The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Muslim becomes Christian and so does his wives...

Let us say that a Muslim comes to you professing faith in Christ and desires to be baptized. And with him comes his three wives and the their five children. The wives too profess faith in Christ and also desire to be baptized.

Will you baptize this man and his wives?

Now there's an interesting question.

If this is in a place where polygamy is legal, I think I would support baptizing all of them. Although the additional marriages were sinful to enter into, it would be worse for them to divorce without cause. We also have many examples in the Old Testament of saints with more than one wife, and I don't think they are ever told to divorce their other wives. However, the man would not be eligible for any church office.

I would not allow the man nor his wives to be baptized, which among other things signifies the acceptance of an individual into the Church as a true believer; a follower of Christ. Since polygamy is a sin, one living in a known sin cannot be given membership in the body of Christ. If a man was already a member and it was discovered that he was a polygamist, he would come under discipline. He and his wives, if they too were members would be told to repent of their sin else face excommunication. The "one man, one woman and the two shall become one flesh" principle; God's will for all mankind transcends cultural norms which in many cases are sinful.

Divorcing all but the first wife IS justified since polygamy of necessity involves adultery. The matter of what responsibilities the man has for the other women and any children born of them is another subject, however. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You know this question was posted on another discussion board I flit through now and then and it broke down to basically those two view points. Although I must say Pilgrim that it was the Baptist that said no and the Presbyterian that said yes in the forum. Maybe I'm rubbing off on you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

My answer depends only on what marriage is, and what it is not.

I would not even consider any "marriage" after the first one to be a real marriage, i.e. in the eyes of God, in any culture no matter what the participants agreed to, just as I would not consider two men's "marriage" to be a real marriage.

Since adulterous relationships are not marriages, the breaking of the relationship is not divorce, in spite of significant emotional attachment and sharing of material and intangible goods and life by the participants.

This, of course, would be extraordinarily difficult for the former Muslims but not more difficult, I would imagine, than the situation of two men with homosexual inclinations previously married in Boston but now converted to the faith.

First of all, not being an ordained minister, I don't have the authority of the Church to do such a thing. But I will give my opinion.

NO regenerate Muslim would ask this of the Christian Church in the first place because he is trapped. Of course he still has a finacial responsibility to all of his children and wives.

IMO, the bottom line is this:


And again:


Our gracious God may well do the impossible and regenerate a Muslim but a converted Muslim will leave his unregenerate evil and blasphemous religious perversions behind.

Let's all be tolerant and deny God's words and while we're at it, lets allow "professing faith" homosexuals to get married by an "ordained" liberal/feminist woman preacher also. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

With all due respect, someone just coming to Christ is not expected to know all the ins and outs of Christianity at regeneration. Even some mature in the faith – such as Luther – make errors on this issue (see below). Thus saying, “NO regenerate Muslim would ask this of the Christian Church in the first place …,” is simply incorrect. Because of their culture, religion, and laws they very well may ask such questions. Actually, I would be surprised if they didn’t. Asking does not necessarily invalidate their confession of salvation, but to the contrary, may very well reveal a heart that desires to be taught in a new way, so they will no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error (Eph. 4:14). Have you asked any questions regarding the faith since you became born-again? Being regenerate, do you know the answer to every Bible issue? A question may be a step in faith and not idolatry!

Second, polygamy is outlawed both for church leaders (1 Tim. 3:1 ff; Titus 1:6 ff) and in the church (Matt 19:8-9, Mark 10:1-12). In that it is outlawed for church leaders is significant as they are suppose to be examples for the flock (1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6-7; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Tim. 4:12; Tit. 2:7; 1 Pet. 5:3). However (in the early church), in that a specific qualification for leadership outlawed polygamy reveals that some were “in the church” and married to several partners. As Justin Martyr latter said, "Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob."

Polygamy was introduced after the fall (Gen. 4:19-24; Exod. 21:10; Deut. 17:17, 2 Chron. 11:21, 2 Sam. 5:13, etc.), however I see a progression toward monogamy as we move toward the full restoration of God's kingdom (though always the ideal, Jesus re-introduced the Genesis narrative (Gen. 2:24) of a godly marriage in Matt. 19:1-9). While the early church struggled with this issue and many were apparently baptized, polygamy is not the ideal and this is clearly seen in that Jesus’ argument in Matthew would fail if polygamy was allowed. Thus, polygamy today should not be viewed as God’s ideal, but neither should divorce, etc.

Likewise, it was condemned by many in Church history. However, Luther in one of his not so brilliant moments,


Third, it really depends in which sect of Islam a person is in and whether they are a man or woman. In some branches of Islam when a person, whether a man or a woman, renounces Islam, his or her marriage is automatically rendered invalid, because of the apostasy involved (ahli kitab). Thus, one’s conversion to Christianity nullifies “all” previous marriages. This is the law of their land, their government, and their religion. Thus, according to the law of the Muslim land, they would be divorced, so, the question then becomes does the church recognize a marriage that has been nullified by said countries laws (societal, governmental, and religious) in which the said Muslim lives? Is that man even married to his first wife, much less the others? In other sects, the man may give an oral pronouncement of divorce which is effective after three months (iddah...3 menstrual cycles).

Thus, all would be eligible for baptism after an investigation into “the facts” that regulate the situation and if the separations are legal, et. al. It also must be stated that the Muslim mind is trained differently then the Western one. Ritual means exceptionally more to them then it does to us.

Understanding this should help the Christian better share "the faith once delivered to the saints." From a cultural perspective, if a Muslim convert asks for baptism it is very significant. While they may not understand Christianity totally, they do understand the significance of what they are asking a Christian pastor to do from their perspective -- that being a confession of faith and a total break with Islam, et. al.

We’re no better.

Of course your right here, however my point although not well spoken is that if the Muslim brings his "wives" with him for baptism the church should of necessity question the valitity of his conversion in the first place. Should she not?

I think a good example of this serious confusion would be a question and answer session that I found concerning baptism and "Christianity" on a Muslim website.

Question

"We know that the Bible has spoken about the Baptism of Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him. How should we as Muslims respond to questions from Christians about Baptism and whether we believe in that event, since, as far as I know, there is no mention of that in the Qur'an or Hadith. This question comes up because we as Muslims believe in Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, his life, and the Gospels.

Answer

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear questioner, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah’s Sake, meet your expectations. In his response to the question in point, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, states the following: “The word 'Baptism' comes from the Greek 'Baptein' which means 'to plunge, to immerse, or to wash.' It was an ancient custom to wash or to make ablution. Islam has preserved this tradition in the form of ablution and ritual Ghusl for the purpose of purification purpose. Allah mentions in the Qur'an that He made water a source for purification. Allah Almighty says: “And He it is Who sendeth the winds, glad tidings heralding His mercy, and We send down purifying water from the sky.” (Al-Furqan: 48) Like all other Prophets of Allah, Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, also washed himself to purify himself. During his time Yahya (John, the Baptist) used to call people to repent and purify themselves in the River Jordan. It is mentioned that Jesus also went to him and took a bath of purification (Mark 1:9-11). After that Allah appointed Jesus as His Prophet and Messenger and he began preaching Allah's Message. Jesus was a servant of Allah. He used to pray and for his prayers he must be purifying himself. Jews in his time also used to do a lot of ritual washings. The Old Testament speaks a lot about the use of water for the purpose of purification. (See Numbers 19:1-22; Leviticus 14-15-16:24-28) After Jesus left this world, Paul became a leader of some Christians. It was he who gave a new interpretation of Jesus' Baptism. He told them that when a person takes a Baptism in water, actually he immerses himself in Jesus' blood and dies with him and then he is resurrected like Jesus into a new person. (See Romans 6:3-4). Paul gave a new definition of Baptism. For him it was something to do with Original Sin and then the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (See Colossians 2:12) For Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, and his followers the Baptism was just a bath or ablution to purify themselves physically, ritually and spiritually, but with Pauline interpretation it became a symbol of belief in Jesus' so-called death and ressurection. We, as Muslims, accept the early tradition and that is what Islam has preserved and reaffirmed. We do not accept the later interpretation and doctrinal aberrations.” If you have any further comments, please don't hesitate to write back! May Allah guide you to the straight path, and guide you to that which pleases Him, Amen.

Allah Almighty knows best."

According to this man the Pauline epistles are not even Scripture! I do believe we should be quite careful about who we baptize and admit to membership into our churches.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Denny
Remember the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-40)?
Philip explained the biblical story to him and then later Philip baptizes him. In verse 36 the eunuch asked him if he could be baptized. It goes on to tell us that if the eunuch believed with his whole heart then he could be baptized.
Obviously we know that the eunuch was baptized so, we know that he was a believer, especially in light of his confession in verse 37.

In a Muslims case, I don't think it would be any different. But perhaps given that some Muslims don't believe that the Scripture understanding of Paul is Biblical. It might be best to make certain he understands that issue, clearly before being baptized.

Tom

Just because someone brings his ex-wives (according to some sects), who are ALSO confessing Christ does not automatically make one suspect of not being a Christian. Is it a sin to share one’s baptism with those that you have been so close to for years? Is it a sin for the husband to have shared Christ with his wives and children (or visa-versa)? This is a new one on me, “You are guilty of not being a Christian because you evangelized the lost.” Is it suspect when a family comes to Christ all at once? (do some studies in missionolgy before answering)

I would not begin by “questioning” (maybe you are using the term “questioning” different than I (ex-cop here) someone's conversion, but, as with any other baptismal candidate, I would inquire of their salvation experiences and see what their faith entailed. I would also ask them to explain their sect(s) to me so I would have a better understanding of where they are coming from culturally. If satisfactory, I would see what they have been taught concerning "the family," since they have made a profession of faith. After all how would you expect them to understand and follow Christian principles, if they were not taught (Eph. 4:11 ff)? We have the Scriptures on family because Paul and others, through the Holy Spirit, saw the churches lack of proper theology being demonstrated in the same (Eph. 5:22-6:4; 1 Cor. 7, 1 Pet. 3:1 ff, et. al.). If church members need to be taught concerning the family – how much more someone coming from a different faith!

Your example has nothing to do with the original scenario, but instead deals with someone who would abstain from baptism by a Christian Church as opposed to the scenario which states, “a Muslim …. desires to be baptized.”

Spoken like a true Baptist! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> We realize that everyone who is baptized in a Baptist church is saved, especially if they make an outward profession of faith. But in non-Credo Baptist churches, this is not assumed; with the exception of those holding to hyper-covenantalism, NPP, FV, and other non-orthodox views. We accept one's profession when it is tested by the Elders (hopefully they are also reliable in their discernment) and by the life lived. But we cannot "know" they are saved just because they have been baptized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Call me "suspicious", aka: a genuine, bona fide Calvinist who believes whole-heartedly in the doctrine of total depravity and in the deception of the Evil One, but I would never authorize the baptism of anyone, Muslim, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist (especially THOSE <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />) or a person off the street professing faith in Christ without FIRST having the individual(s) submit to a serious examination of that professed faith. And, I'm not referring to someone asking the person if they read the prayer on the back of the "Four Spiritual Laws" tract which a stranger handed them in a parking lot. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

A man who is currently married to more than one wife, either by virtue of their culture or the laws of the land is a polygamist according to God's Word. And the Scripture is the "sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice"... NOT culture, social law, or anything else apart from the inspired Word of God.

In His grace,

Joe,

I already admitted that my original statement about "no regenerate Muslim" was cumbersome at best.


Do we examine and counsel adults for membership and baptism in our churches because we are suspicious of their regeneration or because there are certain minimal doctrinal standards to uphold for our congregations?


Yes, I believe we are using the term differently.

I don't know about you, but an ex-Muslim who brought his "wives" with him would make me wonder what other sins and/or heresies he might also retain from his Muslim culture and religion. For instance, and most importantly, does he believe in the Muslim Jesus or the Jesus of Scripture?

The original question was; "Would you baptize him?" My answer to that question remains no, and not until he, at least, first dealt with his sinful relationships with his "wives" and his wive's sinful relationship with him. I see little difference between baptizing this man (if he retains his wives) or baptizing a practicing homosexual.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

I don't know if I would baptise him or not. As I said earlier an inquiry needs to be made. Of course I would not baptise him if his view of Christ is faulty. Of course I would not baptise him if the wife situation is not properly -- according to law -- taken care of. These are a given. However, I also am not going to begin with a faulty presupposition that someone professing Christ "is lost" because of whom he arrived at my office with.

Hmmm, but your "faulty presupposition" that you refuse to begin with is ASSUMED to be faulty and thus it can be equally valid to say that you would begin with a faulty (assumed) presupposition that nearly anyone/everyone who came into your office was "saved". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

As I stated elsewhere in this thread, I am a genuine, bona fide Calvinist, who by definition is by nature: suspicious. The N.T. is rife with examples, in fact the majority of those who professed faith in Christ whose "faith" were spurious. Given the present situation we live in today where there are few who preach the truth. And most are not even privy to what the "truth once delivered to the saints" is, never mind actually embrace it. Therefore, if a bias is to be held, it surely would have to be on the side of unbelief or at least a healthy skepticism in regard to an alleged "profession of faith".

In the hypothetical situation, it is an "ex-Muslim" who is currently married in some fashion to multiple women who are "professing Christ". Since, IMHO, missionaries are the least to be trusted as to preaching the true Gospel, and assuming that is where these (ex-)Muslims heard the "gospel", it seems only logical that he and his women should be thoroughly questioned before even considering baptism. To assume that he/their profession is genuine methinks is naive at best.

In His grace,

Pilgrim

Joe can defend himself, but where in his post did you get the idea that he would presume anything?
Funny thing is concidering how well you know Joe, I am surprised you made that statement.

Tom