Protestants As Crypto-Muslims

Even when left to themselves – that is, even when not made even more ignorant by lazy journalists – Westerners assume that the Koran is the Muslims’ Bible and that Mohammed answers to the Christian Jesus. In fact it is the other way round: the Koran is the equivalent of Jesus and the Bible of Mohammed. This may seem strange, but all we have to do is to ask ourselves this question: which one is supposed to be co-eternal with God? The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was the Word, which in the beginning was with God. The Bible, on the other hand, was considerably later than the Creation, and it is by no means part of mainstream Christian doctrine that it pre-existed, say, Adam. In Islam, the Koran is generally considered as co-eternal with God, alternatively as created by Him before history; whereas Mohammed was a man who was born, lived and died in history. Ergo, in this respect Jesus parallels the Koran, and Mohammed the Bible.

We may then ask ourselves another question: which one is there as a means to point us towards the more important other? Mohammed was the mere man to whom Gabriel dictated the divine Word, the Koran; what he then did as a man is not without interest, but reception of the Koran was his primary function. On the Christian side, it is the Bible who tells us about God and His Son; the New Testament also contains some interesting material about the Apostles and their early organisation of the church, but telling potential and new converts who Jesus was and what he did is its primary function. Once again, therefore, Jesus parallels the Koran, and Mohammed the Bible.

But wait, the Protestants will say, it is the Bible that is the inerrant Word of God. If, however, the Bible is inerrant, then it must also be inerrant when it entirely fails to claim to be the Word of God. It must be inerrant when it says that the Word of God is Jesus, and equally inerrant when it declines to describe itself as inerrant, uncreated or in any way primary. If, therefore, the Bible is inerrant, then ipso facto it is not inerrant. All that the New Testament actually says about Scripture is that it is ‘useful’. For what? Telling us about Jesus, of course.

The churches that have retained continuity with the early fellowship, that is, the Orthodox and to a lesser extent the Roman Catholics, underline this by placing what Protestants call the Bible in the context of other information about Jesus and the community he founded, namely the oral tradition and the writings of the Fathers. When Protestants stand this on its head, and revere the one portion of this canonical transmission to such an extent that they call it the Word of God a hundred times more often than they give that title to Jesus, and indeed sometimes speak as if the primary function of Jesus was to come and get us reading it, they are rightly accused by other Christians of “bibliolatry”. No one seems to draw the obvious corollary, however, that they have reorganised doctrine along Muslim lines.

Posted on July 26, 2011 at 10:14 by Hugo Grinebiter · Permalink
In: THE LONGEST CON, The Longest Con, Miscellaneous

Leave a Reply