Most folks who are involved in Christian/Muslim dialogue are familiar with the horrific debate that took place between David Wood and dawah missionary (and boxing/wrestling expert) Mohammed Hijab on the subject of Trinity and Tawheed (Islam's theology of the nature of Allah). It was horrific for a number of reasons (the majority of them being on the part of Mohammed Hijab, as usual). Here are two examples:
- Mohammed Hijab behaved horribly throughout the entirety of the debate. He was just simply acting in an infantile manner. There was even a video of him refusing to shake David Wood's hand before the debate began backstage.
- Hijab broke many of the rules. In one instance, a moderator (who was Muslim, by the way) had to remind him to stay on topic.
The worst bits, in my opinion at least, were when Hijab made frequent blunders regarding the history of Christian theology regarding the Trinity and the church fathers (if he has even done an sort of meaningful study on them). It was even worse when you could hear Hijab's brainwashed followers clapping along to his nonsense. I seriously began to wonder if he was just straight up lying (as he has done before, being his usual dishonest self) or was just straight-up ignorant of what church history actually tells us about the topics that were being debated at the event.
In particular, I wanted to write this article to refute a blatant error that Hijab made regarding the issues surrounding Constantine and the victory of the Christian faith over heathenism. He claimed that the Roman Empire forced Trinitarianism upon pagans. Essentially, he seems to think that Christians are "hiding" this (which, of course, is a laughable idea). In reality, many Christian church historians have discussed this at length in books and lectures. In particular, Hijab made reference to the Theodosian Code and the deeds of the Emperor Theodosius (it is interesting to note that throughout the debate, as far as I know, Hijab left out [conveniently] the fact that Christians, for the first three hundred years of church history, were persecuted, killed, and tortured. He did not mention that. Anyone who knows anything about church history knows that Hijab is making some of the most horrific errors of fact that anyone could ever make regarding the issue of the early years of the Christian church.
The first error he made was in saying that it was Theodosius II who "enforced Trinitarianism". It was actually Theodosius I. The fact that Hijab couldn't even get the right person correct is a bad omen in of itself.
Here is the section from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church (volume 3, for those of you take time to read the relevant sources, unlike Hijab):
"The final suppression of heathenism is usually, though not quite justly, ascribed to the emperor Theodosius I., who, on this account, as well as for his victories over the Goths, his wise legislation, and other services to the empire, bears the distinction of the Great, and deserves, for his personal virtues, to be counted among the best emperors of Rome. A native of Spain, son of a very worthy general of the same name, he was called by Gratian to be co-emperor in the East in a time of great danger from the threatening barbarians (379), and after the death of Valentinian, he rose to the head of the empire (392-395). He labored for the unity, of the state and the supremacy of the Catholic religion. He was a decided adherent of the Nicene orthodoxy, procured it the victory at the second ecumenical council (381), gave it all the privileges of the state religion, and issued a series of rigid laws against all heretics and schismatics. In his treatment of heathenism, for a time he only enforced the existing prohibition of sacrifice for purposes of magic and divination (385), but gradually extended it to the whole sacrificial worship. In the year 391 he prohibited, under heavy fine, the visiting of a heathen temple for a religious purpose; in the following year, even the private performance of libations and other pagan rites. The practice of idolatry was therefore henceforth a political offence, as Constantius had already, though prematurely, declared it to be, and was subjected to the severest penalties. Yet Theodosius by no means pressed the execution of these laws in places where the heathen party retained considerable strength; he did not exclude heathens from public office, and allowed them at least full liberty of thought and speech. His countryman, the Christian poet Prudentius, states with approbation, that in the distribution of the secular offices, he looked not at religion, but at merit and talent, and raised the heathen Symmachus to the dignity of consul. The emperor likewise appointed the heathen rhetorician, Themistius, prefect of Constantinople, and even intrusted him with the education of his son Arcadius. He acknowledged personal friendship toward Libanius, who addressed to him his celebrated plea for the temples in 384 or 390; though it is doubtful whether he actually delivered it in the imperial presence. In short this emperor stood in such favor with the heathens, that after his death he was enrolled by the Senate, according to ancient custom, among the gods. Theodosius issued no law for the destruction of temples. He only continued Gratian’s policy of confiscating the temple property and withdrawing entirely the public contribution to the support of idolatry. But in many places, especially in the East, the fanaticism of the monks and the Christian populace broke out in a rage for destruction, which Libanius bitterly laments. He calls these iconoclastic monks “men in black clothes, as voracious as elephants, and insatiably thirsty, but concealing their sensuality under an artificial paleness.” The belief of the Christians, that the heathen gods were living beings, demons, and dwelt in the temples, was the leading influence here, and overshadowed all artistic and archeological considerations. In Alexandria, a chief seat of the Neo-Platonic mysticism, there arose, at the instigation of the violent and unspiritual bishop Theophilus, a bloody conflict between heathens and Christians, in which the colossal statue and the magnificent temple of Serapis, next to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome the proudest monument of heathen architecture, was destroyed, without verifying the current expectation that upon its destruction the heavens would fall (391). The power of superstition once broken by this decisive blow, the other temples in Egypt soon met a similar fate; though the eloquent ruins of the works of the Pharaohs, the Ptolemies, and the Roman emperors in the valley of the Nile still stand and cast their twilight into the mysterious darkness of antiquity. Marcellus, bishop of Apamea in Syria, accompanied by an armed band of soldiers and gladiators, proceeded with the same zeal against the monuments and vital centres of heathen worship in his diocese, but was burnt alive for it by the enraged heathens, who went unpunished for the murder. In Gaul, St. Martin of Tours, between the years 375 and 400, destroyed a multitude of temples and images, and built churches and cloisters in their stead. But we also hear important protests from the church against this pious vandalism. Says Chrysostom at Antioch in the beginning of this reign, in his beautiful tract on the martyr Babylas: “Christians are not to destroy error by force and violence, but should work the salvation of men by persuasion, instruction, and love.” In the same spirit says Augustin, though not quite consistently: “Let us first obliterate the idols in the hearts of the heathen, and once they become Christians they will either themselves invite us to the execution of so good a work [the destruction of the idols], or anticipate us in it. Now we must pray for them, and not exasperate them.” Yet he commended the severe laws of the emperors against idolatry. In the west the work of destruction was not systematically carried on, and the many ruined temples of Greece and Italy at this day prove that even then reason and taste sometimes prevailed over the rude caprice of fanaticism, and that the maxim, It is easier to tear down than to build up, has its exceptions. With the death of Theodosius the empire again fell into two parts, which were never afterward reunited. The weak sons and successors of this prince, Arcadius in the east (395-408) and Honorius in the west (395-423), and likewise Theodosius II., or the younger (son of Arcadius, 408-450), and Valentinian III. (423-455), repeated and in some cases added to the laws of the previous reign against the heathen. In the year 408, Honorius even issued an edict excluding heathens from civil and military office; and in 423 appeared another edict, which questioned the existence of heathens. But in the first place, such laws, in the then critical condition of the empire amidst the confusion of the great migration, especially in the West, could be but imperfectly enforced; and in the next place, the frequent repetition of them itself proves that heathenism still had its votaries. This fact is witnessed also by various heathen writers. Zosimus wrote his “New History,” down to the year 410, under the reign and at the court of the younger Theodosius (appearing in the high office of comes and advocatus fisci, as he styles himself), in bitter prejudice against the Christian emperors. In many places the Christians, in their work of demolishing the idols, were murdered by the infuriated pagans. Meantime, however, there was cruelty also on the Christian side. One of the last instances of it was the terrible tragedy of Hypatia. This lady, a teacher of the Neo-Platonic philosophy in Alexandria, distinguished for her beauty, her intelligence, her learning, and her virtue, and esteemed both by Christians and by heathens, was seized in the open street by the Christian populace and fanatical monks, perhaps not without the connivance of the violent bishop Cyril, thrust out from her carriage, dragged to the cathedral, completely stripped, barbarously murdered with shells before the altar, and then torn to pieces and burnt, a.d. 415. Socrates, who relates this, adds: “It brought great censure both on Cyril and on the Alexandrian church.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-590, pg. 63-67; emphasis added)
The last bit where Schaff says that there was "cruelty on the Christian side" might be a go-to place for Hijab in order to attempt to prove his case. However, notice that Schaff recognizes that the acts done by Christians of murdering pagans brought "censure" upon Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril of Alexandria is one of the most well known fathers of the Christian church, and he condemned the "cruelty on the Christian side", as did other Christians writers as we have seen above from the quote from Philip Schaff.
While Theodosius did institute laws against paganism, theses were not done in the same way that Hijab would want us to believe. The reality is this: the orthodox Christian leaders condemned some of the harsh laws against heathenism as well as the acts of individual groups of Christians who were unbiblical in their approach to heathenism.
The idea of "spreading Christianity by the sword" is of course an anti-Christian myth that is commonly claimed by people such as Mohammed Hijab, as well as many atheists and others. However, the facts of history themselves argue against such an idea. More important than that, spreading Christianity "through the sword" is against the teaching of Scripture in how evangelism works in the first place (Ephesians 4:15, 1 Peter 3:15).
No comments:
Post a Comment