Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?
58 comments | Permalink
Kevin DeYoung passed along today an excerpt from chapter 2 of Timothy Tennent's book,
Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think About and Discuss Theology (p. 48):
Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think About and Discuss Theology (p. 48):
This study has sought to clarify many of the issues that lie behind the question, "Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?"
First, I pointed out the importance of differentiating between those predicates about God that we share with Muslims and those predicates about God that are distinctively Christian. We observed not only how crucial the distinctively Christian predicates are to Christian identity, but even how a truly Christocentric perspective transforms the shared predicates.
Second, I attempted to demonstrate that the long and sustained use of the word "Allah" by Muslims has altered its connotation such that, for Muslims, it has become a name for the Islamic God, not just the Arabic equivalent of the English word "God" as it is used by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews. For the Muslim, the word "Allah" is becoming more like the equivalent of the Jewish Yahweh (YHWH) than the more general words el or theos, which, like the English word "God," have a broader application.
Finally, we reflected briefly on the pastoral and evengelistic implications of our question, since this issue has major ramifications for large communities of people who follow the "God of Muhammad" and the "Father of Jesus" respectively.
The result of this survey has concluded that although "Allah" and "God" are etymological equivalents and, as monotheists, we only believe in one God, it would fragment our very identity as Christians to accept the statement that the Father of Jesus is the God of Muhammad.
The reason is that the statement is not essentially an etymological or an ontological statement, but an attempt to identify the predicates associated with the Islamic and Christian use of the words "Allah" and "God" respectively. The phrases "God of Muhammad" and "Father of Jesus" are spoken by communities of faith with important books of revelation that provide hundreds of predicates, all helping to set forth the full context for the meaning of thee two phrases. From the perspective, I must conclude that the Father of Jesus is not the God of Muhammad.
posted by JT at Wednesday, March 12, 2008
58 Comments:
Is the author correct that 'God' is not a proper name? I'm not sure. I remember Mortimer Adler addressing this in his book *Thinking About God*. He argues that since 'God' cannot be classified as a proper noun it is best understood as a proper name. Unfortunately, my copy of the book is in a box in my garage, but I did find this quotation on the net:
"Every proper name represents an object of a certain kind and belongs to one or more classes of objects that can be defined. Thomas Aquinas can be classified as a medieval theologian, philosopher, and a human being. 'Zeus' and 'Apollo' are proper names that designate unique objects, but they are also objects that belong to the class known as gods worshiped by the ancient Greeks, a class that includes Aphrodite and Pallas Athena as well.
When we use 'God' as a proper name, we are using it to designate an object that is not only unique, as every other singular individual is, but one that is also unclassifiable."
Given that both Christianity and Islam believe that God/Allah is the infinite creator who has brought the universe into being from out of nothing, it seems to me that from a Christian perspective we must say that the God of Muhammad is ultimately identical to the God and Father of Jesus Christ--or perhaps more accurately, is ultimately identical to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not mean that the teachings of Muhammad are true. But both religions are speaking of the that Mystery who sustains all things.
Tennent's conclusion is quite correct. -jw
"Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." - Jesus (John 5;23b, ESV)
Seems pretty clear to me.
"For the Muslim, the word "Allah" is becoming more like the equivalent of the Jewish Yahweh (YHWH) than the more general words el or theos,"
And, if I might add, I don't know of any Muslim who would claim that YHWH - the Jewish Yahweh - is The Same God that they worship.
I agree with the author, Tennent.
" ..the God of Muhammad ... is ultimately identical to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Would it be worth me saying this is impossible.
Unless you are joking?
I would agree that the God of Muhammad is NOT the Father of Jesus Christ. Muslims reject Jesus as God, saying He was a prophet and a good man, but He was the perfect God-man. Muslims also adamantly deny the fundamental biblical doctrine of the Trinity therefore the God of Muhammad is NOT the Father of Jesus Christ. I just finished posting on my blog about this issue...you can check out more of this on http://mkuivenhoven.blogspot.com
"Is the author correct that 'God' is not a proper name? I'm not sure." How about "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . !"
I'm glad it took an in depth study to answer this question. I never would have come to that conclusion on my own (sarcasm).
And Dear Pontif, please pontificate elsewhere. You said, "But both religions are speaking of the that Mystery who sustains all things."
This sir is blasphemy!!
There is One who sustains all things and He is spoken of clearly: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb 1:3
May I ask each of you to look inside and be honest about why this issue is so important to you? Is it borne out of a heart for Muslims to find the Truth in Christ, or something else? I live in a Muslim country and find much of the rhetoric amongst US believers is often angry, defensive and fearful. I believe theology is at the core of who we are as believers and we must defend the faith that has been entrusted to us. But, the question of Allah and how he relates to the God we serve must be viewed in love, not anger - as if Jesus needs us to defend him.
In speaking with Muslims on a regular basis, there is no reason to begin the conversation of faith fighting over whether we have different Gods. Starting with the commonality that we both love and serve one God, creator, sustainer and judge of everyone, allows for further discussion. Any discussions that go beyond the surface where we discuss how we relate to God, and how we have a relationship with him, soon show the divergence of our faiths. Clearly Christ is the stumbling block for all Muslims and the cornerstone for all Christians and any real discussion of our faith leads to this divide. They will stumble over Christ but do we need to push them down at the beginning of every conversation? Is that how you share your faith? Or, when you are sharing with someone, do you help them discover their need and direct them to the truth?
I admit the conversation is not easy and is very complicated. I plead with you to be gracious and loving towards Muslims and not respond out of fear (or anger)
For His glory among the Nations
Deb - Most Muslims would say that Allah is the God of both Jews and Christians. Muhammad brings the final revelation of God, clarifying (and correcting) the previous revelations.
rg,
Perhaps most Muslims would say that Allah is the God of both Jews and Christians. But that's the wrong question.
The right question for the Muslim and the Jew is this: Is YHWH the God of the Muslims? and, even more telling, is Jesus the God of the Muslims?
This is not about attacking Muslims, it's about clarity in order that Christians understand the correct starting point, an the correct starting point when dealing with any false religion can never be "you believe in the same God as I do".
Starting with the commonality that we both love and serve one God, creator, sustainer and judge of everyone, allows for further discussion.
That would be fine, if that commonality existed.
But it doesn't.
So that's why this is so important to us. Because there are people testifying falsely in the name of Christ, whether they are doing it intentionally or not. So because we care about the purity of the Gospel, we're seeking to rebuke, correct, sharpen, and instruct our brethren in righteousness so that we'll stop lying to the world with a more palatable message, and unleash the power of an essentially offensive message.
Mike,
What do you mean that commonality does not exist?
Are you saying that there are no people (Muslim or otherwise) who seek the one God yet are ignorant of the full revelation of Christ? In their blindness to the full revelation of God in Christ they possess no truth or even seed of truth whatsoever? Are you saying the only starting ground for evangelism is by telling others 'you're wrong?'
It's not about making the message more palatable at all. I am not saying that they have a relationship with God without Christ - it is not possible. I am not saying they have true faith nor that their way to God is equal to Christ. It is about getting to our message by showing grace and love to those who "are ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God and seeking to establish their own" Rom 10.2
I get told, almost daily, from the Muslims I meet, that 'we are brothers,' when they hear that I am a Christian. They do not mean that we believe the same thing. They think they when I stand before God I will stand condemned for my 'false' belief in Christ. But, they recognize in me a commonality of 'religiousness' or faith in God and they value that. Can I not at least extend to them the same courtesy of recognizing they are people trying to understand God? In these conversations I state very plainly they while we both believe in God, our understandings of who God is work themselves out very differently. Sometimes they want to hear more, sometimes not.
Are you saying that to recognize any similarities somehow pollutes the Gospel?
This entire ignores the fact that Arabic Christians were using the name "Allah" before Islam came about. Arabic believers, and there are many in the Middle East, call on the name of Allah the exact same way that we call on the name of God and believe the same things about Him that we believe. Last week I prayed with an Arabic pastor in Morocco who has a masters degree in Theology and is very orthodox and when He called on the name of God the name in his language was Allah. To argue that because the Muslim believes something different about Allah than we do about God therefore it should not be used by Arabic Christians or by Arabic missionaries anymore is a little like saying to American Christians that they should no longer use the name "God" because the Mormons have it now.
Folks, the question is not whether Islam is correct in its claims about God and the revelation purportedly given through Muhammad. As a Christian I of course reject Islam and believe that many of its claims are false and worse than false.
First, the question of "proper name" is not as easily resolved as Tennant seems to be suggesting. A case can be made that 'God' in fact functions as a proper name in ordinary discourse. Perhaps this is a philosophical question that does not interest most; but at one time in my life it interested me a great deal.
Second, Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as 'Allah.' Clearly they do not understand the word as a proper name for deity exclusive to Islam.
Third, contrary to what has been suggested, "Father" is not the proper name of the Christian God. It is a titular title for the first person of the Holy Trinity. If one is looking for a proper name for the Christian God, then the best candidate is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Fourth, the counter-arguments advanced in this thread may be equally advanced against Judaism. Judaism too rejects the Christian revelation; but the Church has always affirmed that we worship the same God whom the Jews worship; indeed, the Christian dispensation is utterly dependent upon this fact.
Fifth, Muslims identify the God they worship as the God of Abraham. So do Christians.
Sixth, when Muslims and Christians speak of God, they are not speaking of a god. They are speaking of the transcendent, infinite, ineffable Creator who has brought the universe out of nothing. On this point both faiths agree. They both worship this one God who is beyond all numbering and indeed all naming. Where they differ is on the question of who this God is and what he is like. Here the difference between the two faiths could not be more striking.
Though they are a couple of years old, some might find of interest two articles I wrote on Islam and the gospel.
So...say this to your Muslim friends:
Isn't is wonderful that we worship the same God? Tell me how Jesus has changed your life.
...because Jesus isn't just the latest revelation of God who has not yet been understood be Muslims, he is God, who has been rejected by Muslims.
Daryl,
Maybe I should respond to you by talking about your mom ... If the goal is to be unloving, offensive for the sake of being offensive and just plain silly, your advice would be spot on.
As Pontificator mentioned above - "As a Christian I of course reject Islam and believe that many of its claims are false and worse than false."
My goal is not to prove I am superior to my Muslim friends or win a intellectual debate. My goal is to share Christ as the only way to God. How do you share your faith with anyone where you live? Do you wear a sandwich board proclaiming to everyone that they are damned to hell? It may be a true statement, but it would be unwise if you want to share with them the love of Christ.
I don't start all conversations with 'Isn't is wonderful that we worship the same God?' But, I can relate to people with the similarities of our faith within a conversation seasoned with salt, grace and kindness.
A thread like this is only beneficial if we are truly seeking God and desiring the lost to see Him through Christ.
Maybe the question should be framed in way of one worshiping Allah of the Qu'ran or Allah of the Bible.
Mark
rg,
Again you are missing the point. This is an in house discussion amongst Christians, so accusing me of being unloving to Muslims is just silly, we're not talking to Muslims here.
My last post was (of course) intended to be facetious. I was making the point that if you want to say that Muslims worship the same God, then it shouldn't matter whose definition of God you start with, after all he is the same. My last post pointed out the silliness of the arguement because OF COURSE you can't start a conversation with a Muslim that way!
We are first and foremost, to represent God accurately, not make him accesible. Aside from a the miracle of regeneration, He is not. Don't try and make him be.
What you are saying, about how to begin a conversation with a Muslim, sounds much like the watered down gospel being offered in most North American churches. The common starting point with unbelievers of any stripe is our common sin and falleness.
The issue of Christ is not Christ as the only way to God, but Christ as God in the flesh.
Again, to reiterate...I'm not saying to begin every (or any) conversation with a Muslim with fightin' words. In fact, I freely admit that I wouldn't know how to start the conversation. However, we dare not misrepresent God himself, in our effort to make a convert.
Are you saying that there are no people (Muslim or otherwise) who seek the one God yet are ignorant of the full revelation of Christ?
Yes.
In their blindness to the full revelation of God in Christ they possess no truth or even seed of truth whatsoever?
Yes. No lie is of the truth (1Jn 2:21). Everything that is not from faith is sin (Rom 14:23b). There are no degrees of truth. If an unbeliever happens to say something true, that's not something that we look favorably upon; it's actually something that calls for their greater condemnation.
Are you saying the only starting ground for evangelism is by telling others 'you're wrong?'
Yes and no. The starting point is that there's a God who is holy, and in whose presence there can be no darkness at all. He "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see" (1Tim 6:16). That, necessarily, brings us to "You're sinful and there's nothing you can do about it." That highlights the depth of their depravity and hopelessness, and the glorious sufficiency of Christ alone.
It is about getting to our message by showing grace and love to those who "are ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God and seeking to establish their own" Rom 10.2
That's right. But that'll never happen by lying to them, and letting them think that they're worshiping the same God in a wrong way when they're worshiping an idol whose nature is altogether different than God's.
But, they recognize in me a commonality of 'religiousness' or faith in God and they value that.
Exactly. That's what pagan religions do. They see "religiousness" as a virtue. We hear that all the time now where "faith" is celebrated just along as it's not really in anything. Let's leave the celebration of religiosity to the world's religions.
Can I not at least extend to them the same courtesy of recognizing they are people trying to understand God?
But they're not trying to understand God. They've all turned away. No one does good. No one seeks for God.
In these conversations I state very plainly they while we both believe in God, our understandings of who God is work themselves out very differently.
They don't believe in God. See, this is why most people will go to hell screaming about how they believed in God. To believe in God isn't to simply be theistic. To believe in God, by definition, means to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and trust in His alien righteousness where our unrighteousness corrupts the entirety of our being. Anything else is not believing in God, according to the Bible.
Are you saying that to recognize any similarities somehow pollutes the Gospel?
Absolutely. And I don't know if I could have put it as well as this. It is for one reason that I say this: The otherness of the Gospel. The truth of God is unlike anything else in the entire world. To say different grossly devalues and defames this truth. When we seek to find "commonalities" between the believer and the unbeliever, we present the notion that Christ isn't as glorious as He is because He can be compared "on some level" with the total depravity of sinners' imaginations. For what harmony has Christ with Belial? Can Light and darkness dwell together? Absolutely not.
The glory of the Gospel is in its otherness, not in its similarity with the world or any of the world's religious thoughts. To make it sound related is blasphemy, and dreadfully dishonoring to Christ.
Pontificator ,
I disagree. Muslims worship a false god.
""God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory." 1 Tim. 3:16
If a Muslim is worshipping the true God, then he will bow his knee to Christ. If he doesn't bow his knee to Christ, then he is self-deceived, and is worshiping a false god.
And on judgement day he will be told to depart from Me, by the Lord, for he never knew him.
"You do not have to say, "I am worshiping an idol", to be actually worshiping an idol. We can say that we are worshiping God but be worshiping an idol--". -James M. Boice, from his commentary on Hosea.
Mike,
I appreciate your interaction with my thoughts. Thank you. I don't agree with you, but I understand where you are coming from (I think).
Yes. No lie is of the truth (1Jn 2:21). Everything that is not from faith is sin (Rom 14:23b). There are no degrees of truth. If an unbeliever happens to say something true, that's not something that we look favorably upon; it's actually something that calls for their greater condemnation.
How do you respond when a Muslim tells you: There is only one God. God created all things. Are you going to tell them these things cannot be true. Your appeal to 1 Jn 2 and Rom 14.23b have nothing to do with this discussion. I did not say their are degrees of truth. And to say that we would condemn an unbeliever for saying something true is ludicrous.
I can't imagine you begin every evangelistic conversation the exact same way, ignoring where the person is coming from, how much they might already know and what they already believe. If you do, I would say it is quite foolish. Of course any full gospel presentation is going to deal with sin and the work of God through Christ but that doesn't mean the only true way to share the gospel is to begin at exactly that point. I cannot imagine that is how you actually practice evangelism.
I understand depravity and agree that apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit, no one can seek God. But, that does not mean, practically, that we assume that every person we meet cannot possibly be seeking God. We do not know what God is doing behind the scenes. We share because without speaking the Gospel, no one comes to saving faith in Christ. And if God has called us to share the Gospel, maybe we should share thoughtfully, considering where each person is coming from and shaping our presentation of the truth accordingly. Is that not the example we see from Paul in Acts 14 & 17?
Are you saying that to recognize any similarities somehow pollutes the Gospel?
Absolutely. And I don't know if I could have put it as well as this. It is for one reason that I say this: The otherness of the Gospel. The truth of God is unlike anything else in the entire world. To say different grossly devalues and defames this truth. When we seek to find "commonalities" between the believer and the unbeliever, we present the notion that Christ isn't as glorious as He is because He can be compared "on some level" with the total depravity of sinners' imaginations. For what harmony has Christ with Belial? Can Light and darkness dwell together? Absolutely not.
The glory of the Gospel is in its otherness, not in its similarity with the world or any of the world's religious thoughts. To make it sound related is blasphemy, and dreadfully dishonoring to Christ.
Tread lightly young friend. We can discuss and even disagree, to accuse blasphemy is another thing altogether. Finding a commonality between an unbeliever and a believer is common sense and has no bearing whatsoever on the glory of the gospel or Christ. That is just plain foolishness. Have you read or heard anything of missiology?
Sorry - I lost my html tags in quoting Mike. Sorry if it is confusing.
Ahhh, nothing like patronizing your brother to go along with dismissing what he's said out of hand with the support of -- not Scripture -- but common sense.
I can't imagine you begin every evangelistic conversation the exact same way, ignoring where the person is coming from, how much they might already know and what they already believe. If you do, I would say it is quite foolish.
Actually, I do my best to do just that. I won't always be the one to initiate my conversation, but when I get my turn, I say something like, "Well, the bottom line is that there's a God in heaven who's holy and just and does not tolerate sin (1Jn 1:5, 1Tim 6:16, etc.). Problem is, the bible tells us that we're all sinful and come short of the standard God requires of us." Then I'll get into the consequences of sin and the good news of the cross.
You might call that foolish. You're certainly not alone. But I call that trusting God to speak through His word and not through my presentation.
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. -- 1Cor 1:21-24
I understand depravity and agree that apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit, no one can seek God. But, that does not mean, practically, that we assume that every person we meet cannot possibly be seeking God.
LoL. Pick one. They can't seek God or they can. If you do understand depravity, you'll admit that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit opens the heart of those being saved to hear the Gospel and believe, not to get them to ask content questions about a god they think exists. People who are curious about deities are not seekers, and I think it's unbiblical and does a disservice to the church to call them that.
We do not know what God is doing behind the scenes. We share because without speaking the Gospel, no one comes to saving faith in Christ. And if God has called us to share the Gospel, maybe we should share thoughtfully, considering where each person is coming from and shaping our presentation of the truth accordingly.
That's true. We don't know who the elect are. But in response to that, we don't share. We preach. God has called us to preach the Gospel. And we do preach thoughtfully, considering where each person is coming from. But where do we get that information? From their stories, or from the Bible? The Bible teaches that all men are dead in sin. Appealing to anything that relates to their deadness will do nothing to get them responsive to the work of the Holy Spirit. As I said before, that's blasphemous. If you do understand depravity and the work of the Spirit, then you know that God calls His elect into salvation by the means He's ordained, i.e., preaching, and not by contextualizing. Shape your presentation of the truth according to what God has said, not the unbeliever.
Is that not the example we see from Paul in Acts 14 & 17?
No, it isn't. I'd invite you to listen to Phil Johnson's conference session at the Shepherds' Conference last week, General Session 8. You can read a live-blogged version of it here, but I would really recommend the audio.
I did not decide on my words lightly before, and I meant blasphemy. Your statement: "Finding a commonality between an unbeliever and a believer is common sense and has no bearing whatsoever on the glory of the gospel or Christ" seems to me to be the foolishness you errantly ascribed to me, evident by your appeal to common sense and not to the Scriptures.
In regards to the commonality between unbelievers and believers, Paul himself asks rhetorically, "Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor 6:14-15) The answer is obvious: none.
To say that preaching the gospel has nothing to do with the glory of the gospel or Christ seems to demonstrate a problem that goes deeper than this issue. It is, in fact, dishonoring to Christ when we get clever enough to base our "missiology" on an assumption that is entirely at odds with Scripture, namely, that believers and unbelievers have things in common.
I'll try to explain one other way in which it does involve the glory of Christ and the gospel. When we say that we need to adapt our presentation of the message to different people's situations, we necessarily say something about the nature of that message. That is, that it needs adaptation of presentation. That the God-ordained means of presentation, i.e., preaching, really just doesn't work. Or... it's foolish. When we ask, "Yeah, but how do we preach the gospel?" we've already missed the point. Preaching is how. Just proclaim it. The message preached transcends culture, context, and every circumstance anyone can find themselves in because the message in its essence appeals to the spiritual condition of the hearers. No matter what you're going through, if you're going to hell after it's all done, you've got a problem. So my point is that the gospel preached is powerful enough to cut through circumstances and convict the hearts of all kinds of people. Adapting its presentation for different people is not commanded in Scripture, and doing so reveals that we think it needs a little help getting into the unbeliever's ears and heart.
I seriously hope you reconsider your positions, especially in light of your own mission. I would strongly recommend downloading the audio from the Shepherds' Conference last week, as many of the general sessions dealt with many of these issues.
Sorry, I forgot your first paragraph.
How do you respond when a Muslim tells you: There is only one God. God created all things. Are you going to tell them these things cannot be true.
No. What pops up in my mind is James: "You say that there is one God. Good. Even demons believe that, and shudder." I would respond by saying what they said is true on the face of it, but I would quickly clarify that though God is One (Deut 6:4), He exists in three persons (1Cor 6:11, 2Cor 13:14, Matt 3:16-17). And though God created all things, all things were created through Christ and are held together in Christ (Col 1:16-17). So that's what I would tell them. Good question.
And to say that we would condemn an unbeliever for saying something true is ludicrous.
I didn't say that we condemn the unbeliever. I said that believing true things while yet remaining in unbelief calls for their greater condemnation. Meaning, they have a conscience with the Law written on it that testifies to the truth. So they are without excuse for their unbelief. The fact that they get some things right and yet persist in unbelief demonstrates the active suppression of truth in unrighteousness. That's what Frank's post was about that I linked to before. If you haven't yet, you should read it. He presents it much better than I do.
Sorry for missing that one before.
Let's let Allah define himself:
"He does not beget nor is he begotten." (Sura 112)
The Quran defines the god of Islam explicitly as *not* the God of the Bible. Let's respect Muslims enough to let them define who their god is. He is not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We honour their faith by speaking of Allah as another god - that is how Allah defines himself. From our perspective we cannot speak of Allah as anything other than an idol - anything else fails to take Muslim faith on its own terms.
BTW can anyone really imagine the prophets addressing the Edomites, Philistines etc saying 'Yahweh is very much like Baal/Molech/Asherah??!' Never!
The question for the nations is not 'Do you believe in God?' But 'What god do you believe in?'
So why don't we evangelize like that? Whether in north Africa or North America.
I really appreciate RG's challenge. This is not simply a question about Muslim evangelism - the logic that demands we speak of Allah as another god holds also in the west! My Muslim friends don't believe in God but neither do my non-Christian friends. They all need to be introduced to Christ the LORD. So let's not just clarify with the Muslim, let's clarify with everyone - 'the god you believe in is an awful idol, let me tell you about the living LORD.'
Mike,
But in response to that, we don't share. We preach. God has called us to preach the Gospel. And we do preach thoughtfully, considering where each person is coming from. But where do we get that information? From their stories, or from the Bible? The Bible teaches that all men are dead in sin. Appealing to anything that relates to their deadness will do nothing to get them responsive to the work of the Holy Spirit. As I said before, that's blasphemous. If you do understand depravity and the work of the Spirit, then you know that God calls His elect into salvation by the means He's ordained, i.e., preaching, and not by contextualizing. Shape your presentation of the truth according to what God has said, not the unbeliever.
Please explain to me the difference between 'sharing the gospel' and 'preaching the gospel?' Scripture uses a range of words to describe evangelism - preaching, speaking, testifying, setting before them ... I understand if you have a problem with contextualizing if you mean changing the gospel for any reason. Or, if you mean holding back parts of the gospel or in anyway adding to it. But, you are arguing that shaping the presentation according to the situation and the recipient is wrong. Did Jesus share a rote message with each person he encountered? Did Jesus expect different things or explain who he was differently with religious leaders versus the woman at the well? Did he speak to them differently? Did he tell everyone he encountered to sell all they had?
Acts 18.4 Paul reasons with those in the synagogue to persuade Jews and Greeks
1 Cor 9 Paul describes that he acts differently with Jews than he does to those 'outside the Law' and that he became 'all things to all people that by all means I might save some.'
2 Cor 5.11 Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others
Gal 2.2 - Paul met privately with those who seemed influential
If all we need to do is 'preach,' then why don't we all stand on the street corners reading Scripture? Why do pastor's preach sermons, couldn't they just read the Bible and let it speak for themselves?
If you treat each person you encounter the exact same (they are all sinners, separated from God) without a concern to their religious background, personal history or even a thought as to how they feel or think, how is that loving? Why do we even evangelize in person, couldn't we just find a speaker with a nice voice to 'preach the gospel' and just give everyone we meet a copy. We don't do that because its impersonal and unloving.
I understand that it is always a work of God, but that does not excuse us from caring about the lost (personally, not just broadly) nor working to 'persuade' the lost out of our love and fear of the Lord.
Whatever the muslims believe today comes from Muhammad. Before we try to tackle the question "Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?" it's important to try answer the question "Who is Muhammad anyway to claim himself as the final prophet of the 'God of Abraham'?
I believe that answering the question on Muhammad's credibility will eventually show us if the commonality issue of Christian's and Muslim's God is even worth looking into.
I know the credebility of the Biblical writers and the Spirit of God that led them. I have serious doubts about Muhammad's reputation all the more his writings.
RG
You wrote: "Most Muslims would say that Allah is the God of both Jews and Christians. Muhammad brings the final revelation of God, clarifying (and correcting) the previous revelations."
This has a very different meaning than what I had said:
"I don't know of any Muslim who would claim that YHWH - the Jewish Yahweh - is The Same God that they worship."
It is a very different thing to say that Muslims think that Allah is the god of the Jews and Muslims than to say that YHWH, Jehovah, the Jewish Yahweh is the same as the Muslim God. They do not and will not say this.
Although, this point is less significant than their full rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and person of the trinity, I wanted to make the point -- The Muslim does not worship YHWH. Ask if they do and typically you will offend them. Therefore, Allah does not = the God of the Bible.
With regard to the "commonality" question:
I think perhaps what we might appeal to here for the unbeliever is the concept of General Revelation described in Romans 1:
20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
I think that yes it is possible for a person to have a general understanding that there is a creator or higher power, but to not have any special revelation as to Who the true God is. And in the case of Muslims, we have to be as clear to make this distinction as we are to people who have come to believe in a higher power thru a 12-step program or any other representation that is not of the True God of the Bible. But there is spiritually discerning way to do it that is done in love and as the Holy Spirit prompts.
Thanks.
It is a very different thing to say that Muslims think that Allah is the god of the Jews and Muslims than to say that YHWH, Jehovah, the Jewish Yahweh is the same as the Muslim God. They do not and will not say this. Although, this point is less significant than their full rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and person of the trinity, I wanted to make the point -- The Muslim does not worship YHWH. Ask if they do and typically you will offend them. Therefore, Allah does not = the God of the Bible.
This question is simply more complex than is being recognized in this thread. If one asks a Muslim the question "Do you worship YHWH?" he will of course reply "no." YHWH is the covenant name of God. To acknowledge this name is to acknowledge God's covenant with Israel, which of course no Muslim is going to do. We Christians have no problem confessing that they worship YHWH, precisely because we believe that in Christ Jesus we have been incorporated into Israel.
A helpful analogy is the way the Church Fathers related the God of the Bible to the God of philosophy. See particularly Augustine's Confessions. The Church Fathers didn't peremptorily declare that the God of the philosophers (e.g., the God of Plato or Plotinus). Rather, they interpreted and reinterpreted the God of Plotinus in light of the Christian revelation, much like St Paul did in Athens with the unknown God (Acts 17). Like St Paul, they knew they couldn't simply denounce the God of the philsophers, because they knew they were trying to speak of that One in whom "we live and move and have our being."
Everyone seems to be missing the key point, namely, the Allah of Islam is not a god like Baal. He is understood to be the transcendent Creator of the entire universe. He is not a personification of nature; he is not a power within the world. He is the Creator. For this reason we simply cannot declare, in an absolute, unqualified manner, that the God whom Muslims worship is not the true God.
I do not mean by this that Muslims understand God correctly in all aspects--clearly they do not, given their rejection of the Incarnation--nor do I mean by this that I believe in any way whatsoever that Muhammad was a true prophet. In fact I believe that Islam is a dangerous, destructive religion. But the fact remains that Christians and Muslims do share a unique understanding of God as the infinite transcendent Creator.
When a Muslim converts to Christianity (a too rare phenomenon, unfortunately), he may have to renounce many of his former beliefs and will have to drastically revise his understanding of deity; but he will not have to renounce his belief in God as infinite transcendent Creator.
I took a missions class with Dr. Tennent at Gordon-Conwell. He is a faithful, brilliant, humble, godly man. God used him in my life to focus my attention on the unreached people groups of the world.
Pontif, those were some good thoughts.
I would say to a Muslim, if he asked me if I think he worships a false god, "Yes you do".
If he said "I believe in a god who created the universe".
Then I would say, "Yes the true God of the Bible did create the universe, but your god is not He."
Unless one worships the Triune God manifested to the whole world, then one worships an idol.
This is why we need to take the Gospel to all the world, so the Father will be worshiped in Spirit and truth, and His name, and the name of Jesus Christ shall be extolled.
Hi Pontificator,
I think the example of Augustine and his integration of neo-Platonism is indeed similar to what we're speaking about here. And it would be a tragedy to repeat Augustine's mistake.
Why is 'infinite transcendent Creator' our 'bedrock' definition of God? I notice that you don't say 'Baal is called Lord and receives worship therefore no convert from Baalism needs to repent of their notions of Lorship or worship.' You have taken a crucial decision about what it is that makes God God.
You assume:
1) 'Transcendent Creator' is more foundational to God's being than His triunity.
2) The Muslim means roughly the same as the Christian when speaking of the 'Transcendent Creator'
I strongly disagree with both.
1) a) If this *is* who God is you've made Him dependent on creation.
1) b) It is a position that leads to Arianism. Athanasius complained that Arius' error *was* to conceive of God as unoriginate and then to consider trinity. On this trajectory he could never affirm the homo-ousios of one whose being was 'ek tes ousia tw patri' (out of the being of the Father). Similarly if you start with a Muslim with some 'bedrock' notion of transcendence then introduce them to Jesus it will *necessarily* mean introducing them to one who is less than the transcendent one. You'll have shot yourself in the foot from the very beginning. Let's not define Jesus out of full deity before we've even begun. We therefore must not begin on the Arian trajectory of affirming transcendent Creator first - Jesus will not come out very well from such a starting point!
2) Only the God who exists as Himself *in* relations of otherness can actually have a relationship with creation in which we can know Him as transcendent. 'Transcendent Creator' is dependent on trinity (not the other way around). The Muslim account of transcendence is completely confused (as is every unitarian account). Allah is a prisoner of his 'transcendence' - by definition cut off from *any* relationship with it (whether transcendent or immanent).
These are big issues but I'm just flagging up that 'Transcendent Creator' is neither the foundational nor a shared understanding of the living God. And it's not desirable that it should be.
in Jesus,
Glen
Glen, your remarks presuppose that there can be no philosophical reflection on divinity, no knowledge of God, apart from the Christian revelation. That's fine if one is a Barthian; but the rejection of all forms of natural theology is not characteristic of the consensual theological tradition and certainly seems to contradict the biblical witness. I'm happy to stick with Augustine and the Church Fathers on this.
It might also be noted that God was known as Creator *before* he was known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I do believe that the book of Genesis was written before Jesus was born. Surely you are not going to assert that the Jews worship an idol because they deny the Incarnation--or are you?
Islam of course inherited--or if you prefer, stole--the notion of transcendent creator from Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad and Islamic theologians didn't think it up by themselves. The creatio ex nihilo is not a product of philosophical speculation. It flows directly from the Judeo-Christian revelation. Nothing is gained by denying this commonality of understanding nor by denying Islam's ironic dependence upon the Christian revelation. If you wish to say that Muslims worship an idol, fine--given Islam's longstanding warfare against the Church, I certainly do not object--but their idolatry is of a very different character than the idolatry of those who worshipped the deities of Canaan or Greece.
Pontificator:
I find this to be a fascinating and excellent conversation and have enjoyed following it.
I'd like to comment on this statement that you wrote:
"It might also be noted that God was known as Creator *before* he was known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Look at Gen. 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'"
When God said "Let us" this is a reference to the trinity.
Also, John 1:1-2 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning."
So on a basic level, I don't think we can deny that God was The Trinity from the beginning.
Also, I'd like to go back and develop my earlier statement about Romans 1:19-20 and general revelation. Based on scripture, mankind can have a general knowledge that God must exist, based on natural or general revelation. This is speaking of Gentiles and not the Jewish believers. Paul clearly lays out that salvation did not come through general revelation. Recognition or acknowledgement of an unnamed god did not save the Gentiles. Paul also goes on to say " 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice." The point being that they rejected the true God, even though He was generally revealed to them.
I suppose technically we could say that neither the Jews nor the Muslims worship the true Triune God.
One more comment from John 8, which I think answers the question about whether unregenerate Jews actually worship the same God:
Jesus said: "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."(V.19)
and
42 "Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
and
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Before Abraham was -- YHWH.
Deb, thanks for those points. The John stuff is particularly helpful.
Pontificator,
* If we're going to talk church fathers it's difficult to think of a more crucial verse for their theological method than Matthew 11:27: "No-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."
Let me add John 1:18; 14:6 and Colossians 1:15. "Christ alone" is not (thank God) a Barthian hobby-horse!
* Philosophical reflection is vain idolatry when not founded on and shaped by the Word. (cf Ps 14:2; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:21). You cannot evade these plain and central truths by crying 'Barthian'!
* "God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth" was a deliberate and crucial choice of order. Triunity precedes creation. Of course it does - unless we want to define God as dependent upon creation. You haven't dealt with the inherent Arian trajectory of supposing otherwise.
* Jews who reject Jesus know neither Him nor the Father. See Deb's points above.
* The Christian account of ex nihilo is radically different if considered truly Christianly. Creation is not so much out of *nothing* as out of the Father's love for the Son, perfected in the Spirit. Trinity means creation derives from divine love (not simply will), it is a free creation (not necessary) and, because already mediated by the Father's two Hands, stands and can continue to stand in relation to its Maker. Take away trinity and you really don't have ex nihilo as a recognizably similar doctrine.
* You still haven't dealt with the tremendous Arian dangers of considering Creator more foundational than trinity. Once you have assured your Muslim friend that she really does know God and that the God she knows is definitionally the infinite transcendent Creator, do you really think you've helped her towards faith in Jesus of Nazareth?? Have you not just given her every reason to reject divine honours (thus defined) being attributed to Christ. Won't she simply thank you for confirming her own doctrine of God which *by definition* precludes Jesus from being anything more than a prophet??
Athanasius rightly said 'the only system of thought into which Jesus Christ will fit is the one in which He is the starting point.'
If we're going to talk church fathers it's difficult to think of a more crucial verse for their theological method than Matthew 11:27: "No-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."
This is quite true. No one can know God in his internal relations apart from Jesus the Son. This is irrelevant to our discussion. I am not disputing the sola Christi. But this does not mean that God is utterly unknown apart from explicit Christian faith or apart from the preaching of the gospel. In the words of Augustine: "He is not called Father with reference to himself but only in relation to the Son; seen by himself he is simply God."
And yes, I have read enough Barth, and especially T. F. Torrance, to recognize a Barthian argument.
Philosophical reflection is vain idolatry when not founded on and shaped by the Word. (cf Ps 14:2; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:21). You cannot evade these plain and central truths by crying 'Barthian'!
I disagree. You are positing an untenable divorce between faith and reason, a divorce that was clearly repudiated by many of the Church Fathers. The irony here is is that your extreme revelational exclusivism puts you right in the camp with the Muslims.
There is only one way forward here, as Pope Benedict argued in his lecture at Regensburg--namely, to refuse to accept the divorce between faith and reason, to refuse Tertullian's divorce between Athens and Jerusalem.
"God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth" was a deliberate and crucial choice of order. Triunity precedes creation. Of course it does - unless we want to define God as dependent upon creation. You haven't dealt with the inherent Arian trajectory of supposing otherwise.
Yes, of course Christians must posit the Triunity of God before God's act of creation: the Father creates through the Son in the Spirit. I am not disputing that. But that doesn't mean that God has not revealed himself as Creator apart from the Christian revelation; for clearly he in fact did. Israel knew God as Creator long before God revealed himself as Holy Trinity.
Jews who reject Jesus know neither Him nor the Father.
But this does not mean, cannot mean, that Jews are worshipping a false God. St Paul clearly refuses to make such a claim in his Epistle to the Romans.
The Christian account of ex nihilo is radically different if considered truly Christianly. Creation is not so much out of *nothing* as out of the Father's love for the Son, perfected in the Spirit. Trinity means creation derives from divine love (not simply will), it is a free creation (not necessary) and, because already mediated by the Father's two Hands, stands and can continue to stand in relation to its Maker. Take away trinity and you really don't have ex nihilo as a recognizably similar doctrine.
An interesting argument and I agree with it mainly. But the fact remains that however illogical it may appear to us, Islam (at least so I am told) teaches God's free creation of the universe out of nothing.
You still haven't dealt with the tremendous Arian dangers of considering Creator more foundational than trinity.
I have never said that Creator is more foundational than Holy Trinity. But clearly it is possible to know God as Creator apart from explicit faith in the Holy Trinity. You appear to believe that once we have come to knowledge of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then suddenly all prior knowledge of God is rendered completely false, as if Newtonian physics becomes utterly irrelevant once mankind comes into knowledge of quantum physics. This is an unnecessary and destructive move.
Once you have assured your Muslim friend that she really does know God and that the God she knows is definitionally the infinite transcendent Creator, do you really think you've helped her towards faith in Jesus of Nazareth?
I have evangelized many, many people; but I have never evangelized a Muslim. I suspect, though, that it would be more constructive to build on what Muslims authentically know about God and to direct them to the fullness of knowledge given in the Incarnate Son--the knowledge of God as infinite love and mercy--rather than telling them that they know nothing of value whatsoever. But at this point we are talking strategy, and I am more than willing to listen to those who have served in the mission field in Islamic countries. But I am not sanguine. Islam has proven remarkably, and tragically, resistant to the gospel.
Let me just mention a couple of things.
"See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (Col 2:8-9)
* Faith and reason are not separate. But the former flows to the latter. 'Faith seeking understanding' is, again, not simply a Barthian (or an Anselmian) thing - its the bible.
* That on which our thinking is to depend is *Christ* (not 'uncreated Creator')
* Specifically our foundation is the Christ in whom fullness of deity dwells bodily. To posit a definition of 'deity' at the outset which cannot dwell bodily in Christ is a clear indication that you've been taken captive by hollow and deceptive philosophy.
* Paul in Romans is silent on this specific issue. Jesus in John is not. I direct you back to Deb's points.
* I'm not saying you believe in a temporal precedence of creation over trinity but you do seem to believe that 'Creator' provides common ground when obviously 'trinity' does not. You wish therefore to share a common understaning of this and build on it. I hope very much you want to build *towards* trinity. But I am saying that this direction of argumentation will never get to an orthodox trinity. It may lead to a modalist or, more likely, an Arian trinity. But while-ever a divine nature of 'uncreated Creator' is agreed on prior to trinitarian discussion then you will come to Jesus with a pre-fab mould of divinity. You will conclude either that Jesus doesn't fit it (the Muslim/Arian) or that the 'Jesus' that doesn't fit it is simply a mask behind which lies the deity that does (modalism).
*It might be counter-productive to add more points to this. I think the central one for me is the well-meaning but ultimately fatal direction of argumentation you are proposing to take with the Muslim:
"...it would be more constructive to build on what Muslims authentically know about God and to direct them to the fullness of knowledge given in the Incarnate Son"
(You realize that I am denying the word 'authentically' here.) But even if you were to grant the Muslim an authentic knowledge of transcendence, how do you propose to introduce them to the Incarnate Son as anything other than a violation of their understanding of transcendence which you had previously affirmed?? Their notion of transcendence is precisely that which mandates their utter revulsion at the incarnation. For the Muslim 'transcendence' means Jesus is not God. But you want to affirm this at the outset!
I too want to have 'constructive' conversations with Muslims. But after years of talking with very thought-through Muslim apologists I've seen the absolute importance of beginning with trinity. You cannot get to trinity with prior ontological baggage. CANNOT. You can have interesting philosophical discussions with theists about the meaning of omnipotence but none of this gets them where you want to get them. It takes them away from the One in whom the fulness of Deity dwells bodily. A 'shared' understanding of 'transcendent Creator' can only be the enemy of the trinity and therefore the true identity of Jesus.
"But clearly it is possible to know God as Creator apart from explicit faith in the Holy Trinity." _Pontif
But this would only be initial regeneration.
For Jesus Christ commands us to make disciples, and to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And then to teach them all things in His Word, and this includes the clear doctrine of a Triune God.
Jerry, as I've pointed out in previous discussions on this issue, no one here is claiming that Muslims honor God. You've changed the subject again.
I'm with those who think 'God' is a proper name and thus does function the way Tennent says 'Allah' functions. I'm also with Tennent about why it sounds so wrong to say that the God of Muhammad is the Father of Jesus.
I would add that that sentence involves two terms that aren't mutually acceptable. No Christian will say that God is the God of Muhammad, since that means he's a true follower of God. No Muslim would say that God is the Father of Jesus in the way Christians mean that. So putting the two expressions together in an identity statement is extremely funny, linguistically speaking, and it's strange to affirm such a sentence.
But you can say all that while still thinking that the referent of the two funny statements is God, even if in one case you think the expression gets something fundamentally wrong about him (just as I can refer to the red-haired man across the room drinking champagne when the guy is actually a bald woman in drag drinking wine in a champagne glass while wearing a red-haired wig). It's technically false that the guy with red hair across the room drinking champagne is my English teacher, even if the woman I'm referring to is my English teacher, and I don't know she's a woman. I still refer to her when I describe her that way.
As for Jews, I'm pretty sure Muslims do see themselves as worshiping the same God as Jews. They just think Jews rely on false traditions that have been changed to favor Judaism.
Jeremy,
Isn't it more like: the host of the party shows up, looks exactly like the guy on the posters, personally introduces himself, invites you back to his place and instead you go home with the waitress?? What's all this 'across a crowded room' stuff? Do we believe in revelation or not? The living God has shown up in the flesh, we have seen His glory. The Muslim is one who looks at the living God in the flesh and says 'that's not God.' Fine - they have rejected the God who Jesus *is*. Let's honour that decision and come clean about our respective positions.
Glen, no it's not, because you've built into your example the very thing that you're trying to prove. That's a question-begging argument and establishes nothing.
On the other hand, I chose an example that has all the features that people are using against the view I've been defending. It involves a denial of essential properties. It involves mistaking a whole mess of properties. It seems as if trying to find the person just by the properties listed would end in finding no one, since no one has those properties. Yet it refers, and we know exactly who is being talked about.
You haven't responded to my argument. You've simply assumed what you're trying to prove, thus proving nothing.
Muslims believe that the Koran was handed down to them straight From God which a great belief for them to have, in the same way I believe the Bible though written by man is God's Holy word Inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. So that being true if the Christian's holy book states in John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Then it is safe to say that there is no way to the Father in heaven except through Jesus and in Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
So My Christian brothers and sisters do not doubt Jesus and do not be afraid to tell your muslim brothers and sisters the truth,They are waiting to hear the good news! GOD Bless.
Muslims believe that the Koran was handed down to them straight From God which a great belief for them to have, in the same way I believe the Bible though written by man is God's Holy word Inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. So that being true if the Christian's holy book states in John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Then it is safe to say that there is no way to the Father in heaven except through Jesus and in Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
So My Christian brothers and sisters do not doubt Jesus and do not be afraid to tell your muslim brothers and sisters the truth,They are waiting to hear the good news! GOD Bless.
Muslims believe that the Koran was handed down to them straight From God which a great belief for them to have, in the same way I believe the Bible though written by man is God's Holy word Inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. So that being true if the Christian's holy book states in John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Then it is safe to say that there is no way to the Father in heaven except through Jesus and in Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
So My Christian brothers and sisters do not doubt Jesus and do not be afraid to tell your muslim brothers and sisters the truth,They are waiting to hear the good news! GOD Bless.
Christine
Following up on Jeremy's comment:
Analytic philosophers typically say there are two ways to identify a person--proper names and definite descriptions. If 'God' in fact functions as a proper name in common discourse (and I think it does), then we need to specify the definite descriptions of God.
Christians typically employ historical references: God is the one who called to himself the people Israel; God is the one who delivered his people from slavery in Egypt, and supremely, God is the one who become incarnate in Jesus Christ, who died on a cross in Jerusalem, who was raised on the third day; etc.
What definite descriptions does a Muslim employ to identify God? I guess something like the following: God is the one who sent Muhammad as his prophet; God is the one who dictated the Koran.
Now clearly Christians cannot accept the Islamic descriptions as faithfully identifying God, so it's feels right to infer that Muslims worship a different God. And in one sense, as I have said, this would be correct, given the very, very different understandings of deity between the two religions. From a Christian perspective, the Islamic understanding of deity is so wrong, and so destructive, that we want to say to Muslims "You are worshipping a false God!" Indeed, we may even want to say to them "You are worshipping Satan!"
But in another sense, it is not correct, because, as I have also said, both religions also identify Deity as the one who created the cosmos ex nihilo. This understanding of God as creator is not a pagan creation; it flows directly from the biblical understanding. I do not deny that the creatio ex nihilo will be understood somewhat differently within the the two religions--precisely because the Christian understands creation as an act of trinitarian love--but the philosophical commonality still remains.
I emailed a Protestant missionary who works in the Middle East and pointed him to this article and asked him his thoughts. He replied:
"Do I tell Muslims they do not worship the true God? No, because they already assume, based on Islamic teaching, that we worship the same God. So my goal is to rather convince them that their ultimate revelation is in fact flawed. By default they would need to return to the previous revelation."
This missionary is not concerned here with ecumenical dialogue. He is doing evangelism. The fact that Muslims apparently believe that they and Christians worship the same God, no matter how mistaken they believe Christians are, must be taken seriously. At the same time this missionary clearly recognizes the radical differences in understanding between Christianity and Islam, which in turns requires a radical conversion of heart and mind on the part of Muslims who desire to become Christians. Not only must they move from a unitarian understanding of God to a trinitarian understanding; but they must also renounce Muhammad. In practical terms I think this makes conversion from Islam to Christianity incredibly more difficult than conversion from Judaism to Christianity.
Hi Jeremy, I still think the question bears repeating: Do we believe in revelation or not? If we do, then we must build into our thinking *from the outset* that God *has* specified who He is in a once-for-all, unambiguous and irreducibly exclusive way. If that means assuming what we're trying to prove then so be it. (Anyone who believes in revelation