A friend asked me if it’s blasphemous to credit the
Koran with containing predictive (i.e., inspired) prophecies? He posed this
question in reference to Joel Richardson’s books on the allegedly Muslim
identity of the Antichrist.
It’s a
complicated question to answer, for different answers are possible, given
different assumptions.
i) To begin with, there are
different theories concerning the nature of Muhammad’s “prophetic” experience.
ii) On the one hand, there
are naturalistic explanations. For instance, some people attribute his trances
to epileptic seizures.
iii) Conversely, the Koran
may simply be a product of Muhammad’s garbled, hearsay knowledge of the Bible,
supplemented by his imagination or improvisation.
Assuming naturalistic
explanation of this sort, Muhammad didn’t really foresee the future.
I’m not qualified to comment
on (ii), and we need to guard against the secular scepticism. For instance,
there are infidels who apply that explanation to Ezekiel.
I find (iii) perfectly
plausible, although that’s not the only plausible explanation.
iv) However, naturalistic
explanations don’t rule out precognition. On this view, Muhammad really could
foresee the future, but his ability to do so would have a natural explanation.
For instance, some paranormal
researchers who accept precognition explain it by appeal to quantum mechanics
and/or retrocausation.
One problem with that
approach is that appeals to quantum mechanics or retrocausation to ground
precognition raise more questions than the phenomenon they propose to explain.
v) On the other hand, there
are supernaturalistic explanations. Perhaps Muhammad did get his information
from an angel. After all, there are fallen angels as well as heavenly angels.
I’m open to that explanation
as well. However, attributing his prophetic foresight (assuming he had any) to
demonic inspiration only relocates the original question. For that raises the
question of how, whether, or to what degree Satan or demons can foresee the
future.
vi) Scripture does attest the
possibility of demonic foresight (e.g. Deut 13:1-5; Acts 16:16).
However, this is presumably
limited. For instance, consider how Isaiah deploys the argument from prophecy
to debunk idolatry (Isa 40-48). If, however, demonically-inspired prophets could
foresee whatever divinely-inspired prophets could foresee, then that would
cancel out Isaiah’s argument.
vii) On what basis can evil
spirits predict the future? One possibility is that this is just an educated
guess. Evil spirits are better at guessing the future than we are because they
are more knowledgeable than we are. They can take more variables into account
when they extrapolate from the present to the future. They get lucky more often
than your run-of-the-mill psychic or astrologer.
viii) As a rule,
extrapolating future events from present conditions is more reliable for events
in the near future rather than the distant future. The future is less
predictable the farther out you go because the variables multiply and ramify
exponentially. So this explanation would only work for short-term predictions
rather than long-term predictions.
Of course, some things like a
solar eclipse or Halley’s comet are easy to predict far in advance. But that’s
not the type of phenomenon we’re discussing.
ix) Another explanation is
that demons can make an accurate prediction by causing the future event.
Because demons are immortal, a demon could presumably predict an event 1000
years from now, and still be around to make it happen a 1000 years later.
In addition, demons can make
somethings happen by tapping human or animal agents to do their bidding. So
this explanation might work for certain long-term predictions.
x) However, even (viii) has
limitations. We don’t know that demons wield any direct power over inanimate
nature–although that might be one explanation for reported cases of
psychokinesis.
Likewise, they can’t possess
just anyone they please. Even among unbelievers there seems to be a natural
barrier to possession unless the unbeliever has a special susceptibility to
possession. Unless he does something to lower his resistance or invite the
demon in.
xi) In addition, there’s a
difference between small-scale and large-scale events. Large-scale events may
require more participants, more coordination, more intervening events leading
up to the denouement. That’s harder to prearrange.
xii) And, of course, God can
simply scotch demonic schemes. They can only do as much as he allows them to
do.
One can imagine God stringing
gullible demons along, letting them think they’re making progress. Winning.
Then letting them down hard.
Indeed, isn’t that exactly
how God played Satan? The devil “won” on Good Friday, but lost on Easter
Sunday. He ended up contributing to his own defeat.
xiii) Finally, none of this
is really applicable to Richardson’s claims. That’s because Richardson’s
projections aren’t based on Muhammad’s predictions, but Mahdism. That’s not the
product of Muslim prophets. To my knowledge, it doesn’t even claim to have its
source in Islamic prophetism.
Rather, it simply represents
an internal development in Shiite theology. You begin with certain axiomatic
ideas. These, in turn, give rise to certain possibilities or implications.
It’s like the Star Trek
canon. This began with Gene Roddenberry. He laid down certain narrative “facts”
or parameters. That establishes the general framework for further elaboration.
To some extent, later directors and screenwriters build on that, although they
allow themselves considerable license in modifying or contradicting the
original framework. It’s fairly fluid.
Mahdism is theological
fiction. Given certain agreed-on starting-points, it can be developed in this
or that direction. But don’t confuse it with reality. It’s building on a false
premise.
What is the best explanation for what is purported to be the “gift of prophecy” in the church today among continuationists?
ReplyDeleteI'm a semicessationist, so I allow for the possibility that God sometimes communicates with Christians under special circumstances.
ReplyDeleteHow would you know if the communication was from God?
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, you have Edgar saying, “Since these gifts and signs did cease, the burden of proof is entirely on the charismatics to prove their validity,” i.e., that their experience is the reoccurrence of gifts that have not occurred for almost 1,900 years.
And on the other hand, you have Storms saying, “In other words, the burden of proof rests with cessationists. If certain gifts of a special class have ceased, the responsibility is theirs to prove it.”
How did Abraham know God was the speaker? How did Isaiah or Ezekiel know God was speaking to him?
DeleteIf God speaks to someone, surely he can instill in the subject the unmistakable conviction that God is, indeed, the speaker. So I don't think we necessarily need to begin with criteria.
Of course, there are biblical criteria for false prophecy.
I wouldn't cast this as a burden of proof argument. I've presented a positive case for my position. And I've considered the ethical and epistemic limitations of ostensible prophecy:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/dreams-and-visions.html