Others like seeking allah, finding jesus Features >>
About the Book
"Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" is a memoir by Nabeel Qureshi that details his journey from devout Muslim to Christian apologist. The book explores his struggles with his faith, the friendships that shaped his beliefs, and the evidence that ultimately convinced him to convert to Christianity. Qureshiâs story is a powerful and thought-provoking account of religion, culture, and personal transformation.
Eric Liddell
Eric Henry Liddell was born on 16th January 1902 in Tientsin (Tianjin) North China, second son of the Rev. & Mrs. James Dunlop Liddell who were missionaries with the London Mission Society.
He was educated from 1908 to 1920 at Eltham College, Blackheath, school for the sons of missionaries. Eric, with his older brother Rob, were left at their boarding school while their parents and sister, Jenny, returned to China.
During the boysâ time at Eltham College, their parents, sister and new brother Ernest came home on furlough two or three times and were able to be together as a family â mainly living in Edinburgh.
Although born in China and educated in England, Eric Liddell lived in Scotland at various times during his life.
In 1920, Eric joined his brother Rob at Edinburgh University to read for a BSc in Pure Science.
During this period he played rugby for Scotland and trained to run at the Olympics.
Athletics and rugby played a large part in Ericâs University life. He ran in the 100 yards and the 220 yards for Edinburgh University and later for Scotland. He played rugby for Edinburgh University and in 1922 played in seven Scottish Internationals with A.L. Gracie.
Eric Liddell was a gifted rugby player and played for the Edinburgh Univerisity 1st XV team.
He also played international rugby for Scotland and gained seven international caps as a wing-threequarter, scoring four tries thanks to his searing pace.
As a result of having insufficient time for both running and rugby, he chose the former, aiming for the 100 meters in the Paris Olympics. When he learned that the heats were to be run on a Sunday, he switched to the 400 metre competition as he was not prepared to run on a Sunday.
He won a gold medal for the 400 metres and a bronze medal for the 200 metres at the Paris Olympics.
He also travelled briefly to the USA in 1924 to compete in an athletics tournament. He returned to Edinburgh after the Paris Olympics and he graduated from Edinburgh University.
Eric Liddell lived for a short time in Gillespie Crescent before moving to a house in Merchiston Place.
Recollections of Eric Liddell By Sir Arthur Marshall
The Cambridge University Athletics Club had an invitation from Pennsylvania to take a team of seven to the Pennsylvanian Games in March 1924, and I was one of the seven. Eric Liddell, the Scot from Edinburgh University, the 1923 AAA 100 yards Champion, had been personally invited and travelled with us. We stayed at the very comfortable Pennsylvanian Cricket Club. I am afraid none of, including Eric Liddell, managed to win an event at the Pennsylvanian Games.
We travelled back in a small slow ship of the American United Line called âThe Republicâ â a ten day crossing. Eric Liddell entered in the fun and games on the boat, including the Fancy Dress Dance. Whilst he was very strict about religion. Eric and I became good friends and saw much of two American sisters, Freddie and Edith, who were travelling to âdo Europeâ, including the UK. They said they were going to be in Paris for the Olympic Games, and we said if we were there at the same time we hoped we could meet.
Harold Abrahams had set his whole life on winning the Olympic 100 Metres â it had become and obsession with him. Liddellâs achievement in winning the 1923 AAA 100 Yards in the record time of 9 7/10 seconds was a devastating blow to Abrahams and shook him to the core. To date Abrahams had been a consistent 10 seconds 100 yards winner but had only slightly broken 10 seconds on one or two occasions. He knew in the Olympics he would be up against overseas competition, particularly from the Americans, but this new and very serious opposition out of the blue and on his doorstep had come at a time when Harold had established his 100 yards supremacy in the UK. To achieve level pegging with Eric Liddellâs new record time, Harold had to improve his performance by two or three yards with the help of his trainer Sam Mussabini. It must have been a tremendous relief to Harold when it became known early in 1924 that Eric had decided to concentrate on the 400 metres and, because of his religious principles, would not compete in the Olympic 100 metres as first heats were always run on Sunday.
Eric had in turn become completely dedicated to winning an Olympic Medal within the restrictions of his faith. He was a famous Scottish international rugger player, and gave up his rugger to enable him to concentrate on his Olympic ambitions, which became very deep-rooted, and his work suffered. Winning an Olympic Gold Medal became a priority, second only to his religion, and the ambition to win this event became part of his religion.
Recollections of Eric Liddell By Sir Arthur Marshall
The team travelled to Paris days before the Olympics started and had a big send-off at Victoria Station.
The silence at the start of the 100 metres and 400 metres was quite electric. Harold Abrahams won the 100 metres in a new Games record time.
In spite of all that has been said about Abrahamsâ 100 metres, the 400 metres in some way provided the greatest thrill of the meeting with the world record being broken by Eric Liddell three times in two days. It was thought that Liddell had some chance of winning, but nobody thought Liddell capable of the amazing performance he achieved in the final. As far as the crowd were concerned they were well informed about Liddellâs dedication to his religion and his refusal to run in the first round of the 100 metres on the Sunday; they also knew of his determination to win this event. The occasion was enlivened by the support given to Liddell by the pipes and drums of the Cameron Highlanders.
The silence and pent-up excitement at the start of the race could be felt. Liddell went ahead at the start and maintained his pace throughout, finishing in what at the time was described as âa most lion-hearted mannerâ winning by three yards from Fitch, an American. This was probably the greatest achievement of the VIIIth Olympiad, and superlatives were showered on Liddell by the press of the entire world. Liddell was short and not a pretty runner but just pounded along virtually at the same pace all the way, with a finish as if he was making a final dash for a try in a rugger match with an opponent bearing down on him and about to tackle from behind.
After Eric had won the 400 metres Gold Medal, Eric and I made contact with Freddie and Edith, the American sisters, and took them to a Tango Tea Dance in the Champs Elysees.
Footnote: Along with sacrificing his place in the 1924 Olympics 100m, Eric Liddell also gave up two other races in which Great Britain held high hopes of winning gold that year â the 4 x 100m and 4 x 400m, whose finals also took place on a Sunday.
After the Olympics
After the Olympics and his graduation, he returned to North China where he served as a missionary from 1925 to 1943 â first in Tientsin (Tainjin) and later in Siaochang. During his first furlough in 1932 he was ordained as a minister.
1930 - 1932
On furlough from China studying at Congregational College. After completing his studies he was ordained as a minister on 22nd June 1932. During this time he lived in a hostel in George Square which belonged to the Edinburgh Medical Missionary Society.
During these periods Eric Liddell attended Morningside Congregational Church at the corner of Chamberlain Road and Morningside Road.
Morningside Congregational Church
The Church building (pictured here on the right) was originally built for North Morningside United Presbyterian Church who used it until 1881 when it became too small. They then built a new, larger, church on the other side of the road (which is now the Eric Liddell Centre).
From 1881 the old church was home to the Morningside Athenaeum Club before the Congregational Church purchased it in 1890.
In 1928 this church was demolished and a new one erected (which is now Morningside United Church).
Eric Liddell would have attended meetings in both buildings during his two extended stays in Edinburgh. The old church from 1920 to 1925 and the current building (Morningside United Church) from 1930 to 1932. He also preached at the church on a number of occasions.
On his return to China, he married Florence Mackenzie (of Canadian missionary parentage) in Tientsin in 1934. They had three daughters; Patricia, Heather and Maureen, who now all live in Canada.
Living in China in the 1930s was potentially very dangerous and in 1937 Eric was sent to Siaochang where he joined his brother Rob. He was now crossing the Japanese army lines.
In 1941 life in China was becoming so dangerous that the British Government advised British nationals to leave. Florence and the children left for Canada.
During 1941 â 1943 Eric stayed in Tientsin, then in 1943 he was interned in Weishien camp until his death in 1945.
The Eric Liddell Centre
The United Presbyterian Church merged with the Free Church of Scotland in 1900 and then, in 1929, this merged with the Church of Scotland.
The United Presbyterian Church built in 1879 became known as Morningside North parish Church. By 1980 the building was no longer in use and became the Holy Corner Church Centre.
This was an initiative of the three remaining churches at Holy Corner: Morningside United Church (a merger between the Congregational and Church of Scotland congregations and in joint membership of the United Reformed Church and Church of Scotland), Christ Church (Scottish Episcopal Church) and Morningside Baptist Church.
As the project developed the centreâs name was changed to The Eric Liddell Centre in recognition of his involvement in the life of one of the founding churches and the local community during his time living here.
How Did Evil Begin
Why is there a Satan? Why does a being exist whose name means accuser â a âdevil,â which means slanderer, a âdeceiver of the whole worldâ (Revelation 12:9), a âruler of this worldâ (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), a âgod of this ageâ (2 Corinthians 4:4 NKJV), a âprince of the power of the airâ (Ephesians 2:2), a âBeelzebul, the prince of demonsâ (Matthew 12:24)? Where does he come from? How did it come about that he ever sinned? The letters of Jude and 2 Peter give us clues. Jude 6 says, âThe angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.â And 2 Peter 2:4 says, âGod did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.â It appears, then, that some of Godâs holy angels (we may assume, in principle, that Satan is included, whether these verses refer to his original rebellion or a later one) âsinned,â or as Jude says, âdid not stay within their own position of authority.â In other words, the sin was a kind of insurrection, a desire for more power and more authority than they were appointed by God to have. So Satan and the other fallen angels originate as created holy angels who rebel against God, reject him as their all-satisfying King, and set out on a course of self-exaltation and presumed self-determination. They do not want to be subordinate. They do not want to be sent by God to serve others (Hebrews 1:14). They want to have final authority over themselves. And they want to exalt themselves above God. Most Popular Answer But these thoughts about the origin of Satan do not answer the question we began with: Why is there a Satan? They simply push the question back to the very beginning. Why did any holy angel sin? Here is the most popular answer of our modern era: All of Godâs creatures were created âfree moral agents.â If God had made them otherwise they would have been mere machines with no will of their own. . . . To be a âfree moral agentâ implies that one has the power of âchoice.â . . . As long as Satan chose the âWill of Godâ there was no âEvilâ in the Universe, but the moment he chose to follow his own Will, then he fell, and by persuading others to follow him he introduced âEvilâ into the Universe. (Clarence Larkin, The Spirit World, 12â14) There are at least two problems with this presumed answer: (1) it does not answer the question and (2) it assumes that God cannot exert sufficient influence on a morally responsible being so as to keep that being safe in the worship of God â to keep him from sinning. âFree Willâ Philosophy First, it does not answer the question, Why did any holy angel sin? To say that a perfect angel sinned because he had the power to do so is no answer. Why would a perfectly holy angel in Godâs infinitely beautiful presence suddenly be inclined to hate God? âFree willâ â that is, ultimate self-determination â is not an answer. It explains nothing. âFree willâ is a name put on a mystery. But it is not the biblical name. Because the Bible never teaches that there is such a thing as ultimate human, or ultimate demonic, self-determination. That is a philosophical notion forced onto the Bible, not taught by the Bible. In fact, that philosophical notion was one of Satanâs first designs for humanity â to persuade Adam and Eve that they could be ultimately self-determining, and that this would be good for them (Genesis 3:4â5). Both of those ideas were false. They could not become ultimately self-determining, and it was deadly for them to try. The human race has been ruined by these notions ever since. Slandering Godâs Saving Power Second, Larkinâs appeal to angelic self-determination assumes that God cannot exert sufficient influence on a morally responsible being so as to keep that being safe in the worship of God forever. Larkinâs deadly mistake is to assume that if God exerted such influence, the angels âwould have been mere machines with no will of their own.â This too is a philosophical assumption forced on the Bible, not taught by the Bible. In fact, the Bible pervasively teaches the opposite â that God can and does exert sufficient influence on morally responsible beings (his children!) to keep them safe in the worship of God forever. When the Bible says, for example, that God will âcause [us] to walk in [his] statutesâ (Ezekiel 36:27), and that he is âworking in us that which is pleasing in his sightâ (Hebrews 13:21), and that he âworks in [us], both to will and to work for his good pleasureâ (Philippians 2:13), and that the work he began in us he âwill bring . . . to completion at the day of Jesus Christâ (Philippians 1:6), and that he âwill sustain [us] to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christâ (1 Corinthians 1:8), and that âthose whom he justified he also glorifiedâ (Romans 8:30) â when God says all this, he means for us to stop talking nonsense about such glorious influence turning us into machines. It doesnât. It is life-giving grace. It is effective. It keeps us safe forever. And to call it machine-making is slanderous. If God did not exert sovereign influence over our wayward hearts, we would all fall away. Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, Prone to leave the God I love. Hereâs my heart, oh, take and seal it, Seal it for Thy courts above. âIf God did not exert sovereign influence over our wayward hearts, we would all fall away.â Godâs âsealingâ (Ephesians 1:13) â his decisive, keeping influence â does not turn us into machines. It keeps us safe in the worship of God forever. No one who is justified will fail to be glorified (Romans 8:30). Heaven will never see an insurrection among the saints. Not because we are better than the angels, but because the blood of Jesus secured the new covenant for Godâs elect, where God says, âI will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from meâ (Jeremiah 32:40). He bought this pledge for his children by his blood. They will not commit treason. Let us praise such sovereign, merciful, keeping influence. God save us from slandering his saving power. It is false when Larkin assumes that God could not have kept his holy angels from sinning â safe in the worship of God. It is false to assume that such sovereign influence would make angels, or humans, into robots. It doesnât. Redemptionâs Stage What then is the answer to the question, Why did any holy angel sin? The answer is that God had a wise and gracious purpose. That is why it happened. Some of Godâs holy angels sinned because their fall would set in motion a history of redemption that would fulfill the infinitely wise purposes of God in creation. All the âunsearchable . . . judgmentsâ and all the âinscrutable . . . waysâ of God flow from the depths of his wisdom (Romans 11:33). âO Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them allâ (Psalm 104:24). He is âthe only wise Godâ (Romans 16:27). All that happens from eternity to eternity happens according to the wisdom of the one âwho works all things according to the counsel of his willâ (Ephesians 1:11). And we know it was a gracious purpose because Godâs plan before the creation of the world was to show grace to unworthy sinners. Sin came into being as part of a plan to show grace to sinners. â[God] saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages beganâ (2 Timothy 1:9). The plan before creation was that Christ would be the Lamb slain for sinners â sinners whose names were âwritten before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slainâ (Revelation 13:8). Christ slain for sinners was the plan before any human sinned. Two Unassailable Truths But notice what question I am not answering here. I am not answering the question, How did the first sin happen in the heart of a holy angel? The why question I have answered by saying the first sin happened as part of Godâs wisdom and purposes and planning. But that assumes God was able to see to it that the first sin happened without himself being a sinner, and without making the first sinning angel into a machine. I do not know the answer to the question of how God did this. This, to me, is one of the great mysteries of biblical teaching that I cannot explain â how God governs the will of sinful beings, yet, in doing so, does not sin, and does not take away their responsibility. I see that it is true, because the Bible teaches it, but how God does this remains a mystery. Recall that above I said that âfree willâ â ultimate self-determination â is the name some people put on this mystery. Then I added that this is not the biblical name. Because the Bible never teaches that there is such a thing as ultimate self-determination, except in God. The Bible doesnât give the mystery a name. Rather it teaches two truths again and again: God governs the hearts and minds of all sinful beings without himself sinning, and they are truly and justly accountable for all their sins. Sovereign over Satan Since we are not told explicitly how things transpired in the fall of Satan, it is illuminating to study how God relates to Satanâs will now. Is God helpless when a satanic will chooses to do evil? Can God restrain that will? Or would that only turn the will into a machine? The biblical answer is that God has the right and power to restrain Satan anytime he pleases. Consider these examples. 1. Though Satan is called âthe ruler of this worldâ (John 12:31), Daniel 4:17 says, âThe Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.â Satanâs world rule is subordinate to Godâs. 2. Though unclean spirits are everywhere doing deceptive and murderous things, Jesus Christ has all authority over them. âHe commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey himâ (Mark 1:27). 3. Satan is a roaring lion, prowling and seeking someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8). Peter explains that the jaws of this lion are, in fact, the sufferings of persecution: âResist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the worldâ (1 Peter 5:9). But this suffering, Peter says, does not happen apart from Godâs sovereign will: âIt is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be Godâs willâ (1 Peter 3:17). 4. Satan is a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). But God decides, finally, who lives and who dies and when: âIf the Lord wills, we will live and do this or thatâ (James 4:15). 5. When Satan aims to destroy Job and prove that God is not his treasure, he must get permission from God before he attacks his possessions (Job 1:12) or his body (Job 2:6). 6. Satan is the great tempter. He wants us to sin. Luke tells us that Satan was behind Peterâs three denials. âSatan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheatâ (Luke 22:31). But Jesus is sovereign over this tempterâs work, and its outcome. He says to Peter, âI have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothersâ (Luke 22:32). Not âif you turn,â but âwhen you turn.â Christ rules over all of Satanâs designs. Satan aims to fail Peter. Jesus aims to fit him for leadership. 7. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:4 that Satan âhas blinded the minds of the unbelievers.â But two verses later, God removes that blindness. âGod, who said, âLet light shine out of darkness,â has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christâ (2 Corinthians 4:6). So now back to the question about the origin of Satanâs sinfulness. Is God helpless before the will of his own angels? Is there a power outside himself that limits his rule over their choices and plans? My conclusion is that, from cover to cover, the Bible presents God as governing Satan and his demons. He has the right and power to restrain them any time he pleases. Guarding the Mystery The sum of the matter, then, about where a sinful Satan came from is this: He was a holy angel who mysteriously came to prefer self-exaltation over God-exaltation. He fell into the delusion that ultimate self-determination was possible for a finite creature, and that it was preferable to submitting to God. This fall was part of Godâs all-wise plan. It did not take him off guard. How God saw to it that this part of his plan came to pass, without himself sinning and without turning Satan into a machine, I do not know. âFrom cover to cover, the Bible presents God as governing Satan and his demons.â Trying to explain this mystery with so-called âfree willâ â that is, ultimate self-determination â is unbiblical and vacuous. It is unbiblical because the idea that any of Godâs creatures has ultimate self-determination is not taught anywhere in the Bible. And it is vacuous because it does not explain anything. Simply asserting that a holy angel had the âpower of choiceâ offers no explanation of why a perfectly holy being in Godâs infinitely beautiful presence would suddenly be inclined to hate God. We should probably take our cue from the reticence of the Bible to speak about Satanâs origin. He is there in the first pages of the Bible with no explanation. The mystery of his first sin remains just that. We surround it and guard it with biblical truth, lest unbiblical and vacuous explanations spread like a smog over the Scriptures and obscure the glory of Godâs saving purposes. Article by John Piper Founder & Teacher, desiringGod.org