What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion? by Rich Deem
Introduction
Many atheists claim that religion is evil and, as such, cannot be from God. It is true that there are many examples of evil committed in the name of Christianity. In the past, those who disagreed with "official" church doctrine, such as Galileo were persecuted or killed. Many other Christians were brought before the Inquisition because they were teaching from the Bible instead of from "officially sanctioned" Roman Catholic Church materials. In addition, the Crusades resulted in "holy" wars between "Christians," Jews, and Moslems. In more modern times, wars have been fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. However, common to all this violence was an underlying struggle for power. Today, some people kill abortionists in the name of God. Are these people unwilling pawns of religion or using religion to justify their own evil agendas?
History of human atrocities
Therefore, I absolutely agree with atheists and others who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, and even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. If we look at the history of democide (which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder, but not war-dead) prior to the 20th century, we find that millions of people were killed by people groups who wanted the other people groups eliminated. Note that these numbers do not include those killed through wars.
TABLE 3.1 Selected Pre-20th Century Democide and Totals1
Unless otherwise noted, years and centuries are A.D.
Unless otherwise noted, these are a best guess estimate in a low to high range.
Excludes democide in China by Mongols.
An absolute low.
A very speculative absolute low.
From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.. Calculated from the 20th century democide rate and the population for each century since 30 B.C.
From table STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE. Total undoubtedly inflated by democide.
A minimum: includes plague dead in circa 541-542 A.D.; 1346-1771 in Europe; 1771 in Moscow; 1894 in Hong Kong; and 1898-1912 in India. From Duplaix (1988, p. 677-678).
What percentage of these killings were due to religious democide? It is less than 3% of the totals. The surprising thing is that these killings occurred during a period of time when virtually all the peoples of the world were involved in some sort of religion. Here is the data for the 20th century:
Includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder; excludes war-dead. These are probable mid-estimates in low to high ranges. Figures may not sum due to round off.
Guerrilla period.
Vox Day, in The Irrational Atheist, lists 22 atheistic regimes that committed 153,368,610 murders in the 20th century alone:
Murders by Atheists (20th Century)
Country
Dates
Murders
Afghanistan
1978-1992
1,750,000
Albania
1944-1985
100,000
Angola
1975-2002
125,000
Bulgaria
1944-1989
222,000
China/PRC
1923-2007
76,702,000
Cuba
1959-1992
73,000
Czechoslovakia
1948-1968
65,000
Ethiopia
1974-1991
1,343,610
France
1793-1794
40,000
Greece
1946-1949
20,000
Hungary
1948-1989
27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia
1973-1991
2,627,000
Laos
1975-2007
93,000
Mongolia
1926-2007
100,000
Mozambique
1975-1990
118,000
North Korea
1948-2007
3,163,000
Poland
1945-1948
1,607,000
Romania
1948-1987
438,000
Spain (Republic)
1936-1939
102,000
U.S.S.R.
1917-1987
61,911,000
Vietnam
1945-2007
1,670,000
Yugoslavia
1944-1980
1,072,000
Figure 1. Percentage of democide based upon type of government control.
What percentage of this democide was due to religious conflict? It turns out that religious democide doesn't even make the top 20 (although I am sure there is some in the "lesser murderers" category. Still, the total religious killings is less than 2%. In fact, the top two killers were specifically atheistic states (which had never existed before in human history). Should atheism be blamed for more than 50% of the atrocities committed during the 20th century? The answer of course is No! If one examines the nature of the regimes that committed these atrocities (even the religious ones), the key factor is absolute power (see Figure 1, right). According to Professor R.J. Rummel, in the 1816-2005 period there were 205 wars between non-democracies, 166 wars between non-democracies and democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. Lord Acton's warning that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to be more than just a trite saying.
What about Christians who commit evil?
Jesus Himself addressed the issue of "Christians," performing evil deeds in a rather chilling prophecy:
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy
in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform
many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you;
DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" (Matthew 7:22-23)
One should note that Jesus said that "many" people who think they are His followers will be rejected by Jesus when at the judgment when they attempt to claim that they are His disciples. Not all who claim the name of Jesus are actually His disciples. My guess is that in even the best of Christian churches only about half of the people have been truly born again (see John chapter 3).1 Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of the actions of people who merely claim to be Christians. Foxe's Book of Martyrs details the deaths of Christians who were killed because of their faith in Christ, in many cases by people claiming to be Christians.
How do you know if a person is a Christian or not?
We cannot know for certain whether a person is or is not a true Christian (only God can makes such a determination).2 However, the Bible describes the nature of a person who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit3 (which happens at the point a person accept Jesus as Lord and Savior):
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians
5:22-23)
In addition, the true believer does what is right and demonstrates love toward others.4 Even non-believers can readily see who the true Christians are. Ultimately, the behavior of those who claim to be Christians but practice evil should not be a consideration in determining if the claims of Christ are true or not.
Conclusion
Yes, "Christians" have committed atrocities against other religious and non-religious people. However, atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined. Even so, the key factor in these atrocities has been totalitarian power, rather than religion, which has resulted in these hundreds of millions of murders. The Bible says that people are evil (and the statistics on this page support this claim), but that they can become transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit to live lives of love, joy and peace.
Lloyd-Jones attacks both intellectualism and emotionalism in these
series of lectures. Both, he feels, hinder the work of the Gospel and
our walk with the Lord. He notes that especially those in Reformed
circles, if they feel the Spirit and are baptised in the Spirit they
feel they have to become Pentecostal, which he states is not the case!
How true is this! All Christians should welcome such a wonderful gift
and should not feel inclined to change denomination because of it! In
this, he notes that there has to be knowledge of doctrine, which warns
us of the danger of ecumenicalism. That because we think we feel the
Spirit does not mean that doctrine no longer matters, it does! That’s
why there is still an important divide between Catholics and
Protestants, etc… What Lloyd-Jones notes, is that both the Spirit and
doctrine are vital for our modern day church. That either going too far
one way will become very dangerous and I totally agree with this. I
will later go into the Reformed-Charismatic movement as a way of
reaching the balance, but for now it is important to note that balance
is always needed in the church. Lloyd-Jones notes of the danger of the growing ecumenical movement
that he saw rise during his lifetime. As Christians, we need to be
careful of sharing with other churches which vary from the primary
issues of the gospel. The Catholic Church and some other denominations
need to be kept apart from fellowship for our own good. How can we
share evangelism platforms with those who compromise on fundamentals?
Share a platform with those who do not believe in a personal
relationship with God, who believe in an infallible man called a Pope
and pray to Mary? The poor woman would turn in her grave, if only she
knew! I am not saying that there are not Christians amongst the
Catholic Church, far be it from me to say such things, but certainly the
leadership and structure of the Catholic Church should never be met in
fellowship, they are incredibly dangerous. I sometimes feel as though
we think ecumenical movements are the only way to achieve unity. That
idea is wrong, we can have unity in fellowship with our denominations,
evangelize together, but we have to recognize our differences and stop
trying to water down and compromise on doctrine. He writes that the church has to be constantly reforming. This is an
interesting notion and one that I fully understand. The church should
not be relying on its traditions to survive; it should rather be looking
forward, and constantly improving itself, adapting to new challenges
and situations, and most importantly continually growing in the Lord.
Reformed and Charismatics: where’s the in-between?
I would know like to move onto an article that discusses unity in an
interesting way. The term ‘Reformed Charismatic’ might surprise a few,
but I think it is wonderful. By it, we see a church desiring to learn
the word, whilst acknowledging the wonderful and powerful work of the
Holy Spirit. If you have read my post on Calvinism, you would know that I am deeply against labels. However, a recent post by the Gospel Coalition really stood out to me. ‘Why Charismatics and Calvinists Need Each Other’. I now aim to explain what the author means by the term ‘Reformed Charismatic’ and why I indeed agree with him. To me, in simplistic terms, Reformed (Calvinist) churches focus on
doctrine but can tread into problems with intellectualism, whilst
Charismatic churches focuses on the Spirit, but can tread in dangerous
waters regarding emotionalism. Both broadly describe themselves as
‘Evangelical.’ There is no balance in either of these camps. Having
emotion and doctrine is no bad thing; God has given us emotions that
allow us to express ourselves when words cannot. God has given us
doctrine to grow closer to Him. The church needs to embrace both these. The Spirit is real, the gifts
God give are real, and God is unchanging, so why would he suddenly
withdraw them from us? The gifts are wonderful, and experiencing God is
a fantastic experience that can stir our heart to praise Him more.
Interestingly, many ultra-Reformed-types love the writing of Puritans
such as Jonathan Edwards, however, it can be noted that he describes of
incredible encounters and experiences with God, the like of which some
would denounce today. At the same time, doctrinal knowledge is needed. To keep us from
wandering from God, to help us know more of him and to really grow as
his children. To generalise the church here, we have gone to one
extreme or the other, rather than desiring both. We have become scared
of doctrine, or we have become scared of accepting the Spirit, of losing
control and letting God use us. What we need to be is unafraid and let
God work; we need to desire to learn more of him, whilst we long for
his spirit to fill us, to overwhelm us, so that like the old Puritan
John Flavel who knew ‘more of heaven from one experience with the Lord
than all the books and sermons he had ever read’; or as D.L. Moody,
“Stay thy hand Lord! Or the vessel will break!” The dangers of both extremes are real, between stiff-upper-lip hermit
hyper-Calvinists and bewildered Charismatics living for
weekly-experiences and healings, perpetually worried about losing their
salvation or grieving the Spirit. Even in our worship we must see a balance. Now I do aim to do an
article of worship later on in more detail; but even in our worship we
must reform. In many Reformed circles, the organ and hymns are seen as
the right way, that praising God can only be done this way; it keeps the
emotions under control and is right and proper. In Charismatic
circles, having the most up-to-date music, with choruses, and a variety
of instruments is seen as the best way to praise God. That God can only
work when music is used and that music is the only way we can praise
God can sometimes be the message shown. Now both are naïve in their
understanding of God, but both can be good forms of worship. To the
Reformed, I say, do not box God up and tell him what proper worship is,
and do not be scared of your emotions, neither should you hinder the use
of God’s gifts he has given people, nor not allow other instruments or
new songs into the church. To the Charismatic church I say, don’t let
your emotions go unchecked, don’t be afraid of the old stuff and don’t
get carried away by the music alone. We need authentic worship that
comes from our heart. If both types of churches embraced each other’s
style, with an authentic heart then maybe we would really see God work
more and more! Is what I’m saying ecumenical? Hardly! Churches will always have
disagreements over secondary issues, but when it comes to Evangelical
Reformed and Charismatic churches, we agree on so much, and the
denominations agree on so much. By being a Reformed Charismatic,
perhaps we can move to a position where the churches can come together
to evangelise and fellowship more, presenting a unified Body of Christ,
resplendent and effective in evangelism, ‘salt and light’. It will keep
us aware of the doctrinal truth of the Bible, and thus aware of
heresies such as the Roman Catholic Church, whilst engaging with so many
more churches around us. It will allow us to have a church that is
filled with the Spirit, and one that is strong in the word of God.
Concluding thoughts
We must learn to come together in unity; we must immediately pray for
this unity and get rid of the animosity in the church and we must learn
to accept our differences. May our prayer be the prayer of Jesus in
Gethsemane as John 17: 22-23 states ‘I have given them the glory
that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you
in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will
know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. May we be like Christ as Philippians 2:1-5 says ‘Therefore
if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any
comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any
tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.’ Therefore to conclude, I think Lloyd-Jones’ lectures in What is an Evangelical?
are as relevant today as they were then. We need to see the dangers of
certain movements, and of the liberal churches that are around. We
however, must move away from our extremes of intellectualism and
emotionalism, and focus once again on the Gospel truth. We need to
embrace the Spirit, long for the baptism of the Spirit, for the gifts,
whilst also having a strong knowledge of the biblical truths. We need
to be accepting of our differences, except when Gospel fundamentals are
impinged on. Although I am wary of labels, perhaps calling ourselves a
Reformed Charismatic is a start in bringing a unity between Reformed and
Charismatic churches, whilst also bringing together the gospel truths
once more. May you be blessed and may God burn in your hearts brothers
and sisters!
The following is from Dr. Laurence M.
Vance's excellent recently revised work entitled, "The Other Side of
Calvinism." This definitive work is a 800-page treatment of the
theological system known as Calvinism. It is extensively footnoted. The controversy over
Calvinism among the Baptists calls for special attention. Not only has this
debate raged among the Baptists for hundreds of years, the greatest exponents
of Calvinism today are not the Presbyterian or Reformed but the Baptists. The
fact that a Baptist says he is not a Calvinist means nothing, for the
Baptists, more than any other Calvinists, when seeking to draw attention away
from the name of Calvin, use the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" as a metaphor for
Calvinism.105 Another term used by Baptists is "Sovereign Grace."106
The term "grace" by itself is also used to stand for the doctrines of
Calvinism.107 One Calvinistic Baptist even wrote a book called
Grace Not Calvinism.108 But just as was pointed out
previously, if Calvinism is the doctrine of grace found in the Bible then this
implies that if you disagree with Calvinism then you are denying salvation by
grace. Some Calvinistic Baptists get downright offended when they are accused
of being Calvinists. Joseph Wilson, the former editor of a Calvinistic Baptist
newspaper, went on record as saying:
We are Sovereign Grace Landmark Missionary
Baptists. That's what we are. That's how we advertise ourselves. That's what
we desire to be known as, and to be called by others. Call us this, and you
will get no argument. We are not ashamed of this. We are glad to wear this
label. Call us "Calvinists" and you offend us.109
The attempt of these "Sovereign Grace Baptists"
to distance themselves from John Calvin by claiming to maintain the "Doctrines
of Grace" and denying that they are Calvinists is not only insulting to all
adherents and recipients of the doctrine of God's free grace in salvation, but
has further obscured their true identity and therefore made necessary more
diligent study of Calvinism and the Baptists. All of the arguments thus far encountered that
are used to prove the truth of Calvinism are continued by the Baptists who
espouse this doctrine. The glowing statements about Calvinism that present it
as the only true form of biblical Christianity are repeated with a vengeance:
The doctrines of Calvinism, if believed, are a
sovereign remedy against the two great heresies in the so-called Christian
world, viz: ritualism, or sacramental salvation, on the one hand, and
rationalism, on the other; the one the offspring of superstition, the other,
the product of infidelity.110
There is no such thing as preaching Christ and
him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism.111
Milburn Cockrell, the editor of another
Calvinistic Baptist newspaper, maintains that nothing proves the state of
apostasy that most Baptist Churches are in more than "their departure from the
doctrine of free and sovereign grace."112 Indeed, he does not even
recognize as a true Baptist church a church which is against Calvinism:
We do not recognize as true churches those who
denounce the doctrines of grace as the doctrines of the Devil. We will not
grant a letter to nor receive a letter from any such so-called Baptist
church. We grant that a church may be weak on sovereign grace and yet retain
its church status, but we do not believe that a church which violently and
openly opposes sovereign grace can be a true New Testament Baptist Church."113
Cockrell never does explain the difference
between "violently and openly" opposing sovereign grace and being "weak on
sovereign grace." How "weak on sovereign grace" does a Baptist church have to
be to forfeit its "church status"? And furthermore, who decides when the line
has been crossed? But in spite of their aversion to the name of
Calvin, the Baptists have always made use of the Calvinist/Arminian dichotomy
to fortify their position just like their Presbyterian and Reformed "cousins."
Once again two things about Arminianism need to be emphasized. The first is
that when a Calvinist uses the term, he never limits it to the supposed
doctrines of James Arminius, for according to Calvinists, Arminianism is
anything contrary to Calvinism. And secondly, the arbitrary division of men
into either Calvinist or Arminian is the strength of the Calvinistic system,
for if there are only two tenable viewpoints then if you are not a Calvinist
you have to be an Arminian. Roy Mason (1894-1978) claims "the two terms are
fixed and established" so that "whether a person wants to be labeled
Calvinistic or Arminian or not, there is no way in which they can avoid it."114
Once this two-tiered system is set up, the usual shocking statements about
Arminianism are made:
Arminianism is a modern form of the way of
Cain, for it makes man's words, worth, and works to do more than Christ did.
In truth Arminianism is paganism and popery under the banner of
Christianity. It will culminate in the worship of a man in the person of the
final Antichrist.115
Adam and his wife were the first to demonstrate
the philosophy which came eventually to be known theologically as
"Arminianism." They devised a system of soteriology which, while it included
some elements of divine revelation, rested squarely upon their own wisdom
rather than upon God's.116
Once the Calvinist labels all his opponents as
Arminians, the guilt by association argument is likewise used. Kenneth Good
(1916-1991) reminds us that Pentecostals, Holiness, and Charismatics "are all
definitely Arminian."117 He also makes the doleful connection
between Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism.118 Nevertheless, some
Calvinistic Baptists consider it a "cheap tactic," and despair of this
division of all men into these two camps: "I wrote an article some years ago
in which I pled with preachers, not to call other preachers Arminians or
Calvinists. If they are Baptists, they are not Calvinists, and they are not
Arminians."119 But as we shall soon see, the Calvinists will not
recognize any mediating position between Calvinism and Arminianism. Because of their insistence that Calvinism is the
Gospel, the Calvinistic Baptists have made some rash statements about
"Arminianism" that some of their number have been forced to mitigate. Cockrell
insists that "the Christ of Arminianism is not the Christ of the New
Testament."120 Wilson claims that "no one has ever been or ever
will be saved in the way taught by Arminianism."121 These are
serious charges, for they insinuate that no one but a Calvinist can be saved.
But some Sovereign Gracers tread lightly on this matter, for they admit that
they were "saved under the preaching of an Arminian preacher and church."122
Even Wilson himself acknowledges that "many of us were saved in Arminian
churches under Arminian preaching."123 So how does he get around
his earlier statements? He explains: "Understand that I do verily believe that
some (even many) Arminians are saved, but I adamantly insist that they were
saved in the way taught by Sovereign Grace."124 The fact that these
saved Arminians may live their life in contempt of Calvinism is no problem,
for these Arminians "will be Sovereign Gracers when they do get to heaven, and
will shout on the banks of sweet and everlasting deliverance, rejoicing
because their doctrine was false."125 Although the Calvinistic Baptists insist they
have the right to reject the terms Calvinist and Calvinism,
they will not accord this privilege to their opponents. Keener says Calvinism
should be called "anti-Arminianism."126 The aforementioned Wilson,
who so adamantly rejects the label Calvinist, laments that those
Baptists who are opposed to Calvinism "are ashamed of the word 'Arminian.'"127
He says to his antagonists: "Call yourselves what you will; Arminian is what
you are.128 But suppose a detractor of Calvinism refuses the label?
Wilson further contends that "you don't have to call yourself either; but not
calling yourself either does not change the fact of what you are. Refusing to
call yourself an Arminian does not change the fact that, that is what you
are."129 Good insists that "there are some Arminians who do not
know that they are Arminians."130 Because of this duplicity of the
Calvinists, the terms Calvinist and Calvinism will be used
throughout this book to apply to any man or doctrine that is
Calvinistic--whether the designations are accepted or not. And in spite of the
obsession that Calvinists have with the terms Arminian and
Arminianism, they claim that "a sort of 'Calviphobia' develops in the
Arminian mind" when the subject of Calvinism is broached.131 But in
view of the astounding and exaggerated things that have been said thus far
about Arminianism, it is evident that it is the Calvinist who has a phobia due
to his obsession with Arminianism. This is no more evident than when a Baptist
simply chooses to identify himself as a Bible-believer. To those Baptists who accept the Bible as the
final authority instead of the philosophical speculations and theological
implications of Calvinism or Arminianism the Calvinist reserves the most
scorn. To call oneself a "Biblicist," instead of either a Calvinist or an
Arminian, although it is particularly offensive to the adherents of both
systems because it correctly implies that they are both unbiblical, is
especially troubling to a Calvinist because of his adamant insistence that one
must be either a Calvinist or an Arminian. In answer to those who say "the
truth lies between Calvinism and Arminianism," Spurgeon replied: "It does not;
there is nothing between them but a barren wilderness."132 Good
insists that those who claim the title of Biblicist seek "for a
simplistic slogan in order to evade the issues or avoid the studies."133
And while he commends the desire to be identified as a Biblicist, Good regards
"the foundation of the reasoning" as "rather shaky. It actually does not have
an adequate Scripture-basis."134 The problem that Good has with
Biblicists is that "they are not actually Biblicists at all."135
They are actually "following the doctrinal system invented by Arminius."136
In other words, they are Arminians--just like everyone else who is not a
Calvinist. Curtis Pugh maintains that Biblicist pastors "ask church members to
allow them to 'talk out of both sides of their mouths.'"137 But
believing that Calvinism is biblical, he simply regards himself "also as a
Biblicist"138 to stop the debate. Any attempt to be just a
Bible-believing Baptist and you are labeled with the moniker of "Calminian,"139
obviously a derivative from the only two accepted systems. A corollary to the Calvinist/Arminian dichotomy,
and one that is peculiar to the Baptists, is the former division of Baptists
into two groups (where have we heard this before?) termed "General" and
"Particular" Baptists--General Baptists holding that Christ died for all men
in general, and Particular Baptists viewing the Atonement as only for the
particular group of God's so-called elect.140 In America these were
called "Separate" and "Regular" Baptists.141 After resurrecting
these titles, Calvinists make statements extolling the virtues of the
Calvinistic Baptists:
"Baptist orthodoxy was preserved among the
Particular or Calvinistic Baptists."142
"Only the English Particular Baptists remained
unscathed by the theological apostasy."143
Naturally, this implies that the General or
Separate Baptists were somewhat less than orthodox. Good implies that we
should identify with the Particular Baptists because they were the "largest
body of Baptist churches,"144 while Jack Warren, the editor of
another Calvinistic Baptist newspaper, bids us to "return to the old paths and
to our Particular Baptist roots."145 Some Baptists, however, refused to be wed to
these arbitrary distinctions. In this country, as related by the Baptist
historian David Benedict (1779-1874), an unusual association of churches was
once formed in Western Pennsylvania called the "Covenanted Independent
Baptists." Of these churches he relates: "These churches are, as they say,
called by some Semi-Calvinists, by others, Semi-Arminians."146
After discussing the types of Baptists in England, the English Baptist
historian Thomas Crosby (c. 1685-1752) pertinently observed in his The
History of the English Baptists:
And I know that there are several churches,
ministers, and many particular persons, among the English Baptists,
who desire not to go under the name either of Generals or
Particulars, nor indeed can justly be ranked under either of these
heads; because they receive what they think to be truth, without
regarding with what human schemes it agrees or disagrees with.147
And of this same time period, a more recent
Baptist historian relates of a fund established in 1717 to assist needy
ministers that it was "argued against restricting it to the Particular
Baptists" since "many Baptists did not go under either name."148 So
not all Baptists accepted these man-made designations, contrary to the ardent
efforts of the Calvinists to force all their opponents into the Arminian camp.
Like their fellow Calvinists, the Sovereign Grace
Baptists also use the historical argument when attempting to prove the truth
of their doctrine. Naturally, they start with the Bible and simply progress
through time. Mason begins by contending that "the Bible is a predestinarian
book."149 "Christ and His apostles" were Calvinistic, according to
Milburn Cockrell.150 The Apostle Paul was even a Sovereign Grace
preacher.151 Not wanting to limit it just to the apostles, Mason
insists that "Christians of the New Testament times were strong believers in
the greatness and sovereignty of God and consequently in the doctrines of
election and predestination."152 And besides appealing to the
Calvinism of the Puritans, Covenanters, and Huguenots, he also relates that
"the great theologians of history" and "most of the creeds of historic
Christendom" have been Calvinistic.153 Other Baptists likewise
appeal to these Calvinistic creeds as proof of the truth of Calvinism.154
Regarding the Baptists in particular, Mason maintains: "Baptists have been
Predestinarians down through the centuries, from the days of Christ."155
Garner Smith reiterates that "the doctrines of grace were believed and taught
by Baptists before Calvin ever came on the scene."156 Another adds
that "the majority of Baptists have historically been Calvinistic."157
Warren reminds us that "our heritage is one of Calvinism"158 Wilson
insists that Calvin got his Calvinism from the "Baptist preservation" of his
doctrines.159 Therefore Spurgeon could say: "The longer I live the
clearer does it appear that John Calvin's system is the nearest to
perfection."160 Sometimes an appeal is made by Baptists to the
Calvinism of the old Philadelphia Baptist Association (established 1707).161
Other times the entreaty is to the Calvinism of the Baptist confessions of
faith.162 Even the non-Baptist Boettner appeals to the Calvinism of
the Baptist confessions when seeking to prove the truth of Calvinism with the
historical argument.163 The Presbyterian McFetridge merely says:
"The Baptists, who are Calvinists,"164 and then goes on expecting
the reader to just accept his statement. Because the Presbyterian and Reformed groups are
inherently Calvinistic, they have never appealed to individual men in history
who were Calvinists as have the Baptists. From the Baptist authors we can find
not only sections,165 but whole chapters in books devoted to
Calvinistic Baptists in history.166 There are also books on the
subject as well.167 The stated thesis of one writer is that
"Calvinism, popularly called the Doctrines of Grace, prevailed in the most
influential and enduring arenas of Baptist denominational life until the end
of the second decade of the twentieth century."168 But even
supposing without any reservation that this statement is true, how does that
prove that Calvinism is true and that as a consequence all Baptists should be
Calvinists? What is implied in the above thesis (and what the author spends
the rest of his book attempting to prove) is that because the majority of
great Baptist preachers, theologians, and missionaries were
Calvinistic--Calvinism must be true. Besides the aforementioned Spurgeon, the
roll call of Calvinistic Baptists reads as follows: Isaac Backus (1724-1806); W. B. Johnson
(1782-1862) Abraham Booth (1734-1806); Adoniram Judson
(1788-1850) James P. Boyce (1827-1888); Benjamin Keach
(1640-1704) John Brine (1703-1765); William Kiffin
(1616-1701) John A. Broadus (1827-1895); Hanserd Knollys
(1599-1691) John Bunyan (1628-1688); John Leland (1754-1841)
William Carey (1761-1834); Basil Manly Sr.
(1798-1868) B. H. Carroll (1843-1914); Basil Manly Jr.
(1825-1892) Alexander Carson (1776-1884); Patrick Hues Mell
(1814-1888) John L. Dagg (1794-1884); Jesse Mercer
(1769-1841) Edwin C. Dargan (1852-1930); J. M. Pendleton
(1811-1891) Andrew Fuller (1754-1815); J. C. Philpot
(1802-1869) Richard Furman (1755-1825); Arthur W. Pink
(1886-1952) John Clarke (1609-1676); Luther Rice (1783-1836)
J. B. Gambrell (1841-1921); John Rippon
(1751-1836) John Gano (1727-1804); John C. Ryland (1723-1792)
John Gill (1697-1771); John Skepp (c. 1670-1721)
J. R. Graves (1820-1893); A. H. Strong
(1836-1921) Robert Hall (1728-1791); John Spilsbery
(1593-1668) Alva Hovey (1820-1903); H. Boyce Taylor
(1870-1932) R. B. C. Howell (1801-1868); J. B. Tidwell
(1870-1946) Henry Jessey (1601-1663); Francis Wayland
(1796-1865) The impressive list of names of prominent
Baptists who supposedly were Calvinistic that is regularly compiled by the
Sovereign Grace Baptists is supposed to so overwhelm the reader as to convince
him that he ought to be a Calvinist if he is to be a historic Baptist. But if
the Calvinism of the abovementioned men is actually checked, it will be found
that it ranges from radical to mild and everything in between. Indeed, some of
these Calvinists disputed with each other over the subject. So what exactly is
the historic Baptist position? Of these men there are three that stand out as
having had the greatest influence: John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and Arthur W.
Pink--all Englishmen. Called "Dr. Voluminous" because of his vast
writings,169 Gill is arguably the greatest scholar the Baptists
have ever had, his Calvinism notwithstanding. At the age of twenty-one, he was
called to pastor an already notable church at Goat's Yard Passage, Fair
Street, Horselydown, in the London borough of Southwark.170 Here he
remained for over fifty years. Besides his commentary on the whole Bible, he
is noted for his Body of Divinity and his numerous polemical writings on
baptism and Calvinism. Most of Gill's works have been reprinted by The Baptist
Standard Bearer.171 As was mentioned previously, Spurgeon is the
one whom both Baptists and Pedo-Baptists appeal to as an example of a
Calvinist who had a fruitful ministry. What is not generally known, however,
is that Spurgeon was the successor of John Gill, albeit a few years later.
Like his predecessor, Spurgeon assumed the pastorate at a young age and
remained until his death. He is chiefly remembered for his sermons, which
continued to be published for years after his death. The extent of Spurgeon's
Calvinism is continually debated, with both sides using extracts from his
sermons to prove their respective points. But although many non-Calvinists
have sought to downplay his Calvinism, Spurgeon is the quintessential
Calvinist. Good claims that "what David was to the forces of Israel in the
days of Goliath, Spurgeon has been to the Calvinistic Baptists in our own
times."172 Naturally, his Calvinistic sermons have been extracted
from the thousands he preached and published seperately.173 Most of
Spurgeon's works have been reprinted by Pilgrim Publications.174
Although an Englishman, Pink began his ministry in the United States after a
short stint at Moody Bible Institute in 1910.175 Beginning as a
premillennial dispensationalist, Pink later rejected both teachings but
remained a radical Calvinist throughout his life. He is best known for his
books that grew out of the articles in his magazine Studies in the
Scriptures, the most infamous one being The Sovereignty of God,
first published in 1918.176 Pink's Calvinism upset some Calvinists
so bad that an attempt was made to tone it down by The Banner of Truth Trust,
by issuing, in 1961, a "British Revised Edition" of The Sovereignty of God
in which three chapters and the four appendixes were expunged.177
For this they have been severely criticized (and rightly so) by other
Calvinists.178 Most of Pink's works are in print today from a
variety of different publishers.179 Among the roll call of Calvinistic Baptists can
also be found four great leaders of the modern Baptist missionary movement:
Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, William Carey, and Andrew Fuller. Their
professed Calvinism is especially valuable to Calvinists because it is used to
prove that Calvinism is not incompatible with missionary work. Judson and Rice
were American Congregationalists who later became Baptists: the former going
to Burma and the latter raising funds in the United States. But whatever their
profession, they proved by their actions on behalf of foreign
missions the pretense of their "Calvinism." Carey, called the "father
of modern missions,"180 was an Englishman who went to India. He
authored Inquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the
Conversion of the Heathen, and because of his proficiency in acquiring
languages, was responsible for numerous versions of the Scriptures in other
languages. And while it is true that Carey's missionary society was officially
entitled the "Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
Among the Heathen," to maintain that Carey was a consistent Calvinist
is another story. It is because of this disparity that John Ryland supposedly
retorted to Carey at his appeal for the use of means in mission work: "Young
man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without
your aid or mine."181 While pastoring at Kettering, England, Fuller
issued The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation in 1785 and was
instrumental in the formation of the Baptist missionary society that sent
Carey to India. Thus their actions prove that it is only in spite of their
Calvinism that these men undertook their missionary efforts. Because the designations Regular and
Separate, as well as Particular and General, are no
longer used to denominate Baptists, most Calvinistic Baptists have some sort
of name identifying themselves as Calvinists. Since the Baptist aversion to
the name of Calvin precludes them from using his name, one can find prefixes
like "Sovereign Grace," "Hardshell," "Primitive," "Old," "Old School,"
"Strict," "Orthodox," or "Reformed." The "Gospel Standard Baptists" are a
Calvinistic group and so are the "Continental Baptist Churches." The name of
"Missionary Baptists" that some Calvinistic Baptists take upon themselves is a
misnomer. All Baptists should be missionary Baptists. The reason that the
Sovereign Grace Baptists use the aforementioned term is to distinguish
themselves from the stricter Primitive Baptists--the ones who practice their
Calvinism. These Baptists are all quick to emphasize their Calvinism, so it
isn't hard to recognize most of them. However, some Baptists are hard to pin
down. You will find Baptists with Calvinistic leanings in the various Baptist
associations and fellowships, as well as among those who are strictly
independent. There has of late even been a resurgence of Calvinism in the
Southern Baptist Convention.182 Upon inquiry, most of these men
will affirm their Calvinism; however, this is not to say that all of them
publicly preach and teach these opinions nor put them into practice. Some of
these men are what might be called "closet-Calvinists," since they keep their
Calvinism, like the proverbial skeleton, in the closet, lest their church
members take to heart what their pastor believes and stop visitation and
giving to missions. This is not to imply that these men disdain visitation and
missions--quite the contrary--they might be ardent about visiting and support
many missionaries. They are woefully inconsistent; they never resolutely
employ their theology. One Calvinist has rather accurately termed these men
"shelf-Calvinists," since their Calvinism is mainly to be found on their
library shelves.183 Several newspapers are published by the
Calvinistic Baptists (The Christian Baptist, Atwood, Tennessee;
The Berea Baptist Banner, Mantachie, Mississippi; The Baptist
Examiner, Ashland, Kentucky; the Baptist Evangel, Saginaw,
Texas), and they maintain some small colleges (Baptist Voice Bible College,
Wilmington, Ohio; Landmark Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas;
Lexington Baptist College, Lexington, Kentucky), but one would never know
these publications and schools were Calvinistic without further inquiry. So as
was mentioned at the beginning of this section, the fact that a Baptist says
he is not a Calvinist means nothing. It often takes diligent study in order to
identify whether or not a Baptist church, school, or preacher is Calvinistic.
Occasionally, however, a group of Sovereign Grace Baptists do put out a
directory of their churches. The concerted attempt of the Calvinistic Baptists
to equate Calvinism with Baptist orthodoxy is not shared by their Presbyterian
and Reformed "cousins." These two groups are basically the same in doctrine:
the term Reformed emphasising the doctrines of the Reformation and
the term Presbyterian emphasising their form of church government.
The history of how each group developed will be found in the next four
chapters. But in relation to the Baptists, it should first be pointed out that
the Presbyterian and Reformed denominations consider their theology to be that
of biblical Christianity:
It is my firm conviction that the only theology
contained in the Bible is the Reformed theology.184
Christianity comes to its fullest expression in
the Reformed Faith.185
The apostolic doctrine was that of Reformed
Theology.186
To appeal to a broader spectrum of Christianity,
however, sometimes the term Reformed is deemphasized. The title of the
widely-adopted theology textbook by the Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof
(1873-1957) was changed from Reformed Dogmatics to Systematic
Theology, and similar changes were made to some of his other books as
well.187 There are two doctrines that are central to the
Reformed Faith: Covenant theology and Calvinism. The first is abhorrent to all
Baptists and the second is treasured by the Sovereign Grace Baptists. This
antinomy of the Baptists is one reason for this work, for as will be
maintained throughout this book, Calvinism is not only wrong
doctrine, it is Reformed doctrine. That Reformed theology is to be
identified with Covenant theology there is no doubt.188 The
relationship is so strong that Sproul even avows that "Reformed theology has
been nicknamed 'Covenant theology.'"189 But the adherents of
Reformed theology likewise identify it with Calvinism:
This term is often used synonomously with the
term Calvinistic when describing a theological position.190
The great advantage of the Reformed Faith is
that in the framework of the Five Points of Calvinism it sets forth clearly
what the Bible teaches concerning the way of salvation."191
Predestination can be taken as a special mark
of Reformed theology.192
So Calvinism is to be equated with Reformed
theology--not just by mere acquiescence, but being a fully cognate term. The
aforementioned D. James Kennedy relates why he is a Presbyterian: "I am a
Presbyterian because I believe that Presbyterianism is the purest form of
Calvinism."193 Moreover, Kuyper maintains that "Calvinism means the
completed evolution of Protestantism."194 Talbot and Crampton
further insist that "if the church does not return to her Reformational
shorings, she will reap the worldwind of a truncated gospel and man centered
faith."195 But if Calvinism is the quintessence of Protestantism;
the culmination of the Reformation, then it is built on a spurious foundation,
for as even the Calvinistic Baptists would agree, the Reformation was just
that: a reformation, not a complete return to biblical
Christianity. When Loraine Boettner wrote his book TheReformed
Doctrine of Predestination, he inadvertently told the plain truth:
predestination in the Calvinistic system is a Reformed doctrine just like the
Catholic Mass is a Catholic doctrine. Calvinism is therefore distinctly a
Reformed doctrine, the Baptists notwithstanding. Although Kenneth Good maintains that Baptists can
be Calvinists (his book Are Baptists Calvinists?) without being
Reformed (his book Are Baptists Reformed?), those of the Reformed
persuasion disagree:
It is our contention that a Reformed Baptist is
really an impossibility. The Baptist who defends free will, man's initiative
in the work of salvation, resistible grace, the altar call, the free and
well-meaning offer of the gospel, etc., is the Baptist who is consistent.
The Baptist who defends dispensationalism, in whatever form it takes, is the
Baptist who consistently maintains his position. The Baptist, on the other
hand, who maintains the doctrines of grace and repudiates dispensationalsim
is inconsistent in his theology. I do not deny that he may, in his theology,
be a Calvinist. I do not deny that he may truly repudiate dispensationalism.
But he is guilty of a happy inconsistency for all that.196
Those who hold to the truth of infant baptism
have generally maintained that the ideas of believers' baptism and sovereign
grace are mutually exclusive, and that those who hold to these two positions
hold a contradictory view of salvation.197
One cannot be a Presbyterian or Reformed without
being a Calvinist, but one can certainly be a Baptist. A Calvinistic
Baptist should be a misnomer, because, in the words of the Dutch Reformed
Herman Hanko: "A Baptist is only inconsistently a Calvinist."198
[Robert
Morey states, 'The Islamic Invasion', Appendix, p.
177]:
I)
INTRODUCTION
"While
most people understand that the 'Bible' of the Muslims is called the
Quran, they do not generally know that the religion of Islam has other
sacred writings which are viewed by Muslims as being just as inspired and
authoritative as the Quran.
This
other Islamic 'Bible' is called the Hadith. It is a collection of early
Muslim traditions which record the words and deeds of Muhammad according
to his wives, family members, friends and Muslim leaders which are not
usually found in the Quran.
A)
THE INSPIRED HADITH
The
Muslim scholar, Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, in his book, Introduction to
Islam, states that 'the custodian and repository of the original
teachings of Islam' are found 'above all in the Quran and the Hadith' (p.
250). To this he adds that 'the Quran and the Hadith' are 'the basis of
all [Islamic] law' (p. 163).
The
reason according to Dr. Hamidullah that Muslims revere the Hadith as well
as the Quran is that the Hadith is as divinely inspired as the Quran
itself!
'The
teachings of Islam are based primarily on the Quran and the Hadith, and,
as we shall presently see, both are boasted on divine inspiration' (p.
23).
This
is why Muslim writers such as Hammudullah Abdalatati in his book, Islam
In Focus, (The Muslim Converts' Association of Singapore, Singapore,
1991), state that the Hadith is 'considered the Second Source of Islam'
because,
'all
the articles of faith... are based upon and derived from the teachings of
the Quran and the Traditions [Hadith] of Muhammad (p. 21).'
Thus
it is no surprise to find that the material in the Hadith is considered
inspired and authoritative to orthodox Muslims.
B)
THE TRANSLATION WE WILL USE
We
are using the nine-volume translation of the Hadith made by Dr. Muhammad
Muhsin Khan entitled, The Translation of the Meaning of Sahih
Al-Bukhari (Kazi Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, 1979).
It
is recommended and approved by all Muslim authorities, including the
spiritual heads of Mecca and Medina.
C)
BASED UPON AL-BUKHARI
Dr.
Khan's work is a faithful translation of the Hadith put together by none
other than the greatest of all Hadith scholars, Al-Bukhari.
The
introduction states:
'It
has been unanimously agreed that Iman Bukhari's work is the most authentic
of all the other works in Hadith literature put together. The authenticity
of Al-Bukhari's work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam
said concerning him: 'The most authentic book after the Book of Allah
[i.e., the Quran] is Sahih-Al-Bukhari' )p. xiv.
He
only chose approximately 7275 [Hadiths] of which there is no doubt about
their authenticity.
[Allah]
revealed to him the Glorious Quran and the Second Inspiration, i.e., his
Traditions.
It
is incumbent upon you to strive hard to do righteous deeds according to
the traditions of Muhammad as is clearly expressed in his Hadith (p.
xvii).
Dr.
Khan does not hesitate to describe the Hadith as 'the Second Inspiration'
and to state that it is 'incumbent' upon every Muslim to believe and to
obey it.
D)
THE MUSLIM DILEMMA
The
reason that we went to such lengths to prove the highest religious
authorities of Islam view the Hadith as being inspired and authoritative
is that many Muslims will deny this when confronted with some of the
obviously absurd teachings of Muhammad.
In
one radio program, one Muslim caller argued in a circle as follows:
'Muhammad
was Allah's prophet. Therefore he could not have said something so stupid
as to suggest that we should drink camel urine. Thus you are a liar, Dr.
Morey. The Hadith cannot say this.'
After
I went on to prove from the Hadith that Muhammad did indeed recommend
camel urine, he responded:
'We
Muslims only recognize the Holy Quran as God's Book. We do not accept the
Hadith as inspired.'
Of
course, he had to deny the inspiration of the Hadith in order to avoid
having to defend Muhammad on the drinking of urine.
We
understand the dilemma of modern Muslims. While they desperately want to
maintain that Muhammad was Allah's apostle, yet the Hadith clearly reveals
that Muhammad could not be inspired because he taught many things which
are not only patently wrong but absurd.
E)
THE FINAL STRAW
To
the Western mind, the material found in the Hadith is the proverbial final
straw that breaks the camel's back! If Muhammad was truly a prophet and an
apostle, then Muslims must defend the indefensible.
II)
ON THE QURAN AND THE HADITH
The
Quran was written in heaven according to Hadith no. 643, vol. 9 Thus no
earthly pre-Islamic sources for the material found in the Quran should
exist. But they do exist in great abundance.
Thus
it is no surprise to find that the Quran was written in the Quraish
dialect (vol. 6, no. 507). This fact is often not known by non-Arab
muslims.
The
Quran after Muhammad's death was scattered on palm leaves, rocks, bones,
etc. (vol. 6, no. 509). Thus the Hadith itself bears witness to the fact
that Muhammad did not prepare a manuscript of the Quran before his death.
As
a matter of record, the Hadith confirms that the Quran was put together by
the Caliph Uthman after Muhammad died. This point is often denied by those
Muslims who are ignorant of their own scriptures.
'Uthman
got the Quran compiled and sent a few of its copies to far off places
(vol. 1, no. 63). Uthman... wrote the manuscripts of the Hoyl Quran in the
form of a book (vol. 4, no. 709).
See
also vol. 6, nos. 507 and 510.
When
Utheman finished his version of the Quran, the Hadith records that he
tried to destroy all the conflicting Qurans (vol. 6, no. 510). This is
clear proof that there were conflicting versions of the Quran.
The
fact that the Quran is missing certain verses and that other verses were
abrogated is admitted in the Hadith in vol. 4, nos. 57, 62, 69, 299; vol.
6, nos. 510, 511.
The
Hadith even records that when certain people died, those portions of the
quran known only to them perished with them (vol. 6, no. 509).
The
Hadith records that Muhammad at times was bewitched and said and saw
things under satanic inspiration (vol. 4, nos. 400, 490).
This
admission on the part of the Hadith destroys in principle the Muslim claim
that Muhammad was infallibly inspired.
Since
it is admitted that Muhammad at times did and said things under satanic
inspiration, then this in principle calls into question everything he did
and said.
Like
the Quran, the Hadith puts speeches into the mouths of biblical characters
such as Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc., which they could not have spoken because
of the vocabulary used, the doctrines taught, the historical references
made, etc. They are clearly fraudulent.
vol.
1, chap. 1, p. 16
vol.
1, nos. 74, 78, 124
The
Hadith admits that it has variant readings and contradictory Hadiths (vol.
1, nos. 42, 47, 74, 78, 80, 81, 86, 102, 107, 112, 159, 160, 161; vol. 3,
nos. 159-161).
The
translator admits in a footnote in vol. 3, no. 159, Hadith No. 159
contradicts the Hadith of Al-Hassan.
Like
the Quran, some Hadiths were canceled or abrogated: vol. 1, nos. 179, 180.
III)
ON APOSTASY
The
Hadith makes the repeated claim that no one ever leaves Islam.
He
then asked, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his [i.e., Muhammad's]
religion become displeased and renounce the religion afterwards?' I
replied, '''NO''' '(vol. 1, nos. 6 and 48).
Then
it contradicts itself by saying that death is the punishment for those who
leave.
The
prophet said, 'If somebody [a muslim] discard his religion [of Islam],
kill him' (vol. 4, no. 260).
It
even records the murders of those who left Islam for another religion
(vol. 5, no. 630).
Volume
nine of the Hadith has an entire section dedicated to warning those who
would leave Islam - that they will be murdered (see vol. 9, pgs. 10-11,
26, 45-50, 341-342).
'So,
wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have
reward on the Day of Resurrection' (vol. 9, no. 64).
IV)
ON JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
Muhammad
taught that the Jews worshiped Ezra as the Son of Allah just as Christians
worshiped Jesus as the Son of Allah (vol. 1, p. xvii). He was wrong on
both counts.
Muhammad
said,
'Any
Jews or Christians who heard about me and did not believe in me and what
was revealed to me of the Holy Quran and my traditions, his ultimate
destination is the [Hell] Fire' (vol. 1, p. li).
According
to Hadith no. 414, vol. 2, Muhammad said,
'Allah
cursed the Jews and the Christians because they took the graves of their
Prophets as places for worship.'
V)
MUHAMMAD ON WOMEN
Muhammad
taught that the majority of the people in hell were women!
'The
Prophet said, '''I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its
dwellers were women''' '(vol. 1, nos. 28, 301; vol. 2, no. 161).
The
reason the majority of the people in hell were women is stated in vol. 2,
no. 541,
'O
Women! I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion
than you.'
Muhammad
believed that women were deficient in intelligence' and thus they should
not be given equal rights under Islamic law.
For
example, he legislated that a woman's testimony in court was worth only
half that of a man. Thus it would take the testimony of two women to
offset the testimony of one man. Imagine what this would do to women who
were raped!
'The
Prophet said, '''Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a
man?''' The women said, '''Yes.''' He said, '''This is because of the
deficiency of a woman's mind''' ' (vol. 3, no. 826).
Muhammad
even ruled that women are to receive only half of what their brothers
receive in inheritance (vol. 4, no. 10). Thus women are financially
punished for being females.
Perhaps
the most degrading picture of women is that Paradise will have beautiful
women, whose only purpose is to satisfy the sexual urges of men, chained
to different corners.
'The
statement of Allah, Beautiful women restrained [i.e., chained] in
pavilions. Allah's Apostle said, '''In Paradise there is a pavilion made
of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner there are wives
who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit
and enjoy them.''' '
VI)
ON URINE AND FECES
Muhammad
had a psychological obsession with urine and feces. In fact, he spent a
great deal of time teaching on where, when, and how to urinate and
defecate.
He
was so obsessed with the subject that he taught that if someone got urine
on his clothes or body, they suffered hellfire in the afterlife!
'One
of the major sins is not to protect oneself [one's clothes and body] from
one's urine [i.e., from being soiled with it]. Once the Prophet, while
passing one of the grave-yards of Medina or Mecca, heard the voices of two
persons being tortured in their graves.'
'The
Prophet then added, '''Yes! [they are being tortured for a major sin].
Indeed, one of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine'
(vol. 1, chap. 57, no. 215).
According
to vol. 2, no. 443, Muhammad said that people are tortured in hellfire
because they soil themselves with urine.
Yet,
at the same time, Muhammad ordered people to drink camel urine mixed in
milk as medicine!
'So
the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their
milk and urine' [as a medicine] (vol. 1, no. 234).
The
rules for urination and defecation are as follows:
1.
You must not face Mecca when urinating or defecating (vol. 1, nos. 146,
147, 150, 151).
2.
You must not use your right hand to hold or wipe yourself (vol. 1, nos.
155, 156).
3.
You must wash your privates after going to the bathroom (vol. 1, nos. 152,
153, 154, 157).
VII)
MUHAMMAD'S BELIEVE OR NOT
Muhammad
taught many things which seem to the modern reader to be patently absurd.
Some of his beliefs were so far out that no one today could possibly
accept or defend them. Yet, we recognize that sincere Muslims must do so
or give up their claim that he was Allah's Apostle.
We
understand their difficulty. How can they defend the indefensible? How can
they justify what is so obviously absurd? This is the crux of the matter.
The
following teachings of Muhammad are a partial list of some of the strange
things he taught to his disciples.
A)
THE COLOSSUS ADAM
In
Hadith no. 543, vol. 4, we read,
'The
Prophet said, '''Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall.'''
This
would make Adam around 90 ft. tall! Was Adam really as tall as a
three-story building? How tall was Eve? And their children? And why are we
not that tall? How could he stand if he were that heavy? Does not the
science of human anatomy tell us that Adam could not have been 60 cubits
tall? What Muslim is prepared to defend Muhammad's 90 ft. Adam?
B)
THE FLY IN THE CUP
If
a fly falls into your cup, do not worry about it because Muhammad said
that while one wing has the disease, the other has the antidote. So drink
up (vol. 4, no. 537).
C)
NO DOGS ALLOWED
Angels
will not enter a house if a dog is there according to vol. 4, no. 539.
Thus Hadith no. 540, vol. 4, reads,
'''Allah's
Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.'''
Dog
lovers would not make good Muslims.
D)
ISLAMIC GENETICS
Muhammad
claimed that Gabriel gave him the secret as to why a child looks like its
father or its mother. This answer was given to prove that Muhammad was
Allah's Apostle.
He
declared,
'As
for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual
intercourse with his wife and gets a discharge first, the child will
resemble the father, and if the woman gets her discharge first, the child
will resemble her.'
What
modern Muslim is prepared to prove that one's 'discharge' and not genetics
is the key to the physical characteristics of one's children?
E)
STARS AS MISSILES
The
stars were created by Allah as missiles to throw at the devils, according
to Muhammad in vol. 2, chap. 3, p. 282. Astronomers should be interested
in this doctrine of Muhammad.
F)
DO AS I SAY - NOT AS I DO
Muhammad
commanded everyone to have a will when he himself failed to make one.
'I
asked Adullah bin Abu Aufa, '''Did the Prophet make a will?''' He replied,
'''No.''' I asked him, '''How is it then that the making of a will has
been enjoined on people?''' (vol. 4, nos. 3,4).
G)
WHAT DO SPIRITS EAT?
The
jinn or spirits eat dung and bones according to Muhammad (vol. 5, no.
200)! This bit of information is as far out as one can go.
H)
NO ASSURANCE
Muhammad
had no assurance of salvation.
'The
Prophet said, '''By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not
know what Allah will do to me''' (vol. 5, no. 266).
I)
MURDER AND DECEIT
Muhammad
agreed to the murder of a man through lies and deceit (vol. 5, no. 369).
He evidently did not believe in the sanctity of truth or life.
J)
SIX HUNDRED WINGS
The
angel Gabriel has 600 wings according to Muhammad (vol. 6, no. 380).
K) SATAN IN YOUR NOSE
Muhammad
would suck in water up his nose and then blow it out because,
'Satan
stays in the upper part of the nose all night' (vol. 4, no. 516).
I
have yet to find a single Muslim who will defend this strange doctrine and
practice of Muhammad.
L)
FEVERS FROM HELL
Muhammad
believed that a fever when sick was from the heat of hell.
'The
Prophet said, '''Fever is from the heat of the [Hell] fire, so cool it
with water''' ) vol. 4, nos. 483-486).
All
sorts of questions come to mind when you really think about this doctrine
of Muhammad.
M)
NOAH'S ARK
Noah's
Ark appeared and floated in front of their eyes (vol. 6, no. 391, chap.
288). How or why this happened we are not told.
N)
DIRTY WATER MAGIC
Muhammad's
followers fought over who would get the dirty water left over from his
washings. They would smear it on their bodies or drink it to secure a
magical blessing from it (vol. 1, nos. 187, 188).
O)
HOLY SPIT
Even
more gross was the practice of Muhammad spitting into the hands of his
followers so they could smear his saliva on their faces!
'By
Allah, whenever Allah's Apostle spitted, the spittle would fall in the
hand of one of them [i.e., the Prophet's companions] who would rub it on
his face and skin' (vol. 3, no. 891).
It
was in this light that we can understand why Muhammad smeared dead bodies
with his spit (vol. 2, nos. 360, 433).
P)
SATAN URINATING IN THE EARS
Satan
urinates into the ears of those who fall asleep during prayers (vol. 2,
no. 245).
Q)
PASSING WIND
According
to Muhammad, if you commit the sin of 'hadith' (the passing of wind
through the anus) while you are engaged in prayer, Allah will not hear
your prayers! (vol. 1, no. 628; vol. 9, no. 86). Why Allah would be
offended by the natural smells of the human body escapes us.
R)
BAD BREATH
Bad
breath means that Allah will not hear your prayers. You may not eat garlic
or onions before going to prayers because Allah will not hear you with
their smell on your breath. (vol. 1, nos. 812, 813, 814, 815; vol. 7, nos.
362, 363).
S)
YAWNING IS FROM HELL
Yawning
is from Satan according to Muhammad in Hadith no. 509, vol. 4.
It
seems clear from this Hadith, and the two previous ones, that it was
really Muhammad who was offended by such things as bad breath, yawning, or
passing wind.
That
God would be offended by the natural processes of the human body which He
made is not acceptable to the rational mind.
T)
GREEN BIRDS
According
to Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid of the Sacred Mosque of Mecca
(Saudi Arabia),
'Allah's
Apostle said: '''The souls of the martyrs are in the bodies of green birds
dwelling in paradise wherever they like''' '
If
this is true, we do not understand how these 'green birds' will be able to
'enjoy' all those beautiful women chained in different corners of
paradise!
U)
CONCLUSIONS
If
Muhammad was truly Allah's apostle, then what he taught came from Allah
and must be true.
But
if what he said is so outlandish and absurd that it cannot be true, then
how can he be an apostle of Allah?
The
logic is inescapable. The Hadith is the final blow that explodes the claim
of Muhammad that he was an apostle and prophet of God."
, lists 22 atheistic regimes that committed 153,368,610 murders in the 20th century alone:
Figure 1. Percentage of democide based upon type of government control.
One should note that Jesus said that "many" people who think they are His followers will be rejected by Jesus when at the judgment when they attempt to claim that they are His disciples. Not all who claim the name of Jesus are actually His disciples. My guess is that in even the best of Christian churches only about half of the people have been truly born again (see John chapter 3).1 Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of the actions of people who merely claim to be Christians. Foxe's Book of Martyrs details the deaths of Christians who were killed because of their faith in Christ, in many cases by people claiming to be Christians.
The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens
The controversy over
Calvinism among the Baptists calls for special attention. Not only has this
debate raged among the Baptists for hundreds of years, the greatest exponents
of Calvinism today are not the Presbyterian or Reformed but the Baptists. The
fact that a Baptist says he is not a Calvinist means nothing, for the
Baptists, more than any other Calvinists, when seeking to draw attention away
from the name of Calvin, use the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" as a metaphor for
Calvinism.105 Another term used by Baptists is "Sovereign Grace."106
The term "grace" by itself is also used to stand for the doctrines of
Calvinism.107 One Calvinistic Baptist even wrote a book called
Grace Not Calvinism.108 But just as was pointed out
previously, if Calvinism is the doctrine of grace found in the Bible then this
implies that if you disagree with Calvinism then you are denying salvation by
grace. Some Calvinistic Baptists get downright offended when they are accused
of being Calvinists. Joseph Wilson, the former editor of a Calvinistic Baptist
newspaper, went on record as saying: