Conclusion
We asked and investigated the question, “Do Muslims and
Christians worship the same God?” and to answer the question accurately these
points were established:
1.
defined “same” as being identical, not merely similar
2. identified the faiths’ Scriptures as the primary sources of data
3. examined those Scriptures and compared & contrasted the Gods’ characteristics in three different topics or categories:
1) Their commands and plans for Their followers
2) Their statements regarding Jesus as the Son of God
3) Their relationships with Their followers
2. identified the faiths’ Scriptures as the primary sources of data
3. examined those Scriptures and compared & contrasted the Gods’ characteristics in three different topics or categories:
1) Their commands and plans for Their followers
2) Their statements regarding Jesus as the Son of God
3) Their relationships with Their followers
In all three we found either opposite or significantly different results.
Based upon the Scriptural data and the
historical evidence the only logical and consistent answer that can be given is
that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. These Gods have
acted and spoken in contradiction. It is these opposites, in command, in
statement, and in nature that are grounds for rejecting the proposal that we
worship the same God. They are not one and the same Person or
Divinity. “A” cannot be “non-A.” Islam’s Allah is not the
same as Christianity’s Allah. They are not the same God!
Muslims may believe that they
worship the same God. However the Quran’s description of Allah’s
attributes and characteristics are distinct and different from the Bible’s
description of God. While both refer to a One All-Powerful Creator-God
their portrayals and characterizations of that God contradict each other.
THE THEOLOGIANS
Recently I’ve talked with a good friend who has a
theological degree about the respect his degree commands. He is very
involved in philosophical and theological discussions with agnostics and
atheists and his work has yielded fruit! However, he’s told me that many
of the people he encounters, religious or secular, discount the value of a
theological degree. They view it as of little benefit, “why are you
wasting your time and money on that?” Yet he feels that theology is one
of the most powerful domains today because it deals with morality and
philosophy of life and affects the lives of some 7 billion people. Yet
today’s theologians, like Rodney Dangerfield, “get no respect!”
I was unaware and surprised by those dismissive
perspectives. I was puzzled: “Why are theologians dismissed so
readily today?” In times past theologians affected man and culture powerfully.
Today, outside of religious circles, a degree in theology is seen as useful as
a degree in sociology. I can hear the Simpson’s character Nelson mocking
and laughing at them: “Ha ha!”
This question, “Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God”
has been addressed by various Christian theologians. You’ll find a wide
variety of articles on the web. Some answered with a simple and firm
“yes” or “no” answer. On the other hand some Christian theologians argue
that a simple “yes” or “no” answer cannot be given, while even others have
answered both “yes” and “no”! Either they are the same God, the one and
the same Divine Essence, the one and the same Divine Person, or they are not.
If three scientists were asked to determine two
unidentified materials they would investigate and examine them by using various
physical and chemical tests and then analyze the data. Afterwards they
would draw a conclusion. Would you expect the scientists to say:
“Yes, they’re the same because they both have similar physical properties.”
or
“No, they’re not the same. They have different chemical compositions of
carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, gallium, chlorine, etc., and different
strengths, melting points, luster, densities, etc. They have similarities
but are different materials.”?
Suppose a sports magazine
commissioned a professional English sports writer to write an article proving
that American football and English football are, or are not, the same.
What type of an article would be expected in terms of comparison, contrast,
examination, and evaluation? Wouldn’t the sports magazine and its readers
expect to read an accurate and detailed answer that compared facets of both
games and drew a firm conclusion? What would the reaction be if after a
few generalized paragraphs he wrote, “Sure, they’ve both sports and both are
called Football, both played on a big field, and both use a large ball, so they
must be the same.”
Two books written recently address the question if Jews,
Christians, and Muslims worship the same God:
1. Do we Worship the Same God? which features a selection of
previously published articles that affirm we worship the same God. It is
edited by Miroslav Volf.
2. Do Jews, Christians, & Muslims Worship the
Same God? with articles
written by theologians Neusner, Levine, Chilton, and Cornell, and an epilogue
written by Marty Martin. (I’ll refer to this book as “Neusner’s book”).
Additionally, a third book by James White which briefly
discusses whether or not we worship the same God bears mention:
3. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the
Qur’an touches on this
subject.
The first two books contain articles written by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim perspectives. They are not asking if both faiths worship God rather they are asking if they worship the “same” God. My focus is on the Christian-themed responses and it’s important to know their reasoning and arguments for confirming we do worship the same God. They should be considered, examined, and critiqued. It is defining and dealing with “same” that theologians struggle and stumble.
Volf is previously on record as believing and proclaiming
that we worship the same God and no doubt he chose articles that support his
viewpoint. Volf’s book focuses on the question at hand but a secondary
goal of his is to lay groundwork for mutual respect, discussion, and living
together peaceably. The Christian-based articles are written by Christoph
Schwöbel and Amy Plantinga-Pauw.
Neusner’s book features fewer but better articles in terms
of analysis and they highlight the challenges and differences between the
faiths. Theologian Bruce Chilton presents the Christian point of view.
White’s book focuses upon the
errors and inconsistencies within the Quran and White covers the aspect of
“same God?” because Muslims believe that God inspired the Quran and view it as
Scripture.
Volf’s Book
Volf’s articles start by reviewing aspects of Christian
faith and mention the theological divide between the faiths. Subsequently
the authors play a theological “get out of jail free” card and conclude
in one way or another that we do indeed worship the same God, “albeit
differently”. This get out of jail free card is used by many theologians
from different faiths. This card is actually a reflection of the “Three
Blind Men and the Elephant” story. Each theologian admits stark
theological differences, but those differences, those different understandings,
are due to their possessing a partial understanding of God. The card
exploits God’s unknowable vastness and allows for the overlooking of key
contradictions. It says, “Yes, there are theological contradictions but
might there be some aspect of God of which we are unaware that would reconcile
these apparent contradictions?” This card trumps or overrides the
contradictions.
Volf’s introduction hits the nail’s head when discussing
the theological ramifications of the question:
The dispute is about the divine identity: Do Muslims
and Christians pray to two different deities so that, given that both are
strict monotheists, one group prays to a false god and are therefore idolaters
whereas the other prays to a true God? (p.viii)
Volf then plays the get out of jail free card quickly:
Many Christians through the centuries, saints and
undisputed great teachers, have believed that Muslims worship the same God as
they do – the same God, though differently understood, of course.
(pp.viii, iv)
That argument allows for a synthesis of the Bible and the
Quran. I doubt any of those theologians would come out and state that but
that is where their logic leads. The blind man who examined the tail
could also examine the tusk and say, “Yes! This is also true of the One
Elephant!” Why then couldn’t a Christian who accepts that doctrine say,
“Let’s take the best parts out of the Bible and Quran and mix them to our
mutual benefit?”
Christoph Schwöbel
Schwöbel begins with a review of the Catholic church’s Nostra Aetate which is defined as the “Declaration
on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” He covers
what the Nostra Aetate says about Hindus and Buddhists then
moves on to what it says about Muslims.
Schwöbel states that through the ages Christians have said
that Muslims and Christians “believe and confess One God, “albeit in
different ways.””
With respect to Nostra
Aetate he addresses the
question at hand:
Does Nostra
Aetate state that Christians
and Muslims worship and believe in the same God? I think one could only
say that Nostra Aetate states that Christians and Muslims
worship the one and only God because there is only one God who is the origin
and goal of the whole of humankind. There is thus an identity of
reference, more precisely an identity of the referent (the object of the
reference) in the way Christians and Muslims understand God. (p.6)
I appreciate Schwöbel’s clarification, “identity of reference,” because he draws a distinction between worshiping and referring to a God and worshiping the same God.
Schwöbel moves to discussing perspective. In a
thoughtful argument Schwöbel addresses perspectives that could be used to
discuss the question of whether or not we worship the same God. He sets
the discussion groundwork and uses the same approach I used: “p and not-p
cannot have the same truth value.” (p.7)
From there he discusses the trinity and presents his
summation of Martin Luther’s view, i.e. that Muslims “have” the same God as
Christians, (because there is only one God – again this is the “identity of
reference”), but are not in right standing with God and do not have a correct
understand of Him. Schwöbel then takes Luther’s statements and asserts
that Luther believed that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Schwöbel then fashions the next step in his argument:
How should Christians approach the other religions if they
take Luther’s view seriously – that they have the same God but that they do not
know it? If all God’s creatures have the same God, it seems impossible to
limit the economy of salvation to the Christian church and leave the rest of
the world to other powers. Since the God who is revealed in his threefold
divine self-giving is the God of “unutterable love” this must apply to the
whole relationship of God to the world, although God can only be know where God
makes Himself known. (pp.14, 15)
Schwöbel’s argument morphed into syncretism, based on a humanistic and philosophical approach to Christian theology, one that is NOT based on Christian Scripture. He states that Christians cannot deny God is present in other religions (why not?), that our sin obscures our view or understanding of God, and draws an incredulous, non-Christian, conclusion:
Therefore Christians will expect to experience the same God
in new ways also in the religions. The only criterion they have for that
is the gospel of Christ, as the way in which Christians believe God revealed
himself. The other religions are therefor for Christians neither a
Godless zone, nor enemy territory. Christians cannot see the existence of
the religions as an operating accident in the history of salvation. What
the precise role of the religions is in God’s providence has remained hidden
until now, but that they must have a role is clear from what Christians believe
about the presence of the almighty creator to the whole of creation.
(p.14)
Schwöbel took the same “identity of reference” and turned that into same in Divinity. The argument changed from “They worship a similar God” to “They worship the same God.” I’m not so sure that Luther would appreciate what Schwöbel did with his argument.
Schwöbel presents various aspects of the Christian faith
with a philosophical view towards perspectives, respect, dialog, and the common
good. He concludes with:
We have arrived at a curious conclusion. From the Christian perspective it
seems we have to say that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have the same God – and this statement would be
underlined by Jews and Muslims from the perspective of their respective
faiths. However, they each would emphasize that the other do not worship
or believe in this God in the same way, because God has been revealed to them,
according to their self-understanding, in different ways – which, from each of
the perspectives, create a real difference in worship and faith. However,
this difference would not seem to exclude that we live in the same world, interpreted from
our different perspectives in which we have to act together for our common
good. (p.17)
Schwöbel’s construction of the Three blind men and the elephant story: each faith has different perspectives (or revelations) of the same God and our concepts and modes of worship are different, but we worship one and the same God. God’s vastness and our limitedness and sin allow for this One God to have revealed Himself differently to Muhammad and the Muslims. Earlier Schwöbel stated that we needed to have a “p and not-p cannot have the same truth value” perspective in order to have a meaningful discussion. However he either did not look deeply enough into Islam to determine if Allah were the same as God or he overlooked the p is not non-p and drew a politically correct conclusion.
Amy Plantinga-Pauw
Pauw’s argument comes from a slightly different approach.
She is unsure of what criteria to use as a measuring stick, she does not
know what grounds for judging “same” are sufficient, and throughout her article
she remains in uncertainty. She suggests that we need to “learn more”
before making a judgment. 1400 years of Islamic theology should be
sufficient for the task at hand. The problem here is not one of missing data
rather it is one of applying oneself to know the data.
Because she is unable to find criteria, i.e. “grounds” to
base a judgment upon she uses theological beliefs common to both Christianity
and Islam to affirm that we do worship the same God. For example since
both faiths believe that one God is the Creator of all, they therefore believe
in and worship the same God. She writes:
It is reasonable to argue about whether two people are
praising the same movie. In the case of God, however, I have every reason
to believe that those who claim to be monotheists are worshipping the same God
I am, even if their theologies diverge. The alternative is not that they
are worshiping a “different” creator of heaven and earth, but that they are
idolaters, failing to worship the one God at all, worshipping instead some part
of creaturely reality. (p.39)
Pauw argues that because Muslims believe in one Creator God, then as fellow monotheists they worship the same God as the Christians. What she is agreeing to is that both faiths have a similar understanding and identification that their God is the Creator. Schwöbel brought out a similar point when using the Nostra Aetate and Luther’s writings. Schwöbel differentiated between having the same “identity of reference,” and having the “same” God, Pauw does not.
On the other hand, Pauw states correctly that if the sharp
theological differences allow the denial that these Gods are not the same God,
then the alternative is that Muslims are “idolaters” who worship a false
god. However, she is uncertain and therefore unwilling to make that
seemingly harsh judgment. She errs on the side of what she considers to
be “charitable” Christian allowance.
Similar to Schwöbel, Pauw counters those “irreducible
theological differences” by playing the theological get out of jail free card:
However, the radical distinction between the one Creator
and all creation posited by Jews, Christians, and Muslims paradoxically
supports arguments that they worship the same God by indicating the
impossibility of capturing God’s reality in our theological conceptualities.
(p.40)
Pauw’s argument is another version of the Three Blind men and the Elephant: God is too big to comprehend completely and therefore the theological differences may not necessarily mean that we worship different Gods. Pauw is aware of the sharp theological differences but affirms we worship the same God because God is greater than our perceptions. Her uncertainty due to God’s bigness allows her to play the theological get out of jail free card and she uses it to trump her recognition that p is not non-p.
Because God is not just “the biggest thing around,” large
and irreducible differences in theological understanding do not automatically
nullify the affirmation that the three traditions worship the same God.”
(p.40)
I can still appeal to creaturely finitude and divine
otherness to argue that the large theological differences among us are not
prima facie grounds for doubting that we worship the same God. (p.41)
Just as Schwöbel asserts that our sin blinds us to knowing God in full, (p.14), so too Pauw argues that her uncertainty allows her to discount the contradictory statements that both Gods have stated which are recorded in their respective Scriptures. God’s hidden presence and vastness create a theological uncertainty which allows Islam to be accepted as a legitimate faith that worships the same God that Christians worship.
Taking a deeper look at the quality of Pauw’s faith shows
that her uncertainty is a significant factor. She describes her
Christianity as comprised of “seeing through a glass darkly,” (p. 40 -
referencing 1 Corinthians 13:12), whereas the Apostle John’s Christianity was
certain: “… but these
have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John
20:31). Within the Christian faith there are things which are certain and
things which are not so certain. Knowing that Jesus is the Son of God,
His death and resurrection, His Divinity, are certain. (Both Paul and
John knew and were certain of that.) Pauw is not so certain.
Opposing Pauw is Francis Schaeffer’s argument. While
we do not know God completely we can know limited and accurate details about
Him.
Francis Schaeffer testified publically early in his
Christian life:
"My name is Francis Schaeffer and I want to say that I
know Jesus is the Son of God, and He is also my Savior."
and commenting on limited knowledge of God, Schaeffer later wrote:
It is an important principle to remember, in the
contemporary interest in communication and in language study, that the biblical
presentation is that though we do not have exhaustive truth, we have from the
Bible what I term true truth. In this way we know true truth about God, true
truth about man, and something truly about nature. Thus on the basis of the
Scriptures, while we do not have exhaustive knowledge, we have true and unified
knowledge. (Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, Ch. 2, p.21)
Like the apostle John, Schaeffer understood that God has spoken truth about Himself, mankind, and the world. There is no uncertainty. There is no second guessing because God has spoken clearly about Jesus being His Son. Yet somehow, Pauw waits or allows for a future revelation, another deeper theological understanding, that will reconcile Allah’s, “Hell No! Jesus is NOT my Son!” with God’s “Hell Yes! Jesus is my beloved Son!”
John knew Jesus, he knew His truth, and John was certain.
Francis Schaeffer knew Jesus and the truth and was certain. Pauw
believes but she does not know.
As Pauw continues her argument she acknowledges it is weak:
It will be clear by now that the “grounds” I have provided
for asserting that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God fall well
short of a generally convincing argument. I have addressed my argument to
fellow Christians, insisting that our own theological convictions provide
grounds for trusting the claims of Jews and Muslims to worship the “One God,
maker of heaven and earth.” … I have instead tried to supply distinctively
Christian grounds for resisting the domestication of the God we worship, and
for trusting in a divine generosity that exceeds our own theological
understanding. (p.43, 44)
She admits the differences but hopes that blind generosity accommodates Muslims. This argument is not a Christian theological argument rather it is an irrational leap of faith. God was not and is not generous towards idolatry. Why should Christians compromise their faith?
In addressing the book’s
question, “Do We Worship the same God?” Pauw, like Schwöbel, do not quote a
single verse from the Quran. How do degreed theologians, writing articles
that confirm that Christians worship the same God as the Muslims, fail to
utilize a single Quranic verse? How does Pauw fail to describe just one
of the “sharp theological differences”? How is a reader supposed to be
convinced if the writer would not, or could not, engage the data? You
would not want this quality of work from your doctor, car mechanic, or home-builder
would you?
Bruce Chilton
Dr. Bruce Chilton represents the Christian viewpoint in
Neusner’s book. Like Schwöbel and Pauw he does not perform actual
comparison and analysis of the faiths. While he does scholarly work on
discussing Jesus as the Logos and the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of
the early Christians the book’s theme is avoided until the conclusion.
There he offers a few paragraphs.
He starts by stating the theological challenges in his
Introduction:
To assert God’s sameness in the three Abrahamic religions
may seem straightforward, following from God’s oneness; some version of that
claim is often heard. But exclusions of faith perspectives, both across
theologies and within theological traditions, are considerable when the Abrahamic
religions are privileged with this assumption. (p.55)
Also, he states that the faith’s tenets are established by its writings:
Despite these complexities, the three Abrahamic traditions
assert their faith in what they describe as one God in documents they hold as
classic or canonical. (p.56)
In Part 1 he expounds upon the relationship of the “Logos” to Jesus and presents a detailed view of the status of Jesus as the Logos. Part 2 is a study on the active role the Holy Spirit played in the life of the early Christians. How these Parts relate to the issue at hand is not developed.
Like Schwöbel and Pauw earlier Chilton touches on the
“tolerance and mutual respect” theme. He cites William Graham’s work
which says in Muslim countries religious minorities (apart from polytheists)
were treated with tolerance. Graham and Chilton are unable to distinguish
between oppression and tolerance. Islam’s self-defined rule over
non-Muslims is meant to be oppressive. Quran 9:29 is not a command to tolerance,
rather it a command to subject, kill, or oppress those that reject Islam’s god
as their God. This is what Islamic history shows us and what we see today
in the Islamic world. There is a correlation between the degree that a
Muslim society is Islamic and the degree of oppression it levies against
non-Muslims. The more Islamic a Muslim society is the more it oppresses
non-Muslims. Let’s not call that form of oppression “tolerance.”
Just because the Christians and Jews were not outright killed or forced
to convert to Islam does not mean we call that tolerance. Would Muslims
call it “tolerant” if they were treated the same way in the West?
Chilton addresses the “same” criteria from a different
perspective than Pauw:
To declare that God is the “same” implicitly lays a claim
to a superior definition of what makes for that sameness. … As an analytic
category in the comparative study of religion and theology, “sameness” does not
appear productive. (p.82)
While the book’s theme is “same,” Chilton, demurs from addressing it robustly. “Sameness” is productive when sincere Christians want to know if their God is the same as Islam’s Allah. They want to understand the differences between the faiths.
Chilton’s last paragraph is a short statement on what
should have been addressed fully:
Systematic comparison sometimes points to moments when one
of the Abrahamic religions appears at odds with the other two.
Christianity’s Incarnation, Islam’s seal of prophecy, and Judaism’s eternal
Israel are as unacceptable to their partners as they are nonnegotiable to faith
as articulated in canonical and classic literatures. Each partner can
learn from the others, because they share categories of faith, even as they
differ from one another in what is believed. But precisely because they
all lay claim to the one God of Abraham, contradiction must attend their
interactions. Each of the Abrahamic religions, while asserting that God
is unique, also insists that its identification of God is uniquely true. That
is why their God is one and not the same, and why believers need to acquire a
taste for the fruits of difference. (pp.82,
83)
“Sometimes… appears”? There are many fundamental tenets in Islam and Christianity that are at odds. These are not just “sometimes” contradictions rather they are employed full time.
Chilton notes the contradictions and states that the Gods
are not the same,
but somehow they are “One.” Because Chilton does not make a strong and
clear conclusion we are left wondering what exactly he is trying to say, or not
say. Indeed, even in the book’s epilogue M. Marty actually comments on
the lack of clear conclusions:
Whoever might bring hopes that a panel such as this could
come up with easy answer to the question has to see such hopes dashed…. Disdain
will be the response of others who came to this book with sure answers to the
question. (p131)
“Disdain” may be too strong a word, but disappointment is not. I don’t know why Chilton was unwilling to write a stronger, more clear, conclusion. I enjoyed his chapter most of all. His work in Part I and Part II was detailed and a true pleasure to read. I wish he had delivered a more developed conclusion.
Earlier I mentioned the perceived uselessness of a theology
degree and how it is looked down upon. I am troubled that so many
theologians in the West are more concerned with a humanistic approach instead
of a Christian approach to theological questions. Perhaps I’m naïve but
I’ve always expected Christian theologians to, you know, take a stand for
Christ and the word of God. If they are not standing upon God’s word what
are they standing upon? What are they standing for?
Part of the reason a theological degree is de-valued today
is because so many of today’s theologians have nothing to say. There is
nothing strong in their work or their statements and the quality of their work
is embarrassing.
Some of the articles I’ve read
show today’s “Christian” theologians addressing this question from a mere
academic perspective. It is an intellectual puzzle to be investigated,
discussed, and then answered. The God they analyze is a dead god existing
in a nice, tidy and cute box. They dissect him and present him as they
choose and answer based upon their personal desires and viewpoints. Their
god has no power and no life force; he doesn’t matter. They worship a
dead angel.
James White
James White takes a more serious approach to the subject of
Islam and is accurate and forthright in his analysis. On pages 70 through
72 he addresses the question directly. He notes that the Quran affirms
Christians and Muslims worship the same God and distinguishes between pure and
correct worship versus tainted and incorrect worship:
So it seems beyond question that the Qur’an is saying
People of the Book and Muslims do worship the same God.
…
The Qur’an is saying that though we are all talking about
the same God, only the Muslims enlightened by His final revelation, are
worshiping that one God with purity (tawhid). The Jews, by
rejecting Muhammad, and the Christians, by exalting and worshiping Jesus, have
left the straight path of true worship. (p.71)
On a very general level, the Qur’an’s clear answer to “Are
Christians, Muslims, and Jews talking about the same God?” is yes, “our God and
your God is One.”
White then goes into the details that comprise the faiths and addresses the Quran’s naïve position:
But this is far too simplistic, and most well-read Muslims
recognize it. For Christians, the deity of Jesus, the eternal
relationship of the Father and the Son, and the personality and deity of the
Spirit are not side issues that can be relegated to the realm of
“excesses.” These define the object of our worship; they define our relationship to God. In
light of this, while the referent of God may be similar, it cannot be seriously
maintained that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
…
To deny the witness of the incarnation and the resurrection
is to deny the entirety of the Christian faith. For this reason we
maintain, together with the thoughtful Muslim, that if worship is an act of
truth, then Muslims and Christians are not worshiping the same object. We
do not worship the same God. (p.72)
James White understands the question and provides an accurate and clear answer. The other theologians, not so much. (That is a shame and embarrassment for Christendom in the West.) While the Quran affirms we all worship the One and only God, the devil in the details, prove otherwise. The Quran’s error here is caught by informed Muslims and they struggle with addressing its inconsistencies.
The early Christians knew Jesus
is the Son of God and many died for believing in Him. Many of today’s
theologians can’t even take a stand being cowed by political correctness or
frozen in uncertainty.
God’s pronouncements against idolatry
Some of my comments are critical. But when compared
to what God has both stated and done with respect to idolaters, I might come
off as soft. If both Gods are the same God then perhaps it would be
understandable for Christians to syncretize Islamic worship with Christian
worship. “It’s the same God, so why would He care how we worshipped Him
if we are worshipping Him in an acceptable manner?” However if the Gods
are different then the worship of the false god is akin to idolatry. This
type of blending occurred throughout Israel’s history and time and time again
Yahweh condemned and punished this syncretizing of Judaism with other faiths’
worship. Tragically, this is occurring in Christianity today via “Insider
Movements” and other similar types of efforts that syncretize Christianity with
Islam.
The Biblical Scriptures that address this topic at its root
are blunt and harsh and I’ve compiled a few from the Old and New Testaments.
The statements and commands are strict and uncompromising. God
punished idolatry severely. My compilation caused me to examine my own
heart against anything that would usurp Christ’s rule in my life. Take
these Scriptures at face value and let them speak more loudly to you than my
words.
1) The very first commandment God gave to the Israelites
forbids idolatry:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before
Me. (Exodus 20:2, 3)
2) Jesus’ commandments parallel that:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and
the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)
The first commandment given to Moses prohibited idolatry. The first commandment Jesus quotes also prohibits idolatry.
3) God commanded that the Israelites put idolaters to
death:
“If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns,
which the Lord your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil
in the sight of the Lord your God, by transgressing His covenant, and has gone
and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the
heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if it is told you and you have
heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the
thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you
shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your
gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death.
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5).
4) Paul warns Christians against idolatry and states
that the pagans who worship idols are worshipping demons.
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to
wise men; you judge what I say. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a
sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in
the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for
we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who
eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing
sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say
that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not
to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the
cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the
Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not
stronger than He, are we? (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).
5) John thought the issue important enough to include
it as his final statement in his letter:
Little children, guard
yourselves from idols. (1 John, 5:21).
Of all of the things John could warn against, he warns
against idolatry. Why? The New International Commentary on the New
Testament addresses this:
If what John has just said is true, it is of the utmost
urgency that his readers should avoid anything that would lead them astray from
this God who has revealed himself in Jesus. So, for the last time, John
addresses himself to his readers and warns them: “keep yourselves from
idols.” … Having emphasized that Jesus is the true God, John warns
against being misled into the worship of any other alleged manifestation or
representation of God. … The adoption of false gods or conceptions of God is
usually associated with sin. John urges his readers to have nothing to do
with false ideas of God and the sins that go with them. Today, it is
fashionable to imagine that religion and morality are separable and
independent; one can be good and righteous without belief in Jesus as the Son
of God. John would remind us that apart from Jesus Christ there is no
real understanding of the truth and no power to live according to the
truth. But Jesus Christ is the true God and the way to eternal life.1
Finally, idolaters are described in the last book of the Bible as not being allowed to enter heaven:
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers,
the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all
liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the
second death. (Rev. 21:8).
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral
persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and
practices lying. (Rev. 22:15).
In light of the above Scriptures we can conclude that the worship of a false god is a severe sin and has severe consequences. Paul discusses idolatry and says that those involved with idols are involved with demons. John writes that idolaters will not enter heaven. God commanded idolaters to be put to death and He will sentence them to hell. Whether you like it, or don’t like it, that is exactly what the Bible states.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND AND CHOOSE: SERVE
GOD OR SERVE ALLAH
I’ve answered the question “Do Christians and Muslims
worship the same God?” strongly because in the light of Christian weakness and
confusion I wanted a Scriptural position known. I wanted to speak boldly
and plainly because this question strikes me as of the utmost importance within
God’s values and strictures. My answer is not a put down of Islam’s God.
Just as apples are similar to but different from oranges so also Islam’s God is
similar to, but also contradictory to, Christianity’s God. A “One
Creator” God who says the opposite of what another “One Creator” God says
cannot be the same God.
In “Make My Life a Prayer” Keith Green sings:
Make my
life a prayer to You
I wanna do what You want me to
No empty words and no white lies
No token prayers no compromise
I wanna do what You want me to
No empty words and no white lies
No token prayers no compromise
Keith Green understood the sin of compromising our faith and he sang against it. Compromising faith fails to honor Christ, His divinity, or His sacrifice.
Elijah challenged the Israelites to make up their minds and
choose between serving the Lord or serving Baal:
Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you
waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God,
follow him.” 1 Kings 18:21
Elijah’s challenge is appropriate here for the Christians who believe or want to believe that Allah and God are the same God. While there are some theological similarities there are many more crucial differences. Christians cannot serve two masters. Acknowledging Allah as being the same Deity as God acknowledges two valid but contradictory systems of faith. Like the Israelites of Elijah’s time weak-minded Christians need to make a choice, get in or get out.
As for me, I will not accept the invitation to bow down to
Allah. I challenge Christians to distinguish between a god who says
“Jesus is NOT the Son of God!” and a God who says, “Thou are my beloved Son, in
Whom I am well pleased.”
I know firsthand how devout and disciplined Muslims can
be. So were the priests of Baal:
… Then they called on the name of Baal from morning
till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no
one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made. …So they shouted
louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom,
until their blood flowed. Midday passed, and they continued their frantic
prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no
response, no one answered, no one paid attention. 1 King 18:26-29
You will find devout, honest, self-sacrificing and disciplined followers in all faiths. Admirable traits do not equate to God’s Word. In both the Old and New Testaments devout people worshipped, prayed to, and praised false gods wholeheartedly. No Old or New Testament saint said anything as ridiculous as, “God’s faithfulness allows us to accept worship of that false god as worship of the same God.” No, that error was rejected and condemned!
Brethren, I challenge you, open your Bibles and do your own
study on God’s view of idolatry. My study shows me that He condemns it
harshly. Why should Christians degrade their own faith? A little
leaven leavens the whole loaf. Teaching that Allah and God are the same
God is feeding the body of Christ spiritual poison.
I know whom I have believed and I know Him
who is true and I am in Him who is true, in His beloved Son Jesus Christ. He is
the true God and eternal life.
Silas
(Back to Part 1)
(Back to Part 1)
References
1 Marshall, I. Howard. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978. p. 255, 256.
1 Marshall, I. Howard. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978. p. 255, 256.
[First published: 5 November 2013]
