I am not sure whether there is something in Dr James White’s claim of Sam Shamoun repudiation of Limited Atonement theology was out of spite following Sam’s acrimonious break-up with James. We can’t be sure although Sam has previous form. Sam has publicly stated a Muslim, many years ago, who embarrassed Sam and attacked Christianity was a springboard for his anti-Islam polemics, which have now occupied decades of his life, so there is something in Sam’s character where his theology is moved by emotion – specifically negative emotions.
In British churches there is, as Dr Joseph Shaw speaks of, an emasculation of men in churches and I would hazard this makes many prone be excessively emotional. In the churches/church groups that I visit I do feel some men in those churches do seem to more feminised/emasculated than average British men.
Having said all that, Sam Shamoun is faced with the very real question of why has he not renounced the Trinity doctrine yet? If he can now reject Limited Atonement which has a stronger and clearer superficial case to being Biblical than the Trinity then why not denounce the Trinity as unbiblical ?
Trinitatarian apologists contend for the idea of the Trinity by amalgamating a number of Biblical verses together and reading into those meshed verses the doctrine of the Trinity including the limit of three persons despite Christians now openly admitting there is no limit of three in the Bible as well as introducing the concept of personhood which has also been shown to be an external thought added to the New Testament as there is no Biblical differentiation between being and personhood . In a nutshell, what the Trinity advocates do, is eisegesis not exegesis via imaginative hermeneutic gymnastics. It’s awfully unconvincing.
On the other hand, the proponents of PR/LA may point to one individual in the Bible and a specific verse to argue for their doctrine. They argue John teaches this and point to, what appears on the surface level, three pretty clear verses.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [John 15]
And John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Is Sam going to claim that Jesus believes Muslims are his friends? Sam, do you believe your god died for us and considers us his friends?
Sam, does this mean, you believe the man you consider to be God believes Muslims and other non-Christians whom you believe to be the sons of Satan are the friends of your god? Do you not think there’s a contradiction here? And what of your prophet (Paul of Tarsus) who cursed people who did not believe the same as him, do you believe he was cursing the sheep and friends of Jesus?
And what about the Jews and Romans who were purportedly behind the crucifixion of Jesus, do you believe they were Jesus’ friends and Jesus died for them?
Notice how the advocates of Limited Atonement can argue simply from certain NT texts and can ask questions which make the Christian opposition appear contradictory.
Trinitarian apologists cannot argue simply from the NT. They can’t point to a specific verse nor can they point to a specific author or individual in the Bible to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity. So much so that even Paul of Tarsus isn’t even thought of as a Trinitarian:
If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. [Paula Fredricksen]
Having said all that, Sam Shamoun is faced with the very real question of why has he not renounced the Trinity doctrine yet? If he can now reject Limited Atonement which has a stronger and clearer superficial case to being Biblical than the Trinity then why not denounce the Trinity as unbiblical ?
Trinitatarian apologists contend for the idea of the Trinity by amalgamating a number of Biblical verses together and reading into those meshed verses the doctrine of the Trinity including the limit of three persons despite Christians now openly admitting there is no limit of three in the Bible as well as introducing the concept of personhood which has also been shown to be an external thought added to the New Testament as there is no Biblical differentiation between being and personhood . In a nutshell, what the Trinity advocates do, is eisegesis not exegesis via imaginative hermeneutic gymnastics. It’s awfully unconvincing.
On the other hand, the proponents of PR/LA may point to one individual in the Bible and a specific verse to argue for their doctrine. They argue John teaches this and point to, what appears on the surface level, three pretty clear verses.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [John 15]
And John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Is Sam going to claim that Jesus believes Muslims are his friends? Sam, do you believe your god died for us and considers us his friends?
Sam, does this mean, you believe the man you consider to be God believes Muslims and other non-Christians whom you believe to be the sons of Satan are the friends of your god? Do you not think there’s a contradiction here? And what of your prophet (Paul of Tarsus) who cursed people who did not believe the same as him, do you believe he was cursing the sheep and friends of Jesus?
And what about the Jews and Romans who were purportedly behind the crucifixion of Jesus, do you believe they were Jesus’ friends and Jesus died for them?
Notice how the advocates of Limited Atonement can argue simply from certain NT texts and can ask questions which make the Christian opposition appear contradictory.
Trinitarian apologists cannot argue simply from the NT. They can’t point to a specific verse nor can they point to a specific author or individual in the Bible to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity. So much so that even Paul of Tarsus isn’t even thought of as a Trinitarian:
If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. [Paula Fredricksen]
The same obviously can be said of Jesus and his disciples: they had no knowledge of the Trinity as the Trinity doctrine was a construct that came about through later philosophy – it came about after Nicaea.
My questions to Sam have to be, why has he not rejected the Trinity belief? If he has, is he willing to go on public record? I understand he was racially abused for simply teaching the Bible’s age of consent but if Sam is consistent and has rejected the Trinity doctrine along with Limited atonement then he should be brave enough to make this known.
Why Islam
