or why it is a better way to live than some other faith—or maybe it
simply tears down the bad reasons people have for not following Christ. It
strengthens the faith of those Christians who hear it, and it frequently plays a
necessary part in the evangelism process for those who are yet unsaved.
We know Jesus Christ, the Person Who Is the Truth. Truth is more than merely
rational or factual because it starts as personal. Our task is to convey the
fullness of Christ to everyone who needs Him, and part of that lies within the
realm of rational discourse.
However, knowing the truth is not the same as having an argument for it, and
having an argument is not the same as having an answer, and having an answer is
not the same as understanding the question.
Apologetics demands of us all these things. It begins with Christ, and ends by
pointing to Him, but like the rest of the Christian life, it is quite a lot of
hard work along the way.
A Different Doctrine
Apologetics in response to Islam requires some unique strategies (which will be
discussed below), but it often begins from the standard arguments that have to
be made against basic atheism or the cults. The facts that Jesus is the Son of
God and that He died on the cross and rose from the dead are at odds with
Islamic teaching. Muslims often aggressively attack these key doctrines of the
Christian faith.
This refusal to accept the biblical view of Jesus is clearly stated in Islam’s
theological texts. Over the centuries, Muslims have developed various arguments
to attack Christian doctrine, especially the historical beliefs of the Church
about Christ.
The clearest example of this attack is the rejection of the death and
resurrection of Christ. One Quranic verse which is especially used by Muslim
theologians when denying the crucifixion is Surah 4:157:
…they [the Jews] said (in boast),
“We killed Christ Jesus
The son of Mary,
The Messenger of Allah”;–
But they killed him not,
Nor crucified him.
Only a likeness of that
Was shown to them.
The commentary on this verse by the Saudi editors of the Quran plainly states
both the Christian and Islamic positions on the death of Christ.
The Orthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrine that
his life was taken on the Cross, that he died and was buried, that on the third
day he rose in the body with his wounds intact, and walked about and conversed,
and ate with his disciples, and was afterwards taken up bodily to heaven. This
is necessary for the theological doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious
atonement for sins, which is rejected by Islam.
Thus Islamic teaching recognizes and denies unambiguously this most crucial and
central of Christian doctrines: the substitutionary death and bodily
resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Instead, someone else was made to
look like Jesus and “miraculously” substituted in His place.
History and Prophecy
The Muslim denial of Christ’s death and resurrection can easily be answered with
historical facts. Jesus Christ is not a mythical character but a historical
figure who actually lived and died and rose from the dead. The circumstances of
his life and death are verified by historical record. The 1st-century historian
Josephus documented the account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ,
but the clearest historical account is found in the New Testament, recorded by
those who were there—men like the Apostle Peter, who wrote:
We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as
this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory: “This is My beloved Son with whom I
am well-pleased”—
and we ourselves heard this utterance being borne out of heaven when we were
with Him on the holy mountain.
And so we have the prophetic word made more certain, to which you do well to
take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the
morning star arises in your hearts.
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s
own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever borne by the will of man; but men
borne along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false
teachers among you….
II Peter 1:16-2:1
We know Christ lived, died, and rose again because of the testimony of hundreds
of eyewitnesses—many of whom accepted death rather than deny what they had seen.
We know it also because of the thousands of Old Testament prophecies which He
fulfilled during His life and by His death—prophecies which cannot be made to
apply to Mohammed or any other historical figure.
But while every Biblical prophet points to Christ Jesus, Islam seeks to set up a
new prophet who points to himself. He reinterprets holy Scripture as he wills,
and sets up a new teaching to supersede it. He did not claim to be “borne along
by the Holy Spirit,” but rather to receive dictation from an angel. Here is what
Scripture says to that:
But even if we or an angel out of heaven should preach to you a gospel besides
what we have preached to you, let him be accursed! Galatians 1:8
Islam, however, attempts to slither past this condemnation as well.
Changing the Text
When confronted with the clear words of Scripture, Islamic doctrine counters the
New Testament evidence of Christ’s death and resurrection by claiming that
Christians have changed the Bible to fit their own doctrine!
Although conservative Bible scholars have answered the claims of liberal
critics, Muslim debaters point toward the old works of liberal scholars as
“proof” that the Bible has been changed, or they twist the meanings of
conservative scholars by taking their words out of context.
For example, the Index of Quranic Topics quotes the Encyclopædia Britannica,
Yet as a matter of fact,
every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great epistles of
St. Paul is at present, more or less the subject of controversy, and
interpolations are asserted even in them.
The Muslim theologian or apologist is not interested in getting to the bottom of
the scholarly debate, but only in bolstering his own position. So intent is he
on driving home the point of “even the Christians admit the Bible has been
changed,” that he will use any available source, good or bad, current or dated.
Evidence which contradicts his predetermined position is dismissed—usually by
changing the subject and appealing to other arguments.
Shameful Truth and Noble Lie
One such dodge to avoid the actual historical evidence for Christ’s death and
resurrection is to evoke sympathy toward the Islamic position. The Muslims claim
that they honor Jesus more than the Christians! It is the Christians, the
argument goes, who bring dishonor to Jesus by claiming that he died a shameful
death; while the Muslims honor Jesus by claiming that Allah saved Him from being
crucified.
It is important to remember that honor and shame are extremely important in the
Islamic world-view. Within this mind-set, truth is much less important than
honor. In a sense, honor—rather than facts—establishes truth. Therefore, since
it is honorable to say that Allah saved Jesus from a shameful death, it must be
true. In other words, any fact which is perceived as shameful should not be
believed, stated, or tolerated.
So while Muslims do “honor” Christ in a way, they make the mistake of doing it
on their own terms—on their “own interpretation”—and therefore they make Him out
to be a liar. In the process of “honoring” Jesus (by sparing him the shame of
death), they even flout God Himself, who says of Christ,
“This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” Matthew 17:5
Islam fails to realize that it was essential for Christ to die a shameful death,
precisely so our shame could be taken away forever. This is the confusion that
arises when a false prophet speaks by his own human will, and ignores the Word
of God.
Indeed, the entire Muslim world-view fosters deception. The Muslim community
perpetrates the lie—meanwhile reinforcing the “group-think” mentality—and
eventually pushes it outward onto non-Muslims because that which is most
honorable to say is better than that which is true. So while Islamic theology
actually removes Jesus from the high position recorded in the Bible, Muslims
say—and really believe—that they are honoring Jesus with their claims about him
from the Quran.
Dismantling the Deception
The perfect example of pseudo-honor mixed with deception is this reprinted
newspaper ad by CAIR. (Observe the picture closely: it’s from Jerusalem.)
This well-crafted ad carefully selects a verse from the Qur’an which speaks well
of Jesus, and then says that Muslims respect and revere him. Note that it does
not say they “believe in him” or that they believe in the Christian Scriptures.
Note also that while it calls Jesus a “prophet” and “messenger” from God (both
true), he is not the “Son of God,” nor is he the greatest: he is “one of the
greatest” (because Mohammed is the last and greatest prophet). The Quranic verse
says “Jesus is one of those brought near to God”; but the Bible says that we,
ourselves, draw near to God—through Christ.
…we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son
of God…. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace….
Hebrews 4:14, 16
But Islam has no basis upon which a Muslim can approach Allah with confidence.
Islam has no room in its doctrine for grace.
Islam has no High Priest, no mediator between God and man. And this is where the
outright lying begins.
Note the last paragraph, about Jesus’ teachings of “love, peace, and
forgiveness.” This is no more than telling the vaguely Christian American
audience what it wants to hear. The truth is that the only “peace” in Islam
comes when the whole world is under the thumb of Islam— peace is not a state of
the heart, but a social circumstance. The truth is that “Allah the merciful”
only loves and forgives those who have already submitted to him— there is
nothing in Islam that can say “love your enemies” or “forgive those who trespass
against you.” And CAIR knows it.
Do Islam and Christianity have things in common? Of course. Unlike the atheists,
we both believe and assert that God exists. Unlike the polytheists, we assert
that there is only one God. But the purpose of an ad like this is not to point
out legitimate commonalities; rather, it seeks to persuade the reader to believe
that “Islam is another one of the world’s great religions—just like Christianity
or Judaism.” It does not seek to convince us that “Muslims are people too”
(which is true); rather, it seeks to convince us of the falsehood which says
that Islam is compatible with Christianity.
A Comprehensive Problem
To the western mind, these kinds of tactics look like duplicity. It seems like a
cheat, like shabby argumentation, to jump from religion to sociology, or from
logic to emotion, or from politics to violence. But the eastern mind does not
make these distinctions. Accordingly, Islam is more than a religion: it is a
wholistic system, a totalizing and comprehensive way of life. Thus the Islamic
argument against Christianity is never limited to theology.
Samuel Zwemer, a Christian missionary to Muslims in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries (who has been called the “Apostle to Islam”) wrote, “The strength of
Islam is its composite character.”
Muslim leaders therefore are able to use theo-logical arguments not only against
Christianity but also against social problems, modes of dress, forms of
government, or anything they label un-Islamic. They are able to switch the form
of debate easily and seamlessly from religion to sociology to politics to
anything else to advance the cause of Islam.
The American mind tends to categorize and separate topics. This works to the
Muslim’s advantage. When the Muslim promotes an idea that the American perceives
as a political issue, and then disagrees, the Muslim can easily shift it into a
religious and theological topic. This puts the American at a disadvantage
because of his self-imposed reluctance to attack other religions or his total
ignorance of religious and spiritual issues.
Thus it’s extremely important for not only Christians but also non-Christians to
understand Apologetics, especially those who are working on national security
against Islamic terrorism. One cannot understand Muslim terrorists without
understanding Islam as a comprehensive system, including how that religion truly
compares to Christian and Jewish beliefs.
Apologetics is Not Enough
Since Islam is more than a religion, Apologetics is not an adequate response on
its own. However, Christianity is also more than just a religion, and it is
relevant as far more than merely a set of doctrinal facts.
The last issue of Truth Messenger explained the Evangelism component of the
3-fold response. While Evangelism is a practical effort to give Muslims the
truth by reaching out to them with the love of Christ, Evangelism combined with
Apologetics is still not enough. The two alone offer very little in response to
the political & social threat of Islam. There is no “salt” to purify or preserve
the culture.
The next issue of Truth Messenger will explain the public “Accountability”
component of the 3-fold response. Accountability is also crucial, but neither it
nor Apologetics can offer Muslims love—or a way to escape the trap of Islam.
That takes Evangelism.
Evangelism and Accountability provide plenty of opportunity for Christians and
Muslims to talk openly, either in interfaith dialogue or political and social
dialogue. But without Apologetics, they are left with an anemic and assailable
theology: easy prey for shrewd Islamic apologists.
What is needed to fight the comprehensive system of Islam is a comprehensive,
Biblical response.
A Comprehensive Response
Islam is confronting American law & society, Church doctrine, and all of Western
civilization with its 1,400-year-old, well-developed, subtle ideology. It is a
robust system, and cannot be countered by the West’s current pluralistic,
post-modern hodge-podge of disassociated and contradictory beliefs and
practices. Only a system equally comprehensive, but more robust and more
coherent, will survive in the face of Islam. This system will have to be either
a better lie… or the truth.
Jesus Christ is the Truth. Biblical Christianity is the truth about Him. When
extended through a whole worldview and lived out faithfully by the Church, this
truth carries the power to defeat Islam, because it carries the power of Christ.
Apologetics is a piece of the solution, but the solution itself is the Gospel.
The three parts of the Comprehensive, Biblical Response are the Gospel, applied
against Islam in three distinct ways. This is why each of the three areas of the
response is utterly essential. Each is biblical, and each has a unique role to
play. Together, they offer a truly comprehensive answer to the “composite
character” of Islam which Zwemer recognized 100 years ago.
Other popular articles:
Types of Muslims
The House of War
Jesus in the Quran
The Battle of Karbala
The Role
of the Mosque in Society
The Hijacking of America's Schools
Benedict XVI Speech on Faith and Reason
Prince Charles Promotes Islam to President Bush
Truth For Muslims
Truth For Muslims is bringing a comprehensive, biblical response to Islam in America