Christian and Islamic Theology

Christian Debate About the Son

The First Council of Nicaea developed the Nicene Creed as the uniform Christian doctrine. The council met to settle the Arian theology debate that Jesus was not eternal and that he did not share all attributes with God. However, this claim was actively debated against the evidence that people worshipped Jesus Christ together with God the Father. For instance, in John and Pauline’s gospel, disciples are the first proof of this reverence that Jesus Christ is both the Son of God and God Himself.

An excellent example provided during the debate was found in Ignatius’s letters of Antioch written in 1080 A.D. He stated that with the completeness of God, the Father, people are blessed. The source of our unity is going through genuine suffering, which one can experience by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ, our God. Therefore, these early writings referenced Jesus Christ as God. Under Emperor Constantine’s guidance, they agreed that they all believe in one God who is the Father Almighty, the creator of heaven, earth, and all things beyond people’s imaginations. They also believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is God’s Son, the only begotten son of the Father and Father’s substance. More so, for the sake of people’s sins and need for salvation, He descended, incarnated, and became a man. They also agreed to believe in the Holy Spirit, who enabled the conception of Jesus Christ into Mary’s womb. Thus, the creed was agreed upon and established by all councils, who unanimously signed a signature of acceptance.

Muslim Debate About the Quran

The Muslim debate of whether the Quran was created or eternal was agreed that it was uncreated. In the Islamic religion, the Sunni Muslims supported that the Quran was eternal, meaning it always existed, while the Shia Twelvers, Kharijirites, and Zaydi supported that the Quran was created. The conflict over which side is correct became the focal reason for contention in the early Muslim faith. Mu’tazila, a Muslim philosophical education institution, claimed that if the Quran is the word of God, rationally, God must have uttered his words for the writing to occur. In this case, the Quran expresses the eternal will of God, but He must have developed the work and writings at a certain point. Opponents, on the other hand, argued that various records of Muhammad’s words, deeds, and acceptances agree with the contention that the speech of God, the Quran, is a characteristic of God and, thus, uncreated.

Consequently, both the supporters and opponents of the debate agreed on the significance of the Quran. The term ‘created’ holds political considerations that interpretation of the origin of the Quran affects the authoritativeness of these texts to the Muslims and the status of the people who study them. Therefore, the argument settled on the perspective that God’s trait of authority and knowledge willed and already knew the word, and thus it is unchangeable, demonstrating that the Quran is uncreated.

Discuss the Similarities and Differences in How They Played Out

Both Christian and Islamic theology show similarity in that they believe in one God, and these debates played out to eliminate any objection to this fact. More so, they used historical facts of the existence of God to come up with an agreement on how they could unify the opposing sides. However, they show dissimilarity in the aspect that the Muslims did not have an authoritative figure like Emperor Constantine to guide the debate and make the final decision. The Muslims agreed based on which side had more compelling points to win the debate.

Hellenism/Logic vs. Political Considerations

In my perspective, the balance of Hellenism and political consideration played out similarly in both debates. For Christian theology, Emperor Constantine used the Greek language to address the Bishops and respect the Greek culture. This demonstrated unity in language and thus required unity in the standing of the Christian Church. He was afraid that the Arian theology would cause division in the church and eventually have political consequences. Similarly, Islam wanted to settle the dispute to maintain its political influence, avoid marginalization of some groups, and unify the understanding of the Quran.

Do You Think That the Intersection of Religion and Politics Is Good? Can It Ever Be Avoided?

Politics will continue to intersect with religion since they are the basis of social structures and organizations, and many beliefs are based on the two principles. In my perspective, it is within human nature for people to want to rule and dominate, and therefore, they use people’s beliefs to structure a system and avoid conflicts. Therefore, I believe it is a good thing since it is almost impossible to avoid the religious and political principles in structuring a society.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question

Background: The question of correct belief has been important in all three of the monotheistic faiths, and in this assignment, we will look at two specific issues, one in Christianity and the other in Islam. The first dealt with whether Christ, the Son of God according to Christians, was eternal and shared in all the attributes of God. The second dealt with whether the Quran, the Word of God according to Muslims, was created or eternal. You can see the clear similarities.

Christian and Islamic

Each of the debates was a mix of considerations. On the one hand, was the question that Hellenism posed of whether we can understand God with the mind and apply logic to the text of Scripture to deduce answers to our questions that may not have been so clearly spelled out in the Scripture itself. The other was the socio-political question of who would decide what the truth was and whether religion should set a limit on the bounds of correct belief, just as the law sets a limit on correct behavior.

Question: Describe each debate in terms of how it developed and what the major answers were. Then, discuss the similarities and differences in how they played out. Do you think the balance of the two forces (Hellenism/logic vs. political considerations) played out the same way in both debates? Do you think that the intersection of religion and politics is good? Can it ever be avoided?

On the Christian Debate about the Son:

Basic Introduction (Read beginning through the Nicene Creed and then Effects of the Council and Role of Constantine):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea (Links to an external site.)

Deals with the Theological Issues:

https://owlcation.com/humanities/What-Was-the-Arian-Controversy-Arius-and-the-Background-to-the-First-Council-of-Nicaea (Links to an external site.)

A good summary of the events leading up to the council and the council itself:

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/nicea/ (Links to an external site.)

It is not required, but read this if you would like a little more:

https://overviewbible.com/council-of-nicaea/ (Links to an external site.)

On Muslim Debate about the Quran:

A basic orientation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranic_createdness (Links to an external site.)