To His Christian Friend
May 30, 2006
© A.T. (pen name)
The following pages contain a fictitious letter (see endnotes as well as body of letter), but its ideas, questions and emotions are taken from my own life experiences over many years with Muslims who do not yet know Jesus, Muslims who are seeking and wondering about Jesus, and Muslims who have become followers of Jesus1. I hope to give a glimpse of the Arian Controversy2 through the eyes of a genuine member of the Body of Christ who is yet steeped in the Semitic worldview of his people, his family, and his own conscience.
Dear Older Brother Daniel,
Thank you for persuading3 my wife and me to take the former books4 as our own,
and to believe Allah’s5 truth that Isa Al Masih6 is the final sacrifice7 provided for the forgiveness of our sins. We continually praise Allah through Al Masih8 because of so
great a salvation!9 Yet daily our hearts break over our family and friends who are trapped in the same tragic misunderstanding we once were: that Al Masih is only for Christians, and that the Injil has been corrupted10. We trust you are praying with us as we persuade them otherwise, so that they too may be saved.
Since our long discussion last month about the theology of the Trinity, I have had
many sleepless nights, and have spent every spare moment reading original documents
from the early centuries after Al Masih’s resurrection and ascension, along with related
Scripture passages. If indeed I must persuade my family and friends to agree with the
Athanasian creed11, I fear the task is impossible.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the
Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we
worship one God in Trinity … So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God … None is greater
or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and
Co-equal… He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity… This
is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot
be saved.12
Equally difficult for the community I labor to win is the Nicaean Creed: “… We
believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ…God from God, true God from true God, begotten,
not made, homoousios with the Father…”13 If it seems impossible to convince my family
of the truth of these creeds, I must remember that with Allah nothing is impossible14.
However, a deeper question disturbs me: are these creeds (and those like them)
necessary for salvation from Allah’s point of view, or even for maturity of our faith in Isa Al Masih? Is it true that unless we believe and confess this exact ontological description of the relationship between Allah, Al Masih, and the Spirit of Allah, we will without doubt “perish everlastingly”? We already believe that Isa is Lord and that Allah raised him from the dead15, that only in Al Masih is there salvation16. According to the Gospel Paul passed on, before all things we believe that Al Masih died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, that he appeared to the Twelve, the 500 and others.17 If the ontological formulation of the Trinity is so vital to our faith, why is it less than clear to me as I read the Injil? Where is it in the preaching of Acts? Is it better, more refined, higher, preferred, to what Peter, James and Paul preached?18 Is it not enough that my family and I believe in Isa as mediator between Allah and us19, his word20, his son (spiritual, not physical)21, his image22, his heir23, his lamb24, the one he sent25, the last Adam26, the one at his right hand27, the savior28, the victor over all his enemies29? Must we also add to it a complicated, philosophical explanation30 which was long debated, and which was developed without a single Jewish person’s involvement31? (Though my people view the Jews as our enemies, we who know Al Masih must love them on account of the patriarchs32. At least we can relate to their monotheism!) Where is the mystery? We do not dare to be so sure about such unfathomable musings33. Were not these creeds that exalt the theology of the Trinity as the highest form of worship, crafted by believers from a polytheistic or pagan background, who were burdened to reach the same34? If Allah was inspiring the church leaders at that time and place to express the good news in a way that would be meaningful to them and those they were trying to reach35, how can I disagree? However, for this time and place, could it be that he is inspiring us to express the message in a way that favors his One-ness, that is yet faithful to his Injil?
Certainly Gentile church leaders made an effort to maintain the One-ness36. But I
think almost all Muslims over the last 1400 years would agree with me; it does not sound
to our ears like the One-ness of the Taurat and Zabur37 is maintained at all38. Even the
One-ness we hear repeatedly affirmed in the Injil39 does not seem to come through in the
creeds from Nicaea onward. When we Muslims say “God”, we mean the One True God.
Is this what is always meant when the Scriptures use elohim or theos? In addition to the
rare cases where these words clearly refer to Al Masih40, are they not also used to refer to angels, kings and others41? In some of the writings of the Greek theologians who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity, there is mention of the apparent Godhood of
humans, that Al Masih was made man so we might be made God42! This is a certain
indication that the meaning of “God”43 in these passages and documents is very different
from our Muslim meaning. Older Brother Daniel, will you give us room to exalt Al
Masih far above a mere human, even acknowledging his divine attributes and authority,
without calling him Allah?
It is obvious that the writers of these creeds were passionate about exalting Al
Masih. So are we Muslims who know him! But must we say he is “co-equal” with
Allah? What about 1 Cor. 15:20-28? In the end, after everything (all dominion,
authority, power, enemies, even death itself) is put under his feet by Allah, Isa himself “will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that Allah may be all in all”44. What about all the times Allah is called Isa’s God, both during his life on earth, after his resurrection, and finally in his heavenly glory45? Does this imply co-equality? Is his co-equality with Allah a pre-requisite to his being savior? We Muslims who have understood the truth, believe Al Masih is savior because Allah says it is so. This is enough for us. Older Brother Daniel, will you encourage us as we proclaim Al Masih to our people, though we do not claim he is co-equal with Allah?
It appears as the centuries passed, the emphasis of the creeds grew increasingly
toward the extreme importance of three-ness46, with Athanasius declaring that there is no salvation outside this three-ness. Yet, when we Muslims read the Injil, we see more twoness. How many times were the inspired letters written in the name of the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ47? How often was the truth emphasized that there is one
God and one Lord48? And in this two-ness, we see a picture painted of unity of heart and
purpose, but not equality49. To us, the Spirit of Allah is Allah; after all Allah is Spirit50. And how could we understand the mystery of Allah’s seven spirits51? As long as we are filled with him52, immersed in him53, empowered by him54, living in him55 and not grieving him56, does this not satisfy Allah? Older Brother Daniel, can you see beyond the heritage of your creeds to feel what I am feeling?
The longer I study these things, the more I realize we Muslims have a lot of
forgiving to do. We must forgive Athanasius and his spiritual descendants for cursing
(anathematizing) all but those who agreed with their exact formulations57. Was this living out the commands and character of Al Masih58? We must also forgive them for
seemingly abandoning the example of Paul who tried to “please everybody in every
way”, seeking the “good of many, so that they may be saved”59. At Nicaea, the great
majority was of the Compromise group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea60. What if the
compromise position61 had been accepted, curtailing radical Arianism, yet extending the
right hand of fellowship to all who would agree? What is more to be feared? That a
more flexible creed would cause misinterpretation of Scripture and loss of salvation to
erring Christians? Or that an unnecessarily rigid creed would nail shut the doors to the
Kingdom of God and his Al Masih62 for staunch monotheists like us? Dear Older
Brother Daniel, I know you share my grief over how the number of Muslims has
burgeoned to 1.3 billion, so many not knowing the grace of Allah through Isa Al Masih.
What can we do to work with our savior63 to open the way64 once again?
Peace to you,
Your younger brother Abdullah
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad, Fazal. ARIUS - The Trinity Controversy in the Church, in The Review of
Religions, September 1996, accessed May 30, 2006
Alexander of Alexandria. Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, as found in William G.
Rusch, ed., Sources of Early Christian Thought, The Trinitarian Controversy.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Athanasius. Orations Against the Arians, as found in William G. Rusch, ed., Sources
of Early Christian Thought, The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1980.
Augustine of Hippo. On the Trinity, as found in William G. Rusch, ed. Sources of Early
Christian Thought, The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1980.
Feldmeth, Nathan P. CH500 Early Church History, Lecure 7, Early Questions on
the Trinity, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.
Gilliland, Dean S., ed. The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Mission
Today, Contextualiziation Among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars, by
J. Dudley Woodberry. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1989.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Third Theological Oration, as found in William G. Rusch, ed.
Sources of Early Christian Thought, The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980.
Justin. Apology, I. xlvi 1-4, as found in Bettenson and Maunder, rev. ed.,
Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Kelly, John Norman Davidson. Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco; A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1978.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity, vol. 1, Beginnings to 1500.
San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers,
1953.
Nicene Council. Encyclical letter of the Nicene council, 325CE, quoted by Eusebius
in Life of Constantine 3.18, NPNF 2nd ser. 1:524, as found in Oskar Skarsaune,
In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity.
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002.
Rusch, William G., ed.. Sources of Early Christian Thought, The Trinitarian
Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Sakarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early
Christianity. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002.
Shulam, Joseph. Yeshuah is Elohim, reprinted from Tishrei, Vol. 4 No 2, Son of Man /
Son of God, Spring 1996, accessed 31 May 2006,
http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_is_elohim.htm.
Synod of Nicaea. The Creed of the Synod of Nyicaea, 19 June 325, as found in William
G. Rusch, ed., Sources of Early Christian Thought, The Trinitarian Controversy.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Vincent of Lerins. Commonitorium, as quoted in Moxon, ed., Cambridge Patristic
Texts, as found in Bettenson and Maunder, rev. ed., Documents of the Christian
Church, Doctrine and Development; the Vincentian Canon. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
_______. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition,
Houghton Mifflin Company, accessed 31 May 2006,
< http://dictionary.reference.com/>.
_______. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914 Edition, “The Athanasian Creed”, accessed
30 May 2006, < http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/>.
_______. The Athanasian Creed, translated by Marquess Of Bute, as found in
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914 Edition, accessed 30 May 2006,
< http: // www.catholicity.com/ encyclopedia/>.
ENDNOTES
1 We have lived for 18 of the last 20 years in a tight-knit Muslim neighborhood in Asia. We have the privilege of knowing many Muslims as dear friends.
2 The Arian Controversy may be said to have begun with the treatise of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria,
on “homoousios”, a relatively new theological concept, that Christ is of the same substance as the Father.
Or it may have begun with Arius, a presbyter (priest) who published a small book entitled “The Banquet”.
Although Arius was under Alexander, he disagreed strongly and dared to preach and publish teachings
which contradicted his bishop’s. Bishops, priests and laymen increasingly took sides, eventually attracting
Emperor Constantine’s attention. Seeing unity in the church as vital to the political strength of the recently
unified Roman Empire, the Emperor called a council of bishops to meet at Nicaea in the year 325CE to
forge a unity through a creedal approach. (Nathan P. Feldmeth, CH500 class lecture 7, “Early Questions on
the Trinity,” Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.)
3 2 Cor. 5:11
4 The Muslim Qur’an teaches repeatedly that three other books were sent down by Allah before it: the
Taurat (strictly, the Pentateuch; more commonly, the Old Testament minus the Psalms), the Zabur (Psalms)
and the Injil (the New Testament). A few of the many references to these holy books in the Qur’an are as
follows: 2:4,53,136; 3:3,48,50,65,93,184; 4:163; 5:43-47, 66, 110; 7:157; 9:29, 111; 48:29; 57:27.
5 Allah is the Arabic word meaning the One True God. It was used by Syrian Christians before
Muhammad (Dean S. Gilliland, ed. The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Mission Today,
Contextualization Among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars, by J. Dudley Woodberry [Dallas: Word
Publishing, 1989], 286.) It is still used by millions of Christians today. Examples of Bible translations that
use Allah: Arabic, Indonesian, Malay, numerous Bibles in Africa, and several in the Middle East, including
one in Turkish, as well as one in Urdu used in Pakistan and India.
6 Jesus the Christ
7 Eph. 5:2, Heb. 10:12
8 Heb. 13:15
9 Heb. 2:3, Rom. 5:11
10 The Qur’an accuses Jews and Christians of perverting the Scriptures (2:75,79; 4:46). For centuries there
has been disagreement inside the Muslim community concerning whether this perversion happened in the
original written text, or in translation, oral reading and teaching only. The typical Muslim of today believes
that the original written text has been corrupted.
11 The creed may have been penned by Athanasius himself, or more likely his followers. Some date it at
361CE, others during the 5th century. ("The Athanasian Creed." The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914 Edition.
30 May 2006
12 "The Athanasian Creed," trans. Bute, Marquess Of, as found in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914
Edition). 30 May 2006
13 The Creed of the Synod of Nicaea, June 19, 325CE, as found in William G. Rusch, ed. Sources of Early
Christian Thought, The Trinitarian Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 49.
14 Luke 1:37, Gen. 18:14, Matt. 19:26
15 Rom. 10:9
16 Acts 4:12, John 14:6, Acts 16:31
17 1 Cor. 15:3-6
18 Rusch says the apostolic fathers’ writings provide “no advance in synthesis or theological construction
beyond the biblical materials” (William G. Rusch, ed., 3). Do we want to “advance” beyond the Bible?
19 1 Tim. 2:5,6
20 John 1:1,14, Rev. 19:13
21 Ps. 2:7-12, Luke 1:35, Mark 12:6, John 1:34, 3:16-18, Heb. 1:5, 5:5, 1 John 4:9,10, 5:1
22 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, Phil. 2:6, Heb. 1:3
23 Mark 12:7, Heb. 1:2
24 Rev. 5:12,13, 6:16, 7:9,10,17, 12:11
25 Mark 12:6, John 6:29, Matt. 10:40
26 1 Cor. 15:45-49
27 Mark 14:62, Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33, 5:31, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20-23, Col. 3:1,2, Heb. 1:13, 1 Pet. 3:22
28 Acts 5:31
29 1 Cor. 15:20-28
30 Hypostasis and ousia originally were understood to be synonyms. As ontological descriptions became
more detailed, they took on new shades of meaning, and it was explained that God has one ousia and three
hypostasis. Neither of these concepts are clearly scriptural (William G. Rusch, ed., 14), except for the use
of hypostasis in Heb. 1:3, where Jesus is the image of God’s single hypostasis. Rusch describes the
apostolic fathers’ theology as “unrefined,” whereas he describes later, obvious Trinitarian theology as
“polished, philosophically sophisticated” (William G. Rusch, ed., 27). Feldmeth explains that the apostolic
fathers had “no time to speculate about the eternal relationship of the Trinity” because of “intense danger
and persecution” (Nathan P. Feldmeth, CH500 Lecture 7, “Early Questions on the Trinity”). Often in
persuading Muslims to know Christ, there is intense danger and persecution.
31 The leader of the Compromise party at Nicaea, Eusebius the historian, later included in his writings part
of a letter sent immediately after the Council of Nicaea which shows the absence of direct involvement of
Jews in theological formation at this time in church history: “We ought not have anything in common with
the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more
convenient course. Consequently… we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable
company of the Jews…” (Encyclical letter of the Nicene council, 325CE, quoted by Eusebius in Life of
Constantine 3.18, NPNF 2nd ser. 1:524, as found in Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish
Influences on Early Christianity [Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002], 433). Bishop Alexander was
also clearly anti-Jewish (Alexander of Alexandria, Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, section 3, as found
in William G. Rusch, ed., 33), as was Athanasius, who calls the theology of subordination a “Jewish
‘pretext’” (Athanasius, “Orations against the Arians,” section 14, as found in William G. Rusch, ed., 77),
and accuses Arians of preaching Jesus as “man by nature and nothing more… because they think Jewish
thoughts” (Athanasius, “Orations against the Arians”, section 38, as found in William G. Rusch, ed., 101).
32 Rom. 11:28
33 Rom. 11:33-36
34 By the 2nd century, Gentiles far outnumbered Jews; Justin Martyr (100 – 165CE) sees the church as a
non-Jewish entity (Oskar Skarsaune, 267). “Few of the 2nd and 3rd century apologists devoted much
attention to the Jews… Christians were being drawn primarily from paganism” (Kenneth Scott Latourette,
A History of Christianity, vol. 1, Beginnings to 1500 [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, A Division of
HarperCollinsPublishers, 1953], 83).
35 Vincent of Lerins states in 434 CE, “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold
THAT WHICH HAS BEEN BELIEVED EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS, AND BY ALL” (Vincent of
Lerins, Commonitorium, section 3, as quoted in Moxon, ed., Cambridge Patristic Texts, as found in
Bettenson and Maunder, rev. ed., Documents of the Christian Church, Doctrine and Development; the
Vincentian Canon [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 92). Is it possible to limit these beliefs to the
Scriptures alone, instead of various detailed, ontological interpretations, which may be helpful in certain
settings, but not in others?
36 Bishop Alexander believed in “one unbegotten Father… giver of the Law, Prophets, and Gospels, who is
Lord of patriarchs…” (Alexander of Alexandria, Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, section 46, as found
in William G. Rusch, ed., 41). Augustine endeavored to explain “a unity of equal substance” (Augustine,
On the Trinity, Book 9, section 1, as found in William G. Rusch, ed., 164). The Athanasian creed states,
“And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God” (“The Athanasian Creed” The Catholic Encyclopedia,
1914 Edition).
37 Deut. 6:4
38 Surah 5:74 of the Qur’an states: “They are surely disbelievers who say, ‘Allah is the third of three,’ there
is no God but the One God. And if they desist not from what they say, a grievous punishment shall surely
befall those of them that disbelieve.” Fazal Ahmad interprets, “This verse clearly talks about Trinitarians
who associated equals with God in their statement 'Allah is the third of three'. Early Christianity has a
history of confusion over the nature of Jesus (as), and the nature of God, and in the interplay between the
two…” (Fazal Ahmad, “ARIUS - The Trinity Controversy in the Church,” The Review of Religions,
September 1996, accessed 30 May 2006
website of the Ahmadiah Community).
39 Mark 12:28-34, Rom. 3:23-31, Eph. 4:2-6, 1 Cor. 8:4-6, 1 Tim. 2:5-6
40 Is. 9:6, Ps. 45:6,7, John 1:1, 10:34-36, 20:28, Heb. 1:8
41 Ex. 4:16, 7:1, Judges 13:22, Ps. 8:5, Acts 12:22, 28:6, 2 Cor. 4:4, John 10:34,35
42 “Thus he was mixed with God and became one, the better conquered, so that I might become God as he
became man.” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Third Theological Oration, section 3, as found in William G. Rusch,
ed. 144), and Athanasius, “the Son of God was made man in Jesus so that we might become God,” as
explained by Rusch (William G. Rusch, ed., 22).
43 “Elohim can have a rather broad semantic field: that under some circumstances it can refer to men,
angels, or tasks which are filled by men of God. That is to say, from a Torah point of view it would not be
wrong to call a person to whom the LORD gave His authority, ‘Elohim’”. (Joseph Shulam, “Yeshuah is
Elohim,” reprinted from Tishrei, Vol. 4 No 2, Son of Man/Son of God, Spring 1996, accessed 31 May
2006
44 1 Cor. 15:28
45 Mat. 27:46, John 20;17-18, Rev. 1:4-6, 3:1-2,11,12
46 Justin taught that “Christ is the first-born of God… He is the reason (Word) of whom the whole human
race partake” (Justin, Apology, I. xlvi 1-4, as found in Bettenson and Maunder, ed., 5). These and other
early writings tend toward a two-ness, an emphasis on God and Christ.
47 Rom. 15:6, 2 Cor. 1:3, 11:31, Gal. 1:1,3, Eph. 1:3
48 Eph. 4:4-6, 1 Thes. 3:11-13, 1 Pet. 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:4-6
49 1 Cor. 11:3, 3:23, 15:24,28, John 6:29, 1 Tim. 2:5,6, Rom. 8:17
50 John 4:24
51 Rev. 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6
52 Eph. 5:18
53 Acts 1:5
54 Acts 1:8
55 Rom. 8:4
56 Eph. 4:30
57 “Anathema” is used over and over on all sides of theological controversies. Not only were fellow
believers deemed unsaved, but curses were pronounced over them when they did not hold to the fine points
of various theological treatises. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines
anathema as “a formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication; a vehement denunciation; a curse:
‘the sound of a witch's anathemas in some unknown tongue’ (Nathaniel Hawthorne); One that is cursed or
damned; One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned.” (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, Published by
Houghton Mifflin Company, 31 May 2006 < http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anathema>.)
58 Luke 6:28, Rom. 12:14, James 3:9. 1 Cor. 16:22 says, “If anyone does not love the Lord – a curse be on
him”. Were these theologians convinced that those with differing views “did not love the Lord”?
59 1 Cor. 10:33
60 Nathan P. Feldmeth, CH500 class lecture 7, “Early Questions on the Trinity”.
61 Homioousios (of similar substance) was rejected; homoousios (of the same substance) won the day.
Kelly explains, “If Eusebius and his allies had had the slightest suspicion that numerical identity of
substance was being foisted on them in homoousios, they would have loudly objected to it as Sabellian” (J.
N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco; A Division of
HarperCollinsPublishers, 1978], 236).
62 Rev. 11:15
63 Mark 16:20
64 Is. 62:10
