Partialism; or, do we Confess God to Be a Third of Three?

[Sam Jer]

The Qur'an is not like a biblical book. It is not narrated by Muhammad like Galatians is narrated by Paul and John by John, nor is it narrated in the third person like the law and most historical books. Rather, it is ostensibly narrated god himself. Therefore, if we as Christians take this book's claims about itself at face value, we necessarily have to assume it has been dictated by the devil himself, the accuser of the brethren and the father of lies.
Now I do think there is evidence to suggest that Muhammed had at least some input, the textusl transmission is horrible, and I have not looked into the claims that Muhammad may be a made up person. However, since it is framed in the way that it is, I do not think we have the liberty not to treat every part of the book as potentially being the word of the devil himself.

It is with this context in mind that I want you to consider these words of this book, in Quran 5:73, directed at Christians:

لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلَاثَةٍ ۘ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ إِلَّا إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ...

They have indeed commited damnable heresy who say that God is one third of three, and there is but one god...

In other words, the Muslims are told that we confess that God is ⅓ of three. Am I right in concluding that we are being accused of partialism?
How does one explain the nature of God in a way that clarified that the persons are not parts? How do we, in as clear a language as possible, clear the true religion from the charge of partialism, without confusing the persons or falling into some other satanic trap in the process?

 

[Pictet]

In other words, the Muslims are told that we confess that God is ⅓ of three. Am I right in concluding that we are being accused of partialism?

I don't know loads about the Qur'an, but isn't the inaccuracy of its statements about Christianity/the Trinity in itself a possible line of argument against it, given that an infallible book should understand Christian claims better? It looks like Surah 5.72-76,116-118 think that Mary is supposed to be part of the Christian Trinity, though one could carefully interpret it to say otherwise.

How does one explain the nature of God in a way that clarified that the persons are not parts? How do we, in as clear a language as possible, clear the true religion from the charge of partialism, without confusing the persons or falling into some other satanic trap in the process?

Others can answer the substance of the question better. And the Muslims and ex-Muslim's I've dealt with have definitely been at the open end of the spectrum! But I've found that simply pointing to the incomprehensible nature of God and his unlikeness to human beings helps to start with - given that Islam is fond of pointing that out, and because it sets up an explanation of God as other in this particular way, sets the groundwork. And then running them through the Athanasian creed, so that they can see what we actually believe, clarifies things enormously. It sweeps away so many of the misunderstandings (some from the Qur'an) that keep them from Christianity.

Obviously your setting is very different from mine, culturally/religiously/etc. this isn't going to work in a hostile debate without some heavy-duty theological and apologetic stuff to back it up.... Would be interested to hear if you have had any success addressing the issue yourself!

 

[Sam Jer]

I don't know loads about the Qur'an, but isn't the inaccuracy of its statements about Christianity/the Trinity in itself a possible line of argument against it, given that an infallible book should understand Christian claims better? It looks like Surah 5.72-76,116-118 think that Mary is supposed to be part of the Christian Trinity, though one could carefully interpret it to say otherwise.

Yep. The more blatant and obvious stuff (putting Mary in the trinity for example) is one of the two reasons I said:

Now I do think there is evidence to suggest that Muhammed had at least some input

 

[Ed Walsh]

It is with this context in mind that I want you to consider these words of this book, in Quran 5:73, directed at Christians:


In other words, the Muslims are told that we confess that God is ⅓ of three.

I look at it as yet more evidence that the author(s) of the Quran were ignorant of our tightly held beliefs about the Three-One God of the Bible.

 

[No Other Name]

I had to read the Qu'ran for an Islamic studies class in Bible school. I believe it was an evangelism elective. The best case against the authorship being Satan is how poorly written and incredibly dull and lifeless it is. One could make a case that the devil is far too charming, engaging and able to whip up a tome that hits the dopamine centers of the brain entirely more effectively than what that book does.

(This is only half-serious)

 

[Sam Jer]

I look at it as yet more evidence that the author(s) of the Quran were ignorant of our tightly held beliefs about the Three-One God of the Bible.

exactly - so Muhammad (or some other man) must have had some input.

That's not the point, though.

I had to read the Qu'ran for an Islamic studies class in Bible school. I believe it was an evangelism elective. The best case against the authorship being Satan is how poorly written and incredibly dull and lifeless it is. One could make a case that the devil is far too charming, engaging and able to whip up a tome that hits the dopamine centers of the brain entirely more effectively than what that book does.

(This is only half-serious)

 

[paranymph]

In other words, the Muslims are told that we confess that God is ⅓ of three. Am I right in concluding that we are being accused of partialism?
How does one explain the nature of God in a way that clarified that the persons are not parts? How do we, in as clear a language as possible, clear the true religion from the charge of partialism, without confusing the persons or falling into some other satanic trap in the process?

Emphasize the monotheism of Christianity's founders, along with NT affirmations of monotheism. Point to statements in which Father & Son are said to be one.

 

[Andrew35]

I had to read the Qu'ran for an Islamic studies class in Bible school. I believe it was an evangelism elective. The best case against the authorship being Satan is how poorly written and incredibly dull and lifeless it is. One could make a case that the devil is far too charming, engaging and able to whip up a tome that hits the dopamine centers of the brain entirely more effectively than what that book does.

(This is only half-serious)

Muslims: One evidence for the truth of Islam is the literary beauty and power of the Koran.
Me: *reading* "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. And his wife [as well] – the carrier of firewood. Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber."

...ummm...

 

[paranymph]

Muslims: One evidence for the truth of Islam is the literary beauty and power of the Koran.
Me: *reading* "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. And his wife [as well] – the carrier of firewood. Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber."

...ummm...

But that's just because you're not reading it in Arabic...

 

[Andrew35]

But that's just because you're not reading it in Arabic...

Indeed... Now I have to learn Arabic just to verify the evidence!

 

[Sam Jer]

Does anyone have anything to say about the trinitarian question here?

 

[paranymph]

Does anyone have anything to say about the trinitarian question here?

See post 7

 

[MW]

Rather, it is ostensibly narrated god himself.

That is how the Abassids took it and mangled it, and this is how the standard Islamic narrative pushes it. I incline to the the view it is originally a Syrian lectionary. So "God" is not the speaker. If this is accepted something like a miaphysite group is rejecting a tritheistic view of God.

 

[Sam Jer]

That is how the Abassids took it and mangled it, and this is how the standard Islamic narrative pushes it. I incline to the the view it is originally a Syrian lectionary. So "God" is not the speaker. If this is accepted something like a miaphysite group is rejecting a tritheistic view of God.

Interesting. But either way, Muslims today will recite it and think we are partialists

 

[MW]

Interesting. But either way, Muslims today will recite it and think we are partialists

Metaphysically they cannot account for Allah communicating with men, so they can think what they like. An absolutely single, unipersonal, and utterly transcendent God cannot relate to a finite, created world without compromising His unity or transcendence.

But the Quran teaches the doctrines of the Logos and the Spirit. It inherently accounts for the fact that God communicates with men because He is tripersonal. Miaphysites were Trintiarians.

 

[Andrew35]

Metaphysically they cannot account for Allah communicating with men, so they can think what they like. An absolutely single, unipersonal, and utterly transcendent God cannot relate to a finite, created world without compromising His unity or transcendence.

But the Quran teaches the doctrines of the Logos and the Spirit. It inherently accounts for the fact that God communicates with men because He is tripersonal. Miaphysites were Trintiarians.

Recall hearing someone say once that this is why, ultimately, Islam collapses into monism, as it comes night positing God is the only real substance, and we would be something like his imaginings.

 

[Sam Jer]

Metaphysically they cannot account for Allah communicating with men, so they can think what they like

Can you tell me more about this?

 

[DNM300]

But the Quran teaches the doctrines of the Logos and the Spirit. It inherently accounts for the fact that God communicates with men because He is tripersonal.

Will you say more about this? I have never heard this before.

 

[MW]

Can you tell me more about this?

If God is a single person with no internal differentiation, then His "Word" or Kalimah is not an eternal aspect of His being, a Logos. It is merely a created sound or command that He makes ad hoc. It is external to Him. This raises the question: How can a created, contingent sound truly and fully reveal the uncreated, necessary essence of God? His "Spirit," or Ruh is not a distinct person of His presence, but a metaphor for a created force He sends. How can this created force truly be "God with us."

In Christian theology the Logos is an eternal self-expression, His own reason and wisdom, within His own being. This is how God can reveal Himself fully and truthfully because He has a Word that is co-eternal with Him. Revelation is possible because God is inherently self-communicative. The Spirit is an eternal life-giving presence within His own being. This is how God can be immanently present within creation without being contained by it. Divine immanence is possible because God is inherently present and life-giving.

The standard Islamic Quran presents a God who is so strictly One that He is isolated. Revelation, at best , is an arbitrary and external act. But the historical Syrian Quran speaks of the Word and a Spirit from God. In Jesus, God's eternal capacity for self-expression and life-giving presence has entered creation in a personal and definitive way.

 

[MW]

Will you say more about this? I have never heard this before.

The Quran implicitly relied on the tripersonal nature of God to make its own claim that God speaks to humanity. God the Father is unbegotten, the transcendent source, the ultimate principle of Being. The Logos is the self-expression of that source. The rational principle through which God creates and reveals Himself. The Spirit is the immanent presence of that source, the power that enlivens and sanctifies. This is understood in Syrian Christianity. The "standard" Islamic reading, in its effort to purify God's oneness, dismantles the machinery that made this revelation possible.