Big Trinity Debate
Feb 26
On Monday night I went along to “The Big Trinity Debate” at Trinity Road Chapel… bit of a spur of the moment decision, but having heard Jay Smith speaking at Cornhill that afternoon, it sounded like a fun evening!
The debate was between James White (see his review) of Alpha & Omega Ministries and Abdullah al Andalusi.
I’ve spent much time recently thinking about debates with Christians vs. Atheists… so refreshing to hear a debate between two Theists, and on a topic at the core of my Christian beliefs.
The debate had two opening arguments, some cross-examination, some rebuttals and then a break, after which there was a Q&A. Sadly I had to leave at the break!
There was a good turn out and good debate, with both sides putting forward fairly sensible arguments. But I left feeling short changed with the Islamic scholar for three reasons:
- He failed to engage with the Christian understanding of the Trinity, James White noted that the Qu’ran also misunderstands the Trinity. This came about because he did not accept James White’s opening statements about the difference between the nature and personhood of God.
- He began his opening statement with fallacious attacks on the reliability of the New Testament, not the issue at hand, thankfully James White enlightened him and gifted him with a translation of the Bible which includes the manusrcipt source of every text.
- He didn’t give any positive reasons, based on the Qu’ran why anyone should believe in Islam…?
What do you think? You can listen to the debate audio here…
Hi Hugh,
I believe you have made a mistake regarding your appraisal of the Muslim speaker’s postion. I was there, and this is what I understood from what the Muslim speaker was saying.
1. He came from a position that rejects the Christian doctrine of the trinity, and aired the contention, that the explanation of the Trinity is vacuous. He then quoted Augustine saying that the words ‘person’ and ‘nature’ are not biblical references, not have any objective real meaning in and of themselves.
2. Abdullah’s criticism of the NT was multi-pronged and his use of highlighting the multiple Biblical variants, was only to show that the text is not ‘write-protected’. He then went on to produce internal contradictions within the text, to show that ultimately, he did not believe it was the inerrant and literal word of God.
3. You’re right, he did not give reasons why we should believe in Islam, however, the debate was only about Islam’s contentions to the Trinity and Christian Theology, not whether Islam can be substantiated.
All in all, whether you were convinced by the arguments, the Muslim speaker produced or not, it is clear that the speaker did give a good attempt to air the Islamic contentions to Christian theology.
Hi Filipe,
Thanks for your comment.
1. Your summary of the position on the Trinity seems fair, and I would agree with… of course the words ‘person’ and ‘nature’ are not Biblical words, nor is Trinity!
But the question is, how do we understand God based on what in revealed in the Bible… a) There is one God, b) The Father, Son and Spirit are all ‘persons’ who are revealed as God. One God, Three Persons… this is not a contradiction, but rather a divine paradox which we use words like ‘nature’ and ‘person’ to help explain.
Why does the Qu’ran accuse Christian of worshipping Mary as God? This seems to show the Qu’ran does not understand Christian doctrine… the speaker did not address this misunderstanding.
2. Abdullah gave a false view of the NT, stating that the NT books were constructed based on their chronology rather than on anything special about their authorship. This is false. The inclusion of books in the NT is based on apostolic authorship and content… the Apostles were not simply “theologians” as he said, but eyewitnesses.
One example of a false claim… James White gave Abdullah a copy of a Bible highlighting the source parchment of every verse. However, Abdullah failed to answer the retort about the burnings of contradictory sources in Islam and the dates between events and the earliest manuscripts.
Abdullah’s thoughts about logic, rationality, trinity, persons, nature etc. were helpful and provoking… but he did not accurately and fairly engage with the Bible or what Christians actually believe… IMHO
Cheers