Non-Christians Can Never Understand the Bible?

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As a Muslim who frequently discusses the Bible and its thousands of passages with Christians, I often come across some really unique arguments. By unique, I mean quite illogical, irrational and morbidly absurd argumentation, in otherwords, I mean constantly breaking the threshold of human stupidity. Let’s take a look at one such example:


Br. Shabbir Ally had argued against this passage from 1 Corinthians 2:14 during a debate as well, I fondly remember scoffing at the absolute inanity of his opponent for raising such an illogical notion.  The passage in question, reads:

“The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” –  1 Corinthians 2:14.

Their illogical argument can be summarized as such:

  1. The Bible is inspired through the Holy Spirit.
  2. Muslims, Atheists, Jews, all non-Christians cannot understand the Bible.
  3. They cannot understand the Bible because they do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them (to understanding).

This presents many arguments against Christianity:

  1. If non-Christians cannot understand the Bible, why do you share free Bibles?
  2. If non-Christians cannot understand the Bible (which is the Gospel), how can you ‘spread the Gospel’ ?
  3. If non-Christians cannot understand the Bible, how did any of the early Christians convert to Christianity by use of the Bible?
  4. If non-Christians cannot understand the Bible, were the people who wrote it, always Christian, if not, then the people who wrote it, did not understand it!

Do these people sit and think about the arguments they present? I really do not think so. I’m not saying all Christians are guilty of this really silly argument, but as of late, it’s been popping up a lot more frequently and it’s really sad to see. If an adult does not have the foresight, the mental fortitude, the critical thinking abilities to see how irrational such an argument is, then what kind of brain dead cult is this religion truly mass producing? I really must be frank about it, you must suffer from severe learning disabilities to present such a case against your own religion. The funny thing about this, is the sheer arrogance that some of these Christians possess who say this to us. The lady in the picture was proud! She got many congratulations for posting that verse, I think they were happy to see me fall silent after she posted that comment, but I did not fall silent due to that comment being ‘solid argumentation’. Rather, the abject and rash stupidity it required to use it, made me feel really depressed for the human race, which is why I’m currently writing this article.

If you are a Christian and you or someone you know, uses such an argument, just think for a moment. Just a moment, it isn’t too hard, trust me, as a Muslim I do it all the time. How can you guide any non-Christian with the Bible, if they can never understand the Bible?

To the woman who posted that verse for me, I say to you, how did you ever expect me to understand 1 Corinthians 2:14, if I did not have the Spirit in me? Your own argument has back fired on you, it’s self defeating to be honest. In closing, if anyone uses this argument against you and uses this verse as evidence or even posts the verse itself, share with them the 4 points I noted above and educate them before they continue to embarrass themselves.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.


  • Because it is nonsence

    MORE: If, however, Koyaanisqatsi is using “fully” in the sense of
    “only” above described, then he is using “fully” in a manner that does
    not correspond to the Chalcedonian statement which employs the
    conjunction “and” – thereby eliminating the possible sense of Jesus as
    *only* man.

    Great. Still no substantive counter-argument (or, for that matter,
    coherent counter-argument) so the hunt continues…

    Truly God sacrificed Truly God to himself. Or is it, Complete God
    sacrificed Complete God to himself? Or is it Truly God sacrificed a
    part of himself that was Truly Man to himself? I’ll leave out the
    eunuch jokes in order to hopefully get a direct, coherent
    deconstruction from you.

    Here, let’s narrow it down. What part of God did God sacrifice to
    himself and how is that in any way a redemptive act?

    MORE: In order for Koyaanisqatsi to demonstrate the logical
    impossibility of the Incarnation,

    Strawman…again. My argument was that claiming something is “fully”
    and “not fully” is logically impossible, but, again, why let anything
    substantive slow you down? And, yes, I’ve left off the “at the same
    time” aspect of it, because I don’t want you to keep using the word
    “semantics” as if that somehow indicts the question, so now I’ll once
    again accomodate your semantics shuffling and use your terms; how is it
    logically possible to be “truly God” and “not truly God?” Or “complete
    God” and “not complete God?”

    And, more importantly, how can something be “truly God” and “truly
    man,” when “truly God” trumps “truly man” and what does that mean in
    terms of a redemptive sacrifice of one’s own self, even if that self is
    just a lesser part? I cut off my arm as a sacrifice to myself in order
    to save you from my wrath? Is that the thrust here? Because I require a
    sacrifice in order to save you (a blood sacrifice, no less) and that
    sacrifice has to be “pure” in order for it to work in my mind, I
    therefore cut off my own arm (a “pure” arm) in order to satisfy my own
    requirments, therefore making the requirement larger than myself?

    Is this the logic of the Creeds you keep claiming are unrefuted in
    other threads?

    The hunt continues…

    MORE: He has not done this;

    Nor do I need to, even though, I just did, using your own terms.
    Complete God sacrifices that part of himself that is Complete Man (or
    Truly Man, or whatever other spin you want to put on it) to himself in
    order to save us from himself; a self-evidently irrelevant process that
    must therefore mean that the act of sacrifice is so necessary that not
    even God himself can avoid its mandate.

  • The lady is not wrong for quoting the verse but I admit that she should have spent a little more time answering your questions than to simply quote a verse as a means of ending the conversation. The Bible does not teach that man cannot understand what he reads or hears in the literal sense. But man cannot give himself the spiritual insight. Over and over again, the Bible teaches that man does understand the laws of God but refuses to obey. The only time that man desires to obey is when God quickens man’s heart to understand the depravity of the human race and how sinful we really are. The 1 Corinthians verse that she quoted says just that. Man does not accept the things of God and to such a man these things are silly because only God can show the man why these things are not silly (the understanding of those things require spiritual discernment). So when it comes to the gospel, most people find the very concept of God sending Jesus (who is part of the godhead) to die for the sins of a select number of people (the elect) is silly and doesn’t make any sense. But to Christians, it makes perfect sense but not because the Christian understood it on his own but because God gave him understanding. I hope that clarifies things a bit more.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s