15 49.0138 8.38624 1 1 4000 1 https://mpom.wpengine.com 300 true 0
theme-sticky-logo-alt

Is the Christian Church Divinely Guided?

The Church Fathers, theologians and reformers of Christianity have been instrumental in the development of the religion in the centuries following Jesus and the disciples. From core doctrines such as the Trinity to the canon of the New Testament itself, they have played a major part in shaping fundamental aspects of the religion. Such a late development of doctrine and scripture is disturbing for Muslims, as Islam teaches that the Prophets were sealers of religion. However, for many Christians there is no controversy, as they believe that the Holy Spirit was the divine hand that has guided the Church through history. In this article we are going to examine the beliefs of the biggest movers, shakers and thinkers through Church history to see if they provide a solid foundation for Christianity.

Views on women

Christian men and women of the modern era generally view themselves to be of equal value in the eyes of God. However the status of women in the early Church and indeed through much of history has been quite a different picture, one that is a very negative portrayal of women. This could be for a number of reasons, such as prevailing cultural attitudes toward women, and perhaps even the Bible itself which places all the blame for the fall of man squarely on Eve as a consequence of tempting Adam to eat from the forbidden fruit.

Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215 CE) is usually regarded as a Church Father and is venerated as a saint in Coptic Christianity, Ethiopian Christianity and Anglicanism. He wrote:

Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman… the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame [1]

Origen of Alexandria (184 – 253 CE) was an early Christian scholar. He was a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology. He was one of the most influential figures in early Christian theology and apologetics and has been described as “the greatest genius the early church ever produced” [2]. He wrote:

Men should not sit and listen to a woman… even if she says admirable things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman [3]

Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE) was an early Christian theologian and philosopher whose writings influenced the development of Western Christianity [4]. He wrote:

I don’t see what sort of help a woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If a woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitutde. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate… the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards to the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too us joined with him in one [5]

John Chrysostom (349 – 407 CE) was an important early Church Father. He was given the epithet “golden-mouthed” because of his eloquence [6]. He was among the most prolific authors in the early Church, exceeded only by Augustine of Hippo in the quantity of his surviving writings. He wrote:

God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of their life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman [7]

Views on Jewish people

Historically the Jewish people have been one of, if not the, most persecuted groups by the Church. It is no exaggeration to say that on occasions things got so bad that authorities in Europe systematically attempted to wipe all traces of the Jewish people and Judaism from their lands.

Justin Martyr (100 – 165 CE) was an early Christian apologist and is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century [8]. He is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. He wrote:

We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart. The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observance of the sabbath as a mark [9]

Ambrose (340 – 397 CE) was a bishop and one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century [10]. In the Easter of 387, he delivered a discourse in which he applied Jeremiah’s rhetorical question, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard change its spots?” [Jeremiah 13:23], to the soul of the Jewish people. In doing so, he considered the Jews to be irrevocably perverse and incapable of any good thought [11].

Jerome (347 – 420 CE) was a priest, theologian, and historian. He is recognised as a Saint by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. He wrote of his satisfaction at the destruction of the Temple and the disappearance of the Jewish people from Jerusalem:

Until this very day, those hypocritical tenants are forbidden to come to Jerusalem, because of the murder of the prophets and the last of them: the Son of God, unless [they come] to weep, for then they are given permission to lament over the ruins of the city in exchange for a payment. Just as they purchased the blood of the Messiah, now they are purchasing their own tears… the children of this wretched nation are bemoaning the destruction of their temple, but are not worthy of compassion [12]

John Chrysostom went so far to say that because Jews rejected Jesus as God in human flesh, they therefore deserved to be killed. He even used Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 19:27) as justification:

The Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” …Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.” [13]

Martin Luther (1483 – 1546 CE) was a priest and professor of theology. He is considered a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation [14]. He was a vehement opponent of the Jewish people, citing the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 27:25) in one of his diatribes against them:

Even if they were punished in the most gruesome manner that the streets ran with their blood, that their dead would be counted, not in the hundred thousands, but in the millions, as happened under Vespasian in Jerusalem and for evil under Hadrian, still they must insist on being right even if after these 1,500 years they were in misery another 1,500 years, still God must be a liar and they must be correct. In sum, they are the devil’s children, damned to Hell…

The Jews too got what they deserved. They had been called and elected to be God’s mouth as Jeremiah says… Open your mouth wide and I will fill it; they however, kept tightly closed their muzzles, eyes, ears, nose, whole heart and all senses, so he polluted and squirted them so full that it oozes from them in all places and devil’s filth comes from them.

Yes, that tastes good to them, into their hearts, they smack their lips like swine. That is how they want it. Call more: ‘Crucify him, crucify him.’ Scream more: ‘His blood come upon us and our children.’ (Matthew 27:25) I mean it came and found you…

Perhaps, one of the merciful Saints among us Christians may think I am behaving too crude and disdainfully against the poor, miserable Jews in that I deal with them so sarcastically and insulting. But, good God, I am much too mild in insulting such devils… [15]

Exaggeration and lies

The centuries following Jesus were a battleground. Various denominations of Christianity, each with their own distinct beliefs and scriptures, competed with one another for supremacy. It was not uncommon for one denomination to exaggerate and lie against competing denominations in a bid to smear their opponents. For example, the second century theologian Irenaeus claimed that the followers of Valentinus made indiscriminate copulation not only permissible but a desired act for those who are truly spiritual [16], and that the Carpocratians practised indiscriminate sex and that their theology compelled them to violate every conceivable moral law and ethical norm [17]. Perhaps the most outrageous example occurs near the end of the fourth century in the writings of the bishop Epiphanius, who in his discussion of a group of Gnostic Christians outlines their beliefs and describes their orgiastic and cannibalistic practices. Epiphanius claimed that they indulged in sumptuous feasts, with married couples separating to engage in sexual intercourse with other members of the community [18]. The couples are alleged to have then collected the semen in their hands and ingested it together while proclaiming, “this is the body of Christ.” The couple also collected and consumed the woman’s menstrual blood, saying “this is the blood of Christ” [19]. If for some reason the women became pregnant, the fetus was allowed to develop until it could be manually aborted. Then, claims Epiphanius, it was dismembered, covered with honey and spices, and devoured by the community as a special meal [20].

With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in the 20th century we have been able to study the actual writings of a bewildering variety of Gnostic Christians. A lot of the claims made by the Church Fathers against such groups were proven to be false, as far from condoning, let alone promoting, such outlandish moral behaviour, their writings urge and assume just the contrary social and personal ethics. One of the few constants among all the Nag Hammadi writings is their ascetic orientation. Gnostic Christians appear to have believed, as a rule, in punishing the body, not indulging it. They endorsed ascetic lifestyles far from the hedonistic debauchery that the Church Fathers alleged. Apparently then, Gnostics were consistently attacked by “orthodox” Christians as sexually perverse, not because they actually were perverse, but because they were the enemy.

A lot of what we know about early Church history comes from Eusebius (265 – 340 CE), the bishop of Caesarea. He pioneered work giving a chronological account of the development of early Christianity. In fact he is often called the “Father of Church History”. What’s troubling as that he openly admitted to lying in order to propagate what he believed to be the truth. In his work, Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Book 12, Chapter 31 is titled as follows [21]:

That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment.

Eusebius makes it clear that lying is not only permissible but in fact necessary when it comes to preaching Christianity:

But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly? 
[22]

We can see that according to Eusebius it is okay to lie in order to propagate what he saw as the truth. Based on this principle, there is no doubt that he would have been willing to lie about other groups who he disagreed with in order to protect what he saw as the truth. This is a major chronicler of early Church history who wrote much of what we know of competing denominations. In light of his willingness to lie, it is difficult to believe that his writings against his opponents are historically accurate and objective.

Problems with these beliefs and polemics in the Church

In this article we've looked at the beliefs and polemics of some of the most influential Christian theologians on a number of topics. These individuals span the course of Church history and include everyone from the earliest Church Fathers to the later reformers of the sixteenth century. These are individuals whose reverence spans the whole spectrum of Christian denomination, from Western Christianity to Eastern Orthodoxy and everything in between. Christians today would no doubt reject many (if not all) of the controversial beliefs and practices that have been presented in this article, and would argue that it's not fair for Muslims (or anyone for that matter) to judge Christianity by the actions and views of its followers. Generally speaking, it's true that we should not judge a religion by its followers. However, the problem is that these are the same individuals who were responsible for shaping Christian doctrines and scriptures that persist to this day. So it is fair game to scrutinise their character, conduct and beliefs.

Christians would not only reject these controversial beliefs that they held, but also their usage of scripture in order to justify those beliefs. Christians will divorce such beliefs from scripture by arguing that they have no basis in the Bible. Now for the sake of argument, even if such beliefs have zero basis in the Bible, the fact is that these individuals quoted scripture in order to support their beliefs, so in their own minds they clearly believed that they had Biblical backing. Such a situation is worrying indeed, as it shows that these individuals, who have shaped Christianity to be what it is today, were by no means protected from error when it came to handling the Bible. It has also been shown that many of them were quite willing to exaggerate and lie when it came to dealing with those with whom them disagreed. In light of this, how can Christians have confidence in the major Christian doctrines that some of these individuals had a hand in formulating, such as the Trinity? What of the belief that they were divinely guided to the truth by the Holy Spirit, does God inspire theological error or immoral practices such as lying about those with whom one disagrees? Jesus said, "By their fruit you will recognise them" [Matthew 7:16]. We have seen that some of the fruits of these individuals are very rotten indeed.

Further Reading

I would encourage Christians to not put their faith in men, but rather to trust in God. Islam is the only religion on the face of this earth whose doctrines and scriptures are pure and free from any corruption. Please read these articles to learn more:

Tawheed versus Trinity Part 1

Tawheed versus Trinity Part 2

To learn more about Jesus from both the Islamic and Christian perspective, please download your free copy of the book "Jesus: Man, Messenger, Messiah" from the Iera website (click on image below):

References

1 - Paedagogus, Book 2, 33.2.

2 - John McGuckin, The Westminster Handbook to Origen, p. 25.

3 - Origen, Fragments on 1 Corinthians.

4 - Linda Woodhead, An Introduction to Christianity, p. 85.

5 - On the Trinity, Book 12 7.10.

6 - J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop.

7 - John Chrysostom, The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as wives.

8 - David Rokeah, Justin Martyr and the Jews, p.22.

9 - Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho.

10 - William Frank Smith, Catholic Church Milestones: People and Events that Shaped the Institutional Church, p. 13.

11 - Ambrose, Six Days of Work, Sermon IX, 15 (PL 14:247).

12 - Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099, p. 69.

13 - John Chrysostom, Against the Jews, Homily II.

14 - Barbara A. Somervill, Martin Luther: Father of the Reformation.

15 - Martin Luther, Of The Unknowable Name and The Generations of Christ.

16 - Irenaeus , Against Heresies 1,6,3–4.

17 - Irenaeus , Against Heresies, 1,25,4.

18 - Epiphanius , Panarion 26.4.4.

19 - Epiphanius , Panarion 26.4.5–8.

20 - Epiphanius , Panarion 26.5.4–6.

21 - Accessed August 26th 2018:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm

22 - Accessed August 26th 2018:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm#100

Previous Post
False Prophets Series – Part 5: Ghulam Ahmad
Next Post
Is the Christian Bible Complete?
mm
Many Prophets One Message

A CALL TO THE TRUTH

3 Comments

  • September 3, 2018 at 5:54 pm
    muhammad abud

    your website is the best Islamic comparative religion website sir simply amazing . jazakallah for your hard work and keep them good articles coming

    • mm
      September 3, 2018 at 6:43 pm
      Many Prophets One Message

      Jazak Allah khayr for your kind words.

  • September 6, 2018 at 7:20 pm
    Abdul Kareem

    Now for sure, I expect we are getting a book with this content included in it. 😉

    Love your articles, love them even more when they are in book format.