返回总目录
Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction - Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun.
Search
and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to
search for articles on this site.
My response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal to my article
"Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the
disbelieving husbands to believing wives!":
This article is a response to Mr. Sam Shamoun's article, which is located at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/salvation.htm
He wrote:
Paul, Peter and John perfectly agree with one another regarding
salvation
My response:
Paul, Peter and John did not "perfectly" agree with one another regarding
salvation, because as I will prove below, Paul was a confused liar.
He wrote:
It has become clear to us that Osama’s alleged rebuttals to our thorough replies
are nothing more than attempts of trying to save face in the eyes of his readers.
My response:
Cheap comment that is not worth responding to.
He wrote:
Osama seemingly hopes to convince his readers that he is able to actually respond to
our material which demonstrate his gross errors.
My response:
Arrogance is what you and your team mates suffer from. Frankly, I don't think
anything of myself except that I am an honest Truth seeker. If that bothers you,
then that's your problem. The Truth will ultimately crush you and expose you.
He wrote:
In his latest supposed response to our reply regarding the issue of women in
the Bible and Islam, Osama has produced more irrelevant arguments and logical
fallacies, as well as managing to continue with his mantra syndrome.
My response:
My article is located at: www.answering-christianity.com/view_of_women_rebuttal.htm.
In this article I raised some serious questions about the Bible's views toward
women. For your convenience, I even increased their fonts, changed their colors to
blue and centered them. Care to respond to them? Until now, 9/10/2003, you
have not produced a response to this article. Why is that Mr. Shamoun?
He wrote:
Suffice it to say, we will produce a final refutation of his arguments against our
response in order to show our readers that Osama is not qualified to write criticisms of
the Bible and is quite incapable of defending Islam.
My response:
We're all waiting. But until then, please spare us from your ridiculous arrogant
comments.
He wrote:
In trying to address our rebuttal, Osama managed to "discover" some verses
regarding women and their husbands which
he thinks are contradictory. Here, we seek to address Osama’s attempt of pitting
the Apostle Paul against the Apostles Peter and John. We aim to show once again that
Osama’s criticisms are based on a deliberate twisting of the Holy Scriptures, gross
logical fallacies and a misunderstanding of the passages in question.
My response:
Below, we'll see who's really running away from the Truth Mr. Shamoun.
He wrote:
Osama starts off by analyzing a passage from the Apostle Peter, one originally quoted
in our rebuttal:
Let us first look at what Peter said:
1 Peter 3
1. Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so
that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words
by the behavior of their wives,
2. when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
3. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the
wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
4. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle
and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.
5. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to
make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,
6. like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters
if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
This passage of Peter directly contradicts Paul's. While Peter is asking women to be
positive with their disbelieving husbands so that their husbands MIGHT be persuaded to
embrace Christianity through their wives positive actions "they
may be won over without words.....when they see the purity and reverence of your
lives.", Paul said something totally different:
1 Corinthians 7:10-15:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the
Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.
And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a
believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with
her, she must not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the
unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your
children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not
bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
Quick Note: Notice how the NIV Bible
translators put (I, not the Lord) in parenthesis. They are suggesting that Paul in
verses 12 through 15 was speaking only his own personal words and wasn't inspired by GOD
Almighty, even thought HE NEVER DECLARED IT IN THESE VERSES. This is only their
interpretation and addition. In any how, even if they were right, and Paul wasn't
speaking GOD Almighty's Words, then this still would contradict Paul's own words in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is
God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
righteousness," Obviously, not all the Bible is God-breathed because Paul in 1
Corinthians 7:12-15 would've contradicted that, as he also clearly contradicted it in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 when he said that he is not always inspired
by GOD Almighty, because both sets of verses are now PERMANENTLY PRESERVED in the Bible,
which obviously doesn't make all of the Bible "God-breathed".
Maybe 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 is what gave the NIV Bible translators the liberty to consider
1 Corinthians 7:12-15 as Paul's own words (even though he never said so) and not GOD's.
This obviously proves that the Bible is so cheap to them that they would give themselves
the liberty to add and take off from it as they please without fearing anything.
RESPONSE:
Since we have already addressed what Paul actually meant in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25,
we won’t repeat ourselves here. We simply forward our readers to our discussion of
this passage which can be found near the end of these articles:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_lies1.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible_r1.htm
This issue was also addressed in our response to MENJ, which can be accessed here:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/inspired.htm
My response:
Mr. Shamoun here deliberately avoided responding to my comments
regarding the NIV Bible translators who tried to disown verses 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 by
deliberately inserting (not I, but the Lord) in parenthesis to avoid the problem of
contradiction and utter nonsense that obvious. So instead, they want it to be
considered as "Divinely" inspired to protect Paul and make it sound much
stronger and Divinely authentic.
Mr. Shamoun, were these verses from GOD
Almighty, or Paul's own innovations?
Even this simple question was not answered. Amazing!
He wrote:
Osama asserts:
Anyway, is Paul suggesting here that a disbelieving man or woman would still be
purified/cleansed and win Paradise just because they are married to a believer? I
don't quite understand his logic here! How can a believing woman raise her children,
especially in a male-dominated society (where a woman follows everything her husband says
and does) back then, to be polytheist trinitarian pagans who believe in 3 gods, while the
disbelieving husband might interfere heavily with that? Would the disbelieving
husband and the disbelieving children still be saved even if they don't embrace the
polytheist trinity paganism just because the wife/mother is a believer? Is this what
Paul meant by "sanctified"?
As we clearly see above, while Peter recommended for the wives to be very positive with
their disbelieving husbands so that these husbands might be "won over" (meaning
embrace the religion) through their wives' actions, Paul said that the disbelieving
husbands would be "sanctified" through their believing wives. Not only the
disbelieving husbands, but also their children even if these children became disbelievers.
RESPONSE:
It is quite astonishing to see Osama’s audacious mockery of the true Triune God
BASED ON HIS BLATANT MISQUOTATION AND MISINTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT. Osama deliberately
omits the one verse which exposes his gross exegetical blunder. I say deliberately since I
cannot see how a person reading 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 could have missed what follows right
after. Here is 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, yet this time adding verse 16:
"To the rest I say - I, not the Lord - if a brother has a wife who is not a
believer and she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if a woman has
a husband who is not a believer and he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce
him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified because of the wife, and the unbelieving
wife because of her husband. Otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the
brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace. For how do you know, wife,
WHETHER YOU WILL BRING YOUR HUSBAND TO SALVATION? Or how do you know, husband, WHETHER YOU
WILL BRING YOUR WIFE TO SALVATION? NET Bible
My response:
Mr. Shamoun, I did not deliberately twist the Truth here! I did read 1
Corinthians 7:16 and I addressed in my updated initial article which until now you have
not responded to. For the reader's convenience, I will post what I added to my
initial article. I hope that you directly answer my questions below:
From www.answering-christianity.com/paul_peter_contra.htm
Anyway, is Paul suggesting here that a disbelieving man or woman would still be
purified/cleansed and win Paradise just because they are married to a believer? I
don't quite understand his logic here! How can a believing woman raise her children,
especially in a male-dominated society (where a woman follows everything her husband says
and does) back then, to be polytheist trinitarian pagans who believe in 3 gods, while the
disbelieving husband might interfere heavily with that? Would the disbelieving
husband and the disbelieving children still be saved even if they don't embrace the
polytheist trinity paganism just because the wife/mother is a believer? Is this what
Paul meant by "sanctified"?
Please visit: Paul nullified
and contradicted the point of Baptism.
Also, notice "but as it is, they are holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 above. It really doesn't just mean that the
disbelieving children would be considered "holy", but also the disbelieving
spouse (male or female).
What does Paul here mean by
"holy"??!! If the disbelieving spouse would still not be saved in the End,
then what is the point from considering them "holy"??!!
How does all of this fit with Paul's very next verse in 1 Corinthians 7:16:
"How do you know, wife, whether you will save
your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save
your wife? (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:16)"
So if the wife/husband can never save their
spouse unless GOD Almighty Wills, then again, what is the point from calling the
disbelieving spouses and the disbelieving children as "holy"?!
It is clear that Paul's "holy"
title to disbelieving spouses and children proved to be irrelevant and absolutely
pointless! Hence, this makes the Bible imperfect in it's contents and literature,
since it contains utter nonsense and foolish opinions in it. Hence, this
makes the Bible not the 100% True Holy Words of GOD Almighty.
Why should GOD Almighty, if He truly inspired Paul's nonsense, call disbelievers as
"holy" and still roast them in Hell? Wouldn't that make the Perfect GOD
Almighty inconsistent and a hypocrite?
Where is the Divine Perfection in this?!
Again, please visit: Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.
He wrote:
Let us now compare this with what Peter wrote:
"In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then even if some are
disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word BY THE WAY YOU LIVE, when
they see your pure and reverent conduct." 1 Peter 3:1-2
Both Peter and Paul state that the unbelieving husband may be won over to the faith,
and hence salvation, through the wife’s faithfulness and devotion. Therefore, PAUL IS
PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH PETER. It is only Osama’s willful wrenching of the context
that leads to an alleged contradiction.
My response:
Paul is a confused liar who exposed himself by himself. Again, answer my
questions above.
He wrote:
Osama erroneously thinks that being sanctified means being saved. It is true of course,
that the word sanctified in Greek, hegiastai which comes from the verb hagiazo,
can refer to those who are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but not in every
instance. For a discussion on the broad range of meanings of hagiazo, please read
the following article: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/sanctified.htm.
My response:
Oh yeah? Then why did Paul also call the disbelieving spouses "holy"?!
If those disbelievers are "sanctified" and are "holy", then
wouldn't that mean that they will be saved??!!
If not, then Paul is obviously a confused moron who talks utter nonsense! Again,
answer my questions above please.
He wrote:
Paul in verse 16 makes it explicit that the unbelieving spouse is NOT saved by the
faith of the other partner, demonstrating clearly that Osama has twisted the text to suit
his agenda.
My response:
"Osama has twisted the text to suit his agenda"? I'll let the reader do
the laughing for me on this one.
He wrote:
The word Paul uses for salvation in 16 is not hegiastai but sooseis,
which comes from soozo. Soozo can mean:
1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
a) one (from injury or peril)
1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to
make well, heal, restore to health
2) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue
b) to save in the technical biblical sense
1) negatively
a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance
(Source: Blue
Letter Bible)
If Paul wanted to imply that the unbeliever was saved as a result of the other
spouse’s faith then he could have used soozo instead of hagiazo. In
fact, there would have been no need for Paul to explain to the believing spouse that
staying with the unbelieving partner may lead to the latter’s salvation since this
would have already been made clear from the Apostle’s statement that the
believer’s family are (not may be) sanctified.
My response:
Mr. Shamoun, Paul still called those disbelievers "holy" and they are
"sanctified". Again, answer these questions please:
What does Paul here mean by
"holy"??!! If the disbelieving spouse would still not be saved in the End,
then what is the point from considering them "holy"??!!
How does all of this fit with Paul's very next verse in 1 Corinthians 7:16:
"How do you know, wife, whether you will save
your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save
your wife? (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:16)"
So if the wife/husband can never save their
spouse unless GOD Almighty Wills, then again, what is the point from calling the
disbelieving spouses and the disbelieving children as "holy"?!
It is clear that Paul's "holy"
title to disbelieving spouses and children proved to be irrelevant and absolutely
pointless! Hence, this makes the Bible imperfect in it's contents and literature,
since it contains utter nonsense and foolish opinions in it. Hence, this
makes the Bible not the 100% True Holy Words of GOD Almighty.
Why should GOD Almighty, if He truly inspired Paul's nonsense, call disbelievers as
"holy" and still roast them in Hell? Wouldn't that make the Perfect GOD
Almighty inconsistent and a hypocrite?
Where is the Divine Perfection in this?!
He wrote:
We still need to explain what Paul meant that the unbelieving spouse and the children
are sanctified by the believing partner’s faith. Sanctified here has a twofold
meaning. First, the unbelieving partner and children are sanctified or set apart in that
they come under a godly influence, which other unbelieving families do not experience. In
other words, the believing spouse exposes the family to a moral and spiritual lifestyle
which impacts the way they live. Instead of living as heathens and in ungodliness, both
the spouse and the children maybe influenced to live morally upright lives because of the
example set by the believing member.
In the words of renowned Evangelical Scholar Craig L. Blomberg:
... Verse 14 supplies the rationale for Paul’s insistence on preserving the
marriage: there are spin-off blessings for the non-Christian spouse and children that come
from having even one member of the family follow the Lord. ‘Sanctified’ and
‘holy’ cannot here mean ‘saved,’ AS VERSE 16 PROVES. Rather they
refer to ‘the moral and spiritual impact of the life of the believer’ on the
rest of the family, making those family members ‘set apart in a very special
place… as God’s object of devotion.’ (Blomberg, The NIV Application
Commentary - 1 Corinthians [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI], p. 135; bold
and capital emphasis ours)
The prophet Joseph is an example of how a believer can bring the unbelieving members of
a household under the sphere of God’s blessings and influence:
"Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt. An Egyptian named Potiphar, an
official of Pharaoh and the captain of the guard, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who
had brought him there. The Lord was with Joseph. He was successful and lived in the
household of his Egyptian master. His master observed that the Lord was with him and
that the Lord made everything he was doing successful. So Joseph found favor in his sight
and became his personal attendant. Potiphar appointed Joseph overseer of his household
and put him in charge of everything he owned. From the time Potiphar appointed him over
his household and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the Egyptian's household for
Joseph's sake. The blessing of the Lord was on everything that he had, both in his house
and in his fields. So Potiphar left everything he had in Joseph's care; he gave no
thought to anything except the food he ate." Genesis 39:1-6
My response:
Mr. Shamoun, how about the word "holy"? You can't explain one word and
leave the other since they're both connected in the verses! You're explanation above
easily collapses when one tries to justify the two words "sanctified" and
"holy" together.
It's quite obvious that Paul spoke utter nonsense when he called the
disbelieving spouses as "holy" and are "sanctified".
Also Mr. Shamoun, as a believer in the
polytheist trinity paganism, wouldn't you be concerned about the "holy"
disbelieving children being raised as nonbelievers?! How can those "holy"
and "sanctified" children be saved if they're raised to be disbelievers?
Why wasn't Paul concerned about them? And what does calling them "holy"
and "sanctified" have ANYTHING TO DO with them being saved?!
It's like me saying to you "I love you with all my heart Sam Shamoun", and
yet, I chop your head with my sword! What kind of love do I really have toward you
here Mr. Shamoun, who is holy and sanctified??
He wrote:
Secondly, the OT scriptures viewed marriage between believers and heathens as defiling
and children of such a union were considered unclean as well. Cf. Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah
9:1-2; 10:30; 13:1-3, 23-31.
My response:
Thank you for showing us this contradiction between Paul and the Old Testament.
More proofs that Paul is a confused liar.
He wrote:
Paul, however, states that under the New Covenant the believing spouse makes the
marital union acceptable in the eyes of God.
My response:
Paul's "holy" and "sanctified" titles that he gave to the
disbelieving spouses and the disbelieving children have proven themselves to be utter
nonsense Mr. Shamoun, and you know it well.
Again, why should GOD Almighty, if He truly
inspired Paul's nonsense, call disbelievers as "holy" and still roast them in
Hell? Wouldn't that make the Perfect GOD Almighty inconsistent and a hypocrite?
Where is the Divine Perfection in this?!
He wrote:
The late A.T. Robertson, considered to be one of the leading Greek Grammarians of all
time, noted:
Is sanctified in the wife (???asta? e? t? ???a???).
Perfect passive indicative of a??a??, to set apart, to
hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved
by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he
only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce.
If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is
holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men
to get confused over Paul's language. Else were your children unclean (epe? a?a ta te??a a?a?a?ta). The common ellipse of the
condition with epe?: "since, accordingly, if it
is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (a?a?a?ta)."
If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not
illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be
baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the
child was not a???? till it was baptized. The verse
throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer). (Source)
In agreement the Geneva Study Bible says:
(9) He answers an objection: but the faithful is defiled
by the company of the unfaithful. The apostle denies that, and proves that the faithful
man with good conscience may use the vessel of his unfaithful wife, by this, that their
children which are born of them are considered holy or legitimate (that is, contained
within the promise): for it is said to all the faithful, "I will be your God, and the
God of your seed."
(h) The godliness of the wife is of more force to cause their
marriage to be considered holy, than the infidelity of the husband is to profane the
marriage.
(i) The infidel is not sanctified or made holy in his own
person, but in respect of his wife, he is sanctified to her.
(k) To the faithful husband.
(l) The children are holy in the same sense that their
parents are; that is they are sanctified, or lawfully espoused together, so the children
born of them were in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate. (Ed.) (Source)
In both Islam and Christianity there is the general principle that believers should
marry believers. The passage 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, however, points to one area in which
there is a fundamental difference: If there is a married couple of unbelievers, and one of
the spouses becomes a believer, what consequence does this have for their marriage?
My response:
Mr. Shamoun, it's the "holy" and "sanctified" titles that proved to
be utter nonsense! The Bible may not force the marriage to be broken between
disbelieving spouses, but it also talked utter nonsense when it called the disbelievers
"holy" and "sanctified" when they will eventually roast in Hell (according to the pornful bible, the book of vaginas and breasts taste like
"wine").
Did Paul even know what the word "holy" really mean? I highly doubt it.
He wrote:
The New Testament teaches that the marriage covenant is to be honored and the family
preserved. If the unbeliever wants to continue, the believer should not divorce him or
her. Islam on the other hand demands the divorce at least in the case that the wife
becomes a Muslim. In Islamic law, a Muslimah can never be married to a non-Muslim. Islam
destroys such families.
My response:
Islam is concerned about saving the believers and the children! Islam is not a
hypocritical and nonsensical religion as your polytheist trinity is. GOD Almighty in
Islam doesn't tell disbelievers that they're "holy" and then surprises them with
an eternal punishment in Hell.
Your Bible had proven itself over and over again to be full of utter nonsense and
man-made lies and alterations/innovations.
He wrote:
Osama turns his attention to John’s theology:
Now let us look at what John said:
John 3
15. that everyone who believes in him may have eternal
life.
16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Again, Paul clearly contradicted John 3:16 "that
whoever believes in him shall not perish". How can a disbelieving husband not
perish even if his wife was a believer?
No matter how you interpret 1 Peter 3:1-6, whether it meant to say that the
disbelieving husbands are automatically purified through their believing wives, or it
meant to say that the disbelieving husbands might be persuaded to embrace the pagan
polytheist religion, 1 Peter 3:16 still would be in clear contradiction with Paul or John
in either case!
RESPONSE:
Did Paul contradict John? Let us see:
"For since in the wisdom of God, the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was
pleased to save THOSE WHO BELIEVE by the foolishness of preaching." 1 Corinthians
1:21
"Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I
preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being
saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you - unless you BELIEVED in vain."
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Note here that Paul implies that it is belief in the Gospel which results in
perseverance that saves a person.
My response:
Yet, Paul calls the disbelievers as "holy" and "sanctified".
Again Mr. Shamoun, I will ask the same questions:
What does Paul here mean by
"holy"??!! If the disbelieving spouse would still not be saved in the End,
then what is the point from considering them "holy"??!!
How does all of this fit with Paul's very next verse in 1 Corinthians 7:16:
"How do you know, wife, whether you will save
your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save
your wife? (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:16)"
So if the wife/husband can never save their
spouse unless GOD Almighty Wills, then again, what is the point from calling the
disbelieving spouses and the disbelieving children as "holy"?!
It is clear that Paul's "holy"
title to disbelieving spouses and children proved to be irrelevant and absolutely
pointless! Hence, this makes the Bible imperfect in it's contents and literature,
since it contains utter nonsense and foolish opinions in it. Hence, this
makes the Bible not the 100% True Holy Words of GOD Almighty.
Why should GOD Almighty, if He truly inspired Paul's nonsense, call disbelievers as
"holy" and still roast them in Hell? Wouldn't that make the Perfect GOD
Almighty inconsistent and a hypocrite?
Where is the Divine Perfection in this?!
He wrote:
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God's power for salvation to
everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16
"because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart
one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has
salvation." Romans 10:9-10, 13
Paul also speaks of being justified freely through FAITH:
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law
and the prophets) has been disclosed - namely, the righteousness of God through the
faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all WHO BELIEVE. For there is no distinction, for all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God publicly displayed him as the mercy
seat by his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in
his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to
demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the
justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness. Where, then, is boasting?
It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle OF FAITH! For we
consider that a person is declared righteous BY FAITH apart from the works of the law.
Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the
Gentiles too! Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised BY FAITH and the
uncircumcised THROUGH FAITH. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not!
Instead we uphold the law." Romans 3:21-31
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has
discovered regarding this matter? For if Abraham was declared righteous by the works of
the law, he has something to boast about (but not before God). For what does the scripture
say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’
Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. But
to the one who does not work, but BELIEVES in the one who declares the ungodly
righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness. So even David himself speaks
regarding the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count sin.’ Is
this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say,
‘faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.’ How then
was it credited to him? Was he circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised
but uncircumcised! And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness
that he had BY FAITH while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the
father of all those WHO BELIEVE but have never been circumcised, that they too could have
righteousness credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are
not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the FAITH that our father
Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to
his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but
through the righteousness that COMES BY FAITH. For if they become heirs by the law,
faith is empty and the promise is nullified. For the law brings wrath, because where there
is no law there is no transgression either. For this reason it is BY FAITH so that it
may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the
descendants - not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have THE
FAITH of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, ‘I have
made you the father of many nations’). He is our father in the presence of
God whom he believed - the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not
yet exist as though they already do. Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result
that he became the father of many nations according to the
pronouncement, ‘so will your descendants be.’ Without being weak
in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old)
and the deadness of Sarah's womb. He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God
but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God. He was fully convinced that what God
promised he was also able to do. So indeed it was credited to Abraham as righteousness.
But the statement it was credited to him was not written only for Abraham's
sake, but also for our sake, to whom it will be credited, those who BELIEVE in the one
who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was given over because of our
transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification." Romans 4:1-25
It is quite evident that Paul was perfectly in line with John’s theology.
At any rate, in light of the foregoing one thing is crystal clear. There is no
contradiction between the theology of Paul and the other Apostles. A careful analysis and
correct exegesis of the passages in question demonstrate this beyond any reasonable doubt.
We conclude with Osama’s own words, with some modifications:
The Bible HAS NO REAL CONTRADICTIONS! The autographs were certainly perfect, and the
extant MSS accurately preserve the original inerrant autographs: See these links for the
evidence:
http://answering-islam.org/Bible/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html
It is clear that God has preserved his Word in spite of variant readings and man’s
attempt of altering its pristine message by innovations. It truly is the very inspired
Word of the eternal, almighty Triune God.
My response:
By Paul calling disbelievers "holy" and "sanctified", one must
conclude that those disbelieving husbands and children are saved if Paul's quotes were
indeed from GOD Almighty. Otherwise, we're left with a ridiculous contradiction and
utter nonsense! This is what seems to be the case here with Paul.
You have yet to respond to my questions above which I updated in my initial article,
emailed you to inform you about the updates a long time ago, and received no rebuttal yet
until now.
He wrote:
This is unlike the Quran with all its gross errors and textual corruption:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/index.htm