It has become clear to us that Osama’s alleged rebuttals to our thorough replies are nothing more than attempts of trying to save face in the eyes of his readers. Osama seemingly hopes to convince his readers that he is able to actually respond to our material which demonstrate his gross errors. In his latest supposed response to our reply regarding the issue of women in the Bible and Islam, Osama has produced more irrelevant arguments and logical fallacies, as well as managing to continue with his mantra syndrome. Suffice it to say, we will produce a final refutation of his arguments against our response in order to show our readers that Osama is not qualified to write criticisms of the Bible and is quite incapable of defending Islam.

In trying to address our rebuttal, Osama managed to "discover" some verses regarding women and their husbands which he thinks are contradictory. Here, we seek to address Osama’s attempt of pitting the Apostle Paul against the Apostles Peter and John. We aim to show once again that Osama’s criticisms are based on a deliberate twisting of the Holy Scriptures, gross logical fallacies and a misunderstanding of the passages in question.

Osama starts off by analyzing a passage from the Apostle Peter, one originally quoted in our rebuttal:

RESPONSE:

Since we have already addressed what Paul actually meant in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25, we won’t repeat ourselves here. We simply forward our readers to our discussion of this passage which can be found near the end of these articles:

This issue was also addressed in our response to MENJ, which can be accessed here:

Osama asserts:

RESPONSE:

It is quite astonishing to see Osama’s audacious mockery of the true Triune God BASED ON HIS BLATANT MISQUOTATION AND MISINTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT. Osama deliberately omits the one verse which exposes his gross exegetical blunder. I say deliberately since I cannot see how a person reading 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 could have missed what follows right after. Here is 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, yet this time adding verse 16:

"To the rest I say - I, not the Lord - if a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified because of the wife, and the unbelieving wife because of her husband. Otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace. For how do you know, wife, WHETHER YOU WILL BRING YOUR HUSBAND TO SALVATION? Or how do you know, husband, WHETHER YOU WILL BRING YOUR WIFE TO SALVATION? NET Bible

Let us now compare this with what Peter wrote:

"In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word BY THE WAY YOU LIVE, when they see your pure and reverent conduct." 1 Peter 3:1-2

Both Peter and Paul state that the unbelieving husband may be won over to the faith, and hence salvation, through the wife’s faithfulness and devotion. Therefore, PAUL IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH PETER. It is only Osama’s willful wrenching of the context that leads to an alleged contradiction.

Osama erroneously thinks that being sanctified means being saved. It is true of course, that the word sanctified in Greek, hegiastai which comes from the verb hagiazo, can refer to those who are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but not in every instance. For a discussion on the broad range of meanings of hagiazo, please read the following article: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/sanctified.htm.

Paul in verse 16 makes it explicit that the unbelieving spouse is NOT saved by the faith of the other partner, demonstrating clearly that Osama has twisted the text to suit his agenda. The word Paul uses for salvation in 16 is not hegiastai but sooseis, which comes from soozo. Soozo can mean:

If Paul wanted to imply that the unbeliever was saved as a result of the other spouse’s faith then he could have used soozo instead of hagiazo. In fact, there would have been no need for Paul to explain to the believing spouse that staying with the unbelieving partner may lead to the latter’s salvation since this would have already been made clear from the Apostle’s statement that the believer’s family are (not may be) sanctified.

We still need to explain what Paul meant that the unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified by the believing partner’s faith. Sanctified here has a twofold meaning. First, the unbelieving partner and children are sanctified or set apart in that they come under a godly influence, which other unbelieving families do not experience. In other words, the believing spouse exposes the family to a moral and spiritual lifestyle which impacts the way they live. Instead of living as heathens and in ungodliness, both the spouse and the children maybe influenced to live morally upright lives because of the example set by the believing member.

In the words of renowned Evangelical Scholar Craig L. Blomberg:

... Verse 14 supplies the rationale for Paul’s insistence on preserving the marriage: there are spin-off blessings for the non-Christian spouse and children that come from having even one member of the family follow the Lord. ‘Sanctified’ and ‘holy’ cannot here mean ‘saved,’ AS VERSE 16 PROVES. Rather they refer to ‘the moral and spiritual impact of the life of the believer’ on the rest of the family, making those family members ‘set apart in a very special place… as God’s object of devotion.’ (Blomberg, The NIV Application Commentary - 1 Corinthians [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI], p. 135; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The prophet Joseph is an example of how a believer can bring the unbelieving members of a household under the sphere of God’s blessings and influence:

"Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt. An Egyptian named Potiphar, an official of Pharaoh and the captain of the guard, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there. The Lord was with Joseph. He was successful and lived in the household of his Egyptian master. His master observed that the Lord was with him and that the Lord made everything he was doing successful. So Joseph found favor in his sight and became his personal attendant. Potiphar appointed Joseph overseer of his household and put him in charge of everything he owned. From the time Potiphar appointed him over his household and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the Egyptian's household for Joseph's sake. The blessing of the Lord was on everything that he had, both in his house and in his fields. So Potiphar left everything he had in Joseph's care; he gave no thought to anything except the food he ate." Genesis 39:1-6

Secondly, the OT scriptures viewed marriage between believers and heathens as defiling and children of such a union were considered unclean as well. Cf. Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 9:1-2; 10:30; 13:1-3, 23-31

Paul, however, states that under the New Covenant the believing spouse makes the marital union acceptable in the eyes of God.

The late A.T. Robertson, considered to be one of the leading Greek Grammarians of all time, noted:

Is sanctified in the wife (ηγιασται εν τη γυναικι). Perfect passive indicative of αγιαζω, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul's language. Else were your children unclean (επει αρα τα τεκνα ακαθαρτα). The common ellipse of the condition with επει: "since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (ακαθαρτα)." If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not αγιος till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer). (Source)

In agreement the Geneva Study Bible says:

(9) He answers an objection: but the faithful is defiled by the company of the unfaithful. The apostle denies that, and proves that the faithful man with good conscience may use the vessel of his unfaithful wife, by this, that their children which are born of them are considered holy or legitimate (that is, contained within the promise): for it is said to all the faithful, "I will be your God, and the God of your seed."
(h) The godliness of the wife is of more force to cause their marriage to be considered holy, than the infidelity of the husband is to profane the marriage.
(i) The infidel is not sanctified or made holy in his own person, but in respect of his wife, he is sanctified to her.
(k) To the faithful husband.
(l) The children are holy in the same sense that their parents are; that is they are sanctified, or lawfully espoused together, so the children born of them were in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate. (Ed.) (Source)

In both Islam and Christianity there is the general principle that believers should marry believers. The passage 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, however, points to one area in which there is a fundamental difference: If there is a married couple of unbelievers, and one of the spouses becomes a believer, what consequence does this have for their marriage?

The New Testament teaches that the marriage covenant is to be honored and the family preserved. If the unbeliever wants to continue, the believer should not divorce him or her. Islam on the other hand demands the divorce at least in the case that the wife becomes a Muslim. In Islamic law, a Muslimah can never be married to a non-Muslim. Islam destroys such families.

Osama turns his attention to John’s theology:

RESPONSE:

Did Paul contradict John? Let us see:

"For since in the wisdom of God, the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save THOSE WHO BELIEVE by the foolishness of preaching." 1 Corinthians 1:21

"Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you - unless you BELIEVED in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:1-2

Note here that Paul implies that it is belief in the Gospel which results in perseverance that saves a person.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16

"because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation." Romans 10:9-10, 13

Paul also speaks of being justified freely through FAITH:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed - namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all WHO BELIEVE. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God publicly displayed him as the mercy seat by his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle OF FAITH! For we consider that a person is declared righteous BY FAITH apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised BY FAITH and the uncircumcised THROUGH FAITH. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law." Romans 3:21-31

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered regarding this matter? For if Abraham was declared righteous by the works of the law, he has something to boast about (but not before God). For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. But to the one who does not work, but BELIEVES in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness. So even David himself speaks regarding the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count sin.’ Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, ‘faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.’ How then was it credited to him? Was he circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised! And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had BY FAITH while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those WHO BELIEVE but have never been circumcised, that they too could have righteousness credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the FAITH that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that COMES BY FAITH. For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either. For this reason it is BY FAITH so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants - not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have THE FAITH of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations’). He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed - the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do. Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, ‘so will your descendants be.’ Without being weak in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and the deadness of Sarah's womb. He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God. He was fully convinced that what God promised he was also able to do. So indeed it was credited to Abraham as righteousness. But the statement it was credited to him was not written only for Abraham's sake, but also for our sake, to whom it will be credited, those who BELIEVE in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was given over because of our transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification." Romans 4:1-25

It is quite evident that Paul was perfectly in line with John’s theology.

At any rate, in light of the foregoing one thing is crystal clear. There is no contradiction between the theology of Paul and the other Apostles. A careful analysis and correct exegesis of the passages in question demonstrate this beyond any reasonable doubt.

We conclude with Osama’s own words, with some modifications:

The Bible HAS NO REAL CONTRADICTIONS! The autographs were certainly perfect, and the extant MSS accurately preserve the original inerrant autographs: See these links for the evidence:

It is clear that God has preserved his Word in spite of variant readings and man’s attempt of altering its pristine message by innovations. It truly is the very inspired Word of the eternal, almighty Triune God.

This is unlike the Quran with all its gross errors and textual corruption:

Sam Shamoun

Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page