Biblical Christianity and Islam: Plural Monotheism versus Monolithic Monotheism (Part 6)
Posted on July 12, 2007
Filed Under Islam & Biblical Christianity |
(Continued from last week…)
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
2 Timothy 2:13 (NAS)
One of the most marvelous aspects of God is that He cannot deny Himself. That means: what He says and what He does must always be in accordance with His nature. This fascinates me and often forms the ultimate quest in my study of Scripture—“what is it about God’s nature that stands behind His statement or action in this particular passage?” It inevitably leads to some grand contemplation of one or more aspects of His character. Sometimes, it can drop you into a cocoon!
Well, we have now completed our woefully brief examination of just such a quest. Why did God refer to Himself with plural pronouns? Why are personal manifestations of God not only called God but referred to as a messenger of God–as if there were more than one? Why did God create a universe that is brimming with relationships? And yet, in the midst of all of this, we have the clear declarations that there are not multiple gods, but One God? Our questions were answered in the objective statements by Jesus and the apostles: the One God is socially complex. He exists as three persons whom Jesus names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each are fully God, yet with distinct roles—a socially plural, monotheistic God.
We are now ready to start drawing some practical conclusions. If this aspect of God’s nature is true, then we, of course, begin to understand why He refers to Himself with plural pronouns. We begin to understand why there are manifestations that are called both God and a messenger from God. And we now understand why the universe is so full of relationships—because He is inherently relational within Himself. So, of course, it makes sense that He would create a world full of things that relate. And, the Oneness of God answers our questions about unity in the midst of diversity. Jesus said that He and the Father were one. So, of course, it makes sense that He would create the family with the husband and wife who are to become “one”. The manifestations of this are nearly endless.
And…it all starts to make sense when one begins with plural monotheism. It doesn’t make sense if one begins with monolithic monotheism because there is no inherent basis for relationships to be found there.
The extensions and consequences of this are immense. I want to first examine one of my favorites: the delegation of authority.
Now, before you get lost in thinking that this is some management theory, let me submit to you that this is actually a critical aspect of God’s own nature. And, because we are way long already, I am going to give you an assignment for this week that I believe will be profitable for you. Look up the following two verses to get started: John 17:1-2 and Romans 13:1-6. Look for the character of God in the first passage as it relates to delegating authority and then look for how it is revealed in His creation in the second.
Next week we will draw some amazing conclusions from this and look at the critical insights that it provides for us in understanding one of the key differences between biblical Christianity and Islam.
Comments
6 Responses to “Biblical Christianity and Islam: Plural Monotheism versus Monolithic Monotheism (Part 6)”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute and Senior Vice President to Focus on the Family. He is also the architect and chief spokesperson for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project--a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
Dr. Tackett,
I did the homework you requested we do, and I have the following observation…in the first passage of scripture you assigned (John 17:1-2) it shows an interesting dynamic of “passing power back and forth” so to speak between God the Father and Jesus the Son. Now I realize that neither of them loses their deity during this exchange; however, it appears to me that they did a sort of “dance of positions.”
What I mean is, Jesus prays to the Father that the time has come for God to glorify the Son (Jesus), which to me suggests that there was a brief transition of placement. Not that the Father becomes less than the Son does, just a sort of “moving over” I guess. Then Jesus asks for this glory so that glory is then bestowed upon God. So now, Jesus has “moved over” and God receives the glory from Jesus. Then it appears that Jesus states that God delegated the authority of watching over His “flock” to Jesus while on here on Earth. What I am unclear about is the final part of this passage…”He gives eternal life to each one you have given him.” (NLT)Does this mean that Jesus (who is fully God) was given authority from God to give eternal life to man? Or am I missing something?
In the second passage, I had an interesting thought as well…since the type of government mentioned here I believe to be a Roman government (i.e., not a government that typically followed God’s plan) and thereby not a governing body that is giving glory back to God, would we as Christians (I’m speaking of the Body of Christ corporately) then be held accountable by God for the sins of our government? Are we to affect change in such a way as we saw yesterday in Congress with those who interrupted the prayer of the Hindu clergyman? I fully understand that we are to submit to our government in obedience to God, but are we not also called to point out the sins our government commits? Your thoughts?
First, I have found an article that may be of interest to you, Mr. Tackett. Here is the link http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/07/senate-morning-invocation-interrupted-by-religious-extremists/
I think you will find it ties in with the articles you have been posting about world religions. It also relates to your tours on The State and America’s Founding Fathers. Second, I want to thank you for the Truth Project. In May, our small group finished our sessions, and it was amazing to see the changes in all of us. It continues to amaze me how, if we focus on the nature of God, it will leave us in awe, and encourage us to worship. Thank you.
Dear Dr. Tackett,
Thank you for wisely and faithfully directing our eyes to “gaze upon the face of God”. This is helping to deeply change my perspective on God’s commands and what obedience is. His commands are an outflow of His nature and He has planted that very nature in my own heart. Amazing!!
Please plan a Truth Project conference in Winona Lake, IN. Having been the Bible conference capital of America at one time, we have many churches and many divisions.
We are praying for revival!
Praying for you,
Mike
Okay, am I the only one that is being thrown into a cocoon on this one?
I see in John 17:1-2 that the Father gives the Son authority willingly. This is an unselfish act since the Father could have handled it himself. The characteristic I am seeing in the God relationship between the Father and Son is one of sharing and unselfishness. There also seems to be a purpose or expectation for any authority given.
What I am having problems with is the Romans verse. I understand that if everyone does what they are supposed to do(rulers - “For he is God’s minister to you for good” , subjets - “subject to the governing authorities”)that everything works great. But we live in a fallen world and both the rulers and the subjects do not always follow God’s plan. Since it says “there is no authority except from God”, and God can not deny himself, do we determine that if a ruler is not obeying God’s plan of being God’s minister for good that he no longer has Authority?
Looking forward to Del’s follow up so I can hopefully start digging my way out of my cocoon!
No Jeff…you are not the only one who is in a cocoon on this one…BOTH verses sent me into a cocoon!
I too am anxiously awaiting to become a butterfly
Jeff & Keri, I too struggle with these verses. On the one hand a repressive government may be a judgment of God like Israel’s captivity in Babylon. On the other hand is it just sinful leaders? I Look at our own history and I struggle with this as well. The opening paragraph of the “Declaration of Independence” states:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Was this separation from Britain unbiblical? We certainly did not submit to the authority of our leaders then. For that matter did the Pilgrims violate British authority for leaving England in the first place in moving to Holland?
Let us bring this even closer to home. In a family were the husband is being physically and emotionally abusive to the wife and children does a wife have a responsibility to stay and let the abuse continue or does she have a responsibility to protect herself and the children by doing something else?
I ask these questions in light of these passages in John and Romans wanting to know how to rightly respond to government and family situations. We are sinners living amongst sinners. When does one legitimately and Biblically make a right decision to separate from the sin? Did our founding fathers do it Biblically? I mean both the Pilgrims and the signers of the “Declaration of Independence”.
The Declaration signers gave there reason for separation: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” But, was that reason Biblical? Did God approve? When a battered wife leaves home for her personal safety is God okay with it?
I know full well what my emotions say in these situations but what does God say? I seek the truth of God in the answers to these questions not me own desires. Did we as a nation do it right? There are lots of bad laws and situations in our existing government when or under what situations is it right to separate, if ever?
Stan