# Practicing Muslim and 100% Christian???



## DMcFadden

Well, in the "here is another alum of my alma mater (along with ever controversial Rob Bell) pushing a controversial thesis in a new book" category, Miroslav Volf argues that one can be a "practicing Muslim and 100% Christian."

*Allah: A Christian Response*
By: Miroslav Volf
Harpercollins Publishing / 2011



> Writing from a Christian perspective, and in dialogue with leading Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world, Volf reveals surprising points of intersection and overlap between these two faith traditions:
> 
> What the Qur'an denies about God as the Holy Trinity has been denied by every great teacher of the church in the past and ought to be denied by Christians today.
> 
> A person can be both a practicing Muslim and 100 percent Christian without denying core convictions of belief and practice.
> 
> How two faiths, worshipping the same God, can work toward the common good under a single government.
> 
> Volf explains the hidden agendas behind today's news stories as he thoughtfully considers the words of religious leaders and parses the crucial passages from the Bible and the Qur'an that continue to ignite passion.
> 
> Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the "our God vs. their God" premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates conflict.



His publisher writes: 



> Recent disputes like the "ground zero" mosque controversy have their roots in historical conflicts, according to Yale professor and author Volf (Exclusion and Embrace). The author, who grew up in what was then Yugoslavia, explains that Christians' ability to live in community with Muslims depends on their answer to one question: is the God of the Qur'an the same as the God of the Bible? With a conversational tone and the backing of both sacred texts, the author argues that while beliefs about God may differ, the object of worship for both religions is the same (or at least the objects are "sufficiently similar"). Such "claims are spicy," but come after careful consideration. Volf provides a thorough examination of theology to show the complexity of what seems a simple question of terminology. Perhaps the most stirring and involved debate concerns the comparison of the Christian Trinity to Allah. On such a heated topic, readers will appreciate Volf's sense of humor and optimism. Though the text may not convince those who fear religious pluralism, his timely call for Christian love toward Muslims should at least lead to further dialogue, if not increased social cooperation. This is an important book.



Have any of you read the book? Reactions?


----------



## Pergamum

Where's the avatar for a big steaming pile of poo?



To be a practicing Muslims once must say the Shahada, "There is no God but god and Mhd is his Prophet." 

The Spirit of Antichrist is not another religion, nor atheism, but false Christianity. And the Spirit of Antichrist is growing. 

In evangelical missions there are alarming trends in muslim evangelism that needs to be opposed vigorously. Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: Muslim Hyper-Contextualization: The New Missiological Fad


----------



## Covenant Joel

The book just came out, and I'm planning on reading it before too long. Volf was heavily involved in Yale's Response to the A Common Word initiative. He spoke at RTS-O when I was there on the issue, and he seemed to take a more moderate stance at that time. You can read my friend Laurence's summaries of those lectures and some papers he wrote about it here. You can also see John Piper, Al Mohler, Joseph Cummings (with Volf at Yale) and others discuss at an ETS meeting in the videos here.

The "same God" question is only part of a much larger debate within Christian circles over C-5 contextualization. See Timothy Tennent's article about it here. I also wrote a paper about A Common Word and the "same God" question for a class here.

I've been increasingly uncomfortable with Volf's approach to the question. I do want to read the book to give him a fair hearing, but he does seem to be leading in very unbiblical directions. A careful, nuanced, and thoroughly biblical response to the book will be needed, in my opinion.


----------



## Pergamum

Joel,

That's an excellent paper critiquing the Common Word! May I share it with others, and can I include your name? Also, PM me with anything else you write.


----------



## LawrenceU

My brother-in-law a Christian who also grew up in the former Yugoslavia would disagree with his apparent conclusions in the blurbs.


----------



## he beholds

DMcFadden said:


> What the Qur'an denies about God as the Holy Trinity has been denied by *every great teacher of the church in the past and ought to be denied by Christians today.*


What????
Am I missing something? This seems super-obvious to me that what he's advocating isn't Christianity if he's going on the Qur'an's denial of the trinity. And who is every great teacher of the church that's denying the trinity? Or really, am I missing something that the author assumes I know about the Qur'an?


----------



## JennyG

he beholds said:


> Originally Posted by DMcFadden
> What the Qur'an denies about God as the Holy Trinity has been denied by every great teacher of the church in the past and ought to be denied by Christians today.
> What????
> Am I missing something?



that was my first reaction also. can anyone explain in a few words what he means? (it's not as if I'm going to be *reading* this book)


----------



## Covenant Joel

he beholds said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the Qur'an denies about God as the Holy Trinity has been denied by *every great teacher of the church in the past and ought to be denied by Christians today.*
> 
> 
> 
> What????
> Am I missing something? This seems super-obvious to me that what he's advocating isn't Christianity if he's going on the Qur'an's denial of the trinity. And who is every great teacher of the church that's denying the trinity? Or really, am I missing something that the author assumes I know about the Qur'an?
Click to expand...

 
Here's what he's saying: When the Qur'an denies the Trinity (explicitly), it really denies a caricature of the Trinity. E.g., the Qur'an at one point seems to identify the Father, Jesus, and Mary as the Trinity. At other points, it seems to make the Trinity out to be 3 gods. All Christians would reject those characterizations of the Trinity, and that is what Volf is getting at.

---------- Post added at 06:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Joel,
> 
> That's an excellent paper critiquing the Common Word! May I share it with others, and can I include your name? Also, PM me with anything else you write.


 
Thanks, Perg. You can share it, just use Joel S for my name. I generally post my papers at Papers | joelws.com, though I won't be posting any for a while, as I'm in the midst of my thesis (which you know all about from RTS-V). I'll send you my thesis when I'm done, as it somewhat relates to this, looking more at J.H. Bavinck's theology/missiology in relation to Islam.


----------



## DMcFadden

Joel, what does Volf find in Islam that is so commendable? Do they (in his view), simply have a defective, but not completely untrue, view of God? Are they saved anyway?


----------



## Edward

DMcFadden said:


> "practicing Muslim and 100% Christian."



I think even the liberal Episcopalians choked on that one.


----------



## Pergamum

Dennis,

It seems that many evangelical misssionaries are hearing Paul's words about becoming a Jew to win the Jews and think it is a blank slate for hyper-contextualization among the Muslims. Just as there were some very Jewish early Christians who kept the feasts, etc, they advocate the same for former Muslims in order to keep them in their own communities in order to win their friends. Also, these advocates point out the difficulties sometimes encountered when distinguishing what is mere culture and can be retained and what is religious (i.e., Islamic) and must go, and so, whereas in the past, misssionaries might have sometimes erred one way (imposing western dress, hairstyles and forms of music and even renaming converts with "Christian" names), now they are erring the other way and not demanding a clear break from one's past life or a clear denunciation of false religion.

I think Volf's strategy would be to advocate a style of engagement with Muslims whereby we don't continually beat our heads against those brick walls that are most resistant, but to begin first at those areas where there is more of a shared understanding and a similarity between the faiths. There is some use to that, as long as someone does not compromise. The Muslims believe in a sovereign God, too, and so when describing God, it is good to reiterate those traits in God that a Muslim will most readily accept first. 

The more and more I am around, the more I think that a strategy of contrasts is called for, that we must stress the differences between us. If we are all the same, after all, why change religions anyway? Why become a Christian if you are already worshipping the same God and share the same love of neighbor? Also, as Muslim fanatics get mad, they usually begin to threaten and spit venom like the snakes they are, and so this is useful in order to show people the fruits of Islam.


----------



## Covenant Joel

DMcFadden said:


> Joel, what does Volf find in Islam that is so commendable? Do they (in his view), simply have a defective, but not completely untrue, view of God? Are they saved anyway?


 
Dennis, he's mention things like monotheism, commitment to absolute truth, the virgin birth, love for God and love for neighbor as fundamental ethical norms, devotion to God evident in the lives of many Muslims, etc. He also likes to point in particular to the Sufi tradition which emphasizes love for God in a way that other streams of Islamic tradition do not. In his view, they have a defective, but in many ways, true view of God. In particular, he would say that they worship the same God, but with errors in their thinking, much as some early believers did not perhaps fully get things with the clarity that came out of Nicea and Chalcedon. He would not say that they are saved anyway unless he has changed his position, which I do not think he has. But I need to read his latest book to really get a grasp on all of what he is saying.


----------



## Peairtach

> Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the "our God vs. their God" premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates conflict.



I notice it's Allah and not the Triune Yahweh that's behind this drivel.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Richard Tallach said:


> Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the "our God vs. their God" premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice it's Allah and not the Triune Yahweh that's behind this drivel.
Click to expand...


Allah is just the Arabic name for God, whether a Muslim means a non-Trinitarian deity or a Christian means the Triune God.


----------



## Peairtach

Covenant Joel said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the "our God vs. their God" premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice it's Allah and not the Triune Yahweh that's behind this drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allah is just the Arabic name for God, whether a Muslim means a non-Trinitarian deity or a Christian means the Triune God.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, but this is where it gets subtle, or not so subtle. 

Which Allah "offers a constructive way forward"? 

One Allah is the Triune Jehovah, the other is the inspiration of Satan.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Richard Tallach said:


> Yes but this is where it gets subtle or not so subtle.
> 
> Which Allah "offers a constructive way forward"?
> 
> One Allah is the Triune Jehovah, the other is the inspiration of Satan.


 
That wasn't really my point. I've already said I have concerns with Volf's approach. My point was simply that we ought not use الله / Allah as if it only refers to the Islamic conception of God, because it is simply the word for God. Who is using it and how they are using it determines what is meant by it.


----------



## Phil D.

DMcFadden said:


> Practicing Muslim and 100% Christian



What a profound and irrevocable oxymoron.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Covenant Joel said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the "our God vs. their God" premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice it's Allah and not the Triune Yahweh that's behind this drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allah is just the Arabic name for God, whether a Muslim means a non-Trinitarian deity or a Christian means the Triune God.
Click to expand...

 
And this is where I want to point out something very important: We are to refer to God as God has revealed HIMSELF. It is important that the word Allah is a very special word and doesn't "just" mean "god" in the generic sense. It is a name. And names carry ideas. And intrinsic to the idea of Allah is the rejection of sexuality (ie, masculinity). Yet God HAS revealed himself in masculine terms. He is called "Father," etc. The word Allah AS A TERM carries with it ideas that are inherent and implicit rejections of Scriptural revelation. As a result, Christians should NOT use the word.

(As an aside... I don't know if any manuscripts are extant, but I wonder what word or words pre-Muslim Arabs used to refer to the god of the Jews or Christians or their own pagan deities.)


----------



## Covenant Joel

SolaScriptura said:


> And this is where I want to point out something very important: We are to refer to God as God has revealed HIMSELF. It is important that the word Allah is a very special word and doesn't "just" mean "god" in the generic sense. It is a name.



Ben, do you speak Arabic? On what basis do you make this claim? I would argue the exact opposite, that it is not a name, but that it is the generic Arabic word for God, somewhat equivalent to _elohim_ in Hebrew.



> And names carry ideas. And intrinsic to the idea of Allah is the rejection of sexuality (ie, masculinity). Yet God HAS revealed himself in masculine terms. He is called "Father," etc. The word Allah AS A TERM carries with it ideas that are inherent and implicit rejections of Scriptural revelation. As a result, Christians should NOT use the word.



Again, I would ask you on what basis you make these claims. Intrinsic to the _Islamic_ use of the word may be some of those things, but that is not intrinsic to the word. Rejections of Scriptural revelation are dependent on context and usage, not the term itself.



> (As an aside... I don't know if any manuscripts are extant, but I wonder what word or words pre-Muslim Arabs used to refer to the god of the Jews or Christians or their own pagan deities.)



Pre-Islamic Arabs used الله / Allah to refer to God. That alone should illustrate my point. I can point to sources if you so desire. Arab Christians use Allah for God, and they would be insulted by what you have said about the term. Look in any of the Arabic translations of the Bible, and you will see الله / Allah for God.


----------



## Peairtach

Well, clear distinctions should be made. 

There is the Allah of Islam and Mohammed, and the Allah of the Bible and Christ. 

Satan likes to muddy the waters as much as possible, it's in his interests. 

We see this with clear distinctions being overthrown or ignored or downplayed in ecumenical discussions between e.g. evangelicals and Roman Catholics.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Covenant Joel said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is where I want to point out something very important: We are to refer to God as God has revealed HIMSELF. It is important that the word Allah is a very special word and doesn't "just" mean "god" in the generic sense. It is a name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben, do you speak Arabic? On what basis do you make this claim? I would argue the exact opposite, that it is not a name, but that it is the generic Arabic word for God, somewhat equivalent to _elohim_ in Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And names carry ideas. And intrinsic to the idea of Allah is the rejection of sexuality (ie, masculinity). Yet God HAS revealed himself in masculine terms. He is called "Father," etc. The word Allah AS A TERM carries with it ideas that are inherent and implicit rejections of Scriptural revelation. As a result, Christians should NOT use the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Again, I would ask you on what basis you make these claims. *Intrinsic to the Islamic use of the word may be some of those things, but that is not intrinsic to the word.* Rejections of Scriptural revelation are dependent on context and usage, not the term itself.[/quote]

That's simply not true. In fact, it is precisely because Allah isn't a "he" or a "she" (or an "it" for that matter) and that this point is in the very word itself that I've heard multiple Muslim "evangelists" say that Islam is more pro-woman than is Christianity - because Christianity calls for woman to worship a masculine God. (Ridiculous, I know.) But facts is facts.

"On what basis do I make my claim???" Look it up, buddy. Notice Elohim is plural - AND masculine. Allah is not. 

Christians should not use words that carry ideas that are contrary to Scripture. I say unto you that as bad as it sounds, we have more biblical warrant to refer to God with feminine pronouns than we do with the word Allah. Not only is Islam evil, but so is the vocabulary they implore to convey their blasphemous theology. Do not yield an inch to them.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Richard Tallach said:


> Well, clear distinctions should be made.
> 
> *There is the Allah of Islam and Mohammed, and the Allah of the Bible and Christ. *
> 
> Satan likes to muddy the waters as much as possible, it's in his interests.
> 
> We see this with clear distinctions being overthrown or ignored or downplayed in ecumenical discussions between e.g. evangelicals and Roman Catholics.


 
Couldn't we also say, "There is the YHVH of Judaism and the rabbis, and the YHVH of the Bible and Christ."

People don't seem to get as bent out of shape over that one. (E.g., the all too common use of "Judeo-Christian" in an unthinking way.) The current anti-Muslim thing seems to be at the heart of the furor over the term “Allah.”


----------



## Covenant Joel

SolaScriptura said:


> "On what basis do I make my claim???" Look it up, buddy. Notice Elohim is plural - AND masculine. Allah is not. Again, look it up.



Ben, I have looked it up. I speak Arabic. I've studied Arabic quite a bit. And Arabic only has two genders, masculine and feminine, just as Hebrew does. It does not have a neutral gender. Allah is masculine. Muslims argue that the word, though masculine, does not necessitate maleness. But there is nothing in the word/language itself that implies that. The burden is on you to prove otherwise. 

Perhaps more equivalent is the Hebrew "el" which is also used for God, though in terms of how they are used, they are quite similar.



> Christians should not use words that carry ideas that are contrary to Scripture. I say unto you that as bad as it sounds, we have more biblical warrant to refer to God with feminine pronouns than we do with the word Allah.


 
And again, I say, Pre-Islamic Arabs used Allah to refer to God. Please prove otherwise if you are going to claim this. Arab Christians use the term, and have done so before Muslims came on the scene. Arabic translations of the Bible (translated by Christians who know Arabic better than we ever will) use Allah to refer to God. 

And once again, what one means by Allah is determined not by the word itself but by how and by whom it is used. I have seen you offer no evidence to the contrary. Further, every word used by sinners may carry ideas contrary to Scripture because they are used by fallen people in fallen contexts. The burden on us is to make clear what we mean. If you reject Allah for God, what Arabic word would you suggest be used for God?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Covenant Joel said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> "On what basis do I make my claim???" Look it up, buddy. Notice Elohim is plural - AND masculine. Allah is not. Again, look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben, I say this with all sincerity and charity, but your condescending tone and lack of interaction with most of what I said is a little insulting. You have provided no support for your claim. I speak Arabic. I've studied Arabic quite a bit. And Arabic only has two genders, masculine and feminine, just as Hebrew does. It does not have a neutral gender. Allah is masculine. Muslims argue that the word, though masculine, does not necessitate maleness. But there is nothing in the word/language itself that implies that. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Perhaps more equivalent is the Hebrew "el" which is also used for God, though in terms of how they are used, they are quite similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians should not use words that carry ideas that are contrary to Scripture. I say unto you that as bad as it sounds, we have more biblical warrant to refer to God with feminine pronouns than we do with the word Allah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I say, Pre-Islamic Arabs used Allah to refer to God. Please prove otherwise if you are going to claim this. Arab Christians use the term, and have done so before Muslims came on the scene. Arabic translations of the Bible (translated by Christians who know Arabic better than we ever will) use Allah to refer to God.
> 
> And once again, what one means by Allah is determined not by the word itself but by how and by whom it is used. I have seen you offer no evidence to the contrary. Further, every word used by sinners may carry ideas contrary to Scripture because they are used by fallen people in fallen contexts. The burden on us is to make clear what we mean. If you reject Allah for God, what Arabic word would you suggest be used for God?
Click to expand...

 
Joel - anyone who wants can look up the gender of the word Allah, about how it is "special" in that though it in one sense is masculine, in another sense it isn't. Also, people can look up how it is actually a contraction of two words, etc. And also how they NEVER - and I mean NEVER - use the word Allah to refer to, let's say, the Greek gods. I apologize for not being able to recall, but I was once explained by a Muslim how they refer to gods whom they believe are false gods, and it is not just "allah." It is some derivitive word/construction. Maybe you can jog my memory. But that underscores the point - they reserve the special word "Allah" for the One True God, while a Muslim "scholar" giving a lesson on Greek mythology will use a different conjugation to refer to the gods in the pantheon singularly or collectively. 

But because I've talked to many - and I mean many - Muslim "evangelists" who themselves love to unpack the theology wrapped up in the word "Allah", your words about the inherent inocuous nature of the word ring hollow. 

How should Christians there refer to God? Gee, maybe with words from the Bible? Maybe with words that don't inherently undermine biblical doctrine? Prophets of "we can all just get along because we all worship the same 'god' and Muslims are really great people" love to trumpet how Christians in those areas will use Allah to refer to God... but they don't say about how they add on words to create more of a phrase. (Thus they'll say something more akin to "God the Father") But I say that as an English speaker saying Yahweh or Jehovah is just as "foreign" for me as it would be for them as Arabic speakers. 

My contention is that we shouldn't use words to describe God when those words convey false notions of God. 
Tell me - if I decided to start calling the god of the Bible "The Great Spirit" would you object? How about if I started refering to God without masculine pronouns? Would that be fine with you?


----------



## Covenant Joel

SolaScriptura said:


> Joel - anyone who wants can look up the gender of the word Allah, about how it is "special" in that though it in one sense is masculine, in another sense it isn't. Also, people can look up how it is actually a contraction of two words, etc.



First of all, the "special" sense is nothing inherent in the language. It is purely how Muslims have used it. Given, as I stated above, that Christians used it before Islam existed, that sense is not integral to the word, purely to the meaning that Muslims have given it. Secondly, it is not exactly a contraction of two words. It is simply the definite form of the word (that is, including the article). _ilah_ is simply "a god" while "Allah" includes the definite article, meaning "the God." Arabic has no system of capitalization, but the two words are basically equivalent to how we in English use "God" and "god." All Arabic nouns with the article are thus "contracted."



> And also how they NEVER - and I mean NEVER - use the word Allah to refer to, let's say, the Greek gods. I apologize for not being able to recall, but I was once explained by a Muslim how they refer to gods whom they believe are false gods, and it is not just "allah." It is some derivitive word/construction. Maybe you can jog my memory. But that underscores the point - they reserve the special word "Allah" for the One True God, while a Muslim "scholar" giving a lesson on Greek mythology will use a different conjugation to refer to the gods in the pantheon singularly or collectively.



Actually, they would use the same word without the definite article, much how we would use a lowercase "g" rather than a capital "G." And to refer to the Greek gods, they would simply use the plural form of "Allah"--"Al-aliha." Again, this is the same as we do in English, and yet I'm willing to bet you use "God" instead of always saying "Yahweh."



> But because I've talked to many - and I mean many - Muslim "evangelists" who themselves love to unpack the theology wrapped up in the word "Allah", your words about the inherent inocuous nature of the word ring hollow.



I've not argued that Muslims do not want to ascribe special meaning to it. But again, that's not inherent in the word. That's what Muslims do with it. It was used by Christians before Islam existed, so the meaning is not tied to what Muslims wish to give it.



> How should Christians there refer to God? Gee, maybe with words from the Bible? Maybe with words that don't inherently undermine biblical doctrine?



Then why do you use the English word God? Why not just always say, "Elohim, Yahweh, El, Adonai"? Are you seriously suggesting that we are tied to Hebrew words even in another language? It seems to me that the WCF is against such a position, for it argues that we should translate it into the language of the people. Thus we translate Elohim/El with God/Allah, and we translate Yahweh/Adonai with Lord/ar-rab. 



> Prophets of "we can all just get along because we all worship the same 'god' and Muslims are really great people" love to trumpet how Christians in those areas will use Allah to refer to God... but they don't say about how they add on words to create more of a phrase. (Thus they'll say something more akin to "God the Father") But I say that as an English speaker saying Yahweh or Jehovah is just as "foreign" for me as it would be for them as Arabic speakers.



First of all, I'm not in the group you speak of. I believe Islam to be wrong, and I am not afraid of saying so. Yet Muslims often are great people (though certainly not always), and I do want to get along with them if they are willing, even as I stand up for the truth.

Secondly, Arab Christians do not always add on a phrase to go with it. If you look in the Arabic translation of the Bible, they don't. If you look at Arabic hymns, they don't. If you look at Arabic Christian theological writings, they don't. I've lived and worshiped with Arab Christians, and they simply don't always do that. They are quite happy to use "Allah." If you want, I can document this with numerous examples.

Thirdly, I repeat the above question: are you seriously suggesting we (no matter what language we actually speak), use the Hebrew words in our own language rather than translating them? I do not see you doing so in English, so I don't see how you can expect Arabs to do the same.



> My contention is that we shouldn't use words to describe God when those words convey false notions of God.
> Tell me - if I decided to start calling the god of the Bible "The Great Spirit" would you object? How about if I started refering to God without masculine pronouns? Would that be fine with you?


 
I argue that all words in other languages can convey false notions of God. We have the responsibility to use the best word and clarify what we mean. You don't think "theos" existed before the Septuagint and NT writers used it?

A couple of other things: (1) The Great Spirit is not a translation of "God." You're comparing apples and oranges. Scripture says Elohim/Theos, and we translate it with God/Allah. Scripture says Yahweh/Adonai/Kurios, we translate it with "Lord." Scripture says "ruah adonai/to pneuma kuriou," we translate it "Spirit of the Lord/ruh ar-rab." The Great Spirit is not a translation of the word at all. Allah was used before Muslims arrived on the scene, so your comparison of it to "Great Spirit" rings hollow. (2) Arabic (even Muslims) use masculine pronouns to refer to God. They don't even have an "it" pronoun. So again, this rings hollow.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Joel -

The word means things. The only pre-Muslim uses for the word "Allah" that I've been able to find are in reference to a pagan god. 
As to what Christians in those areas presently do, my reading and experience is contrary to yours. But regardless - something isn't legitimized by practice. (Just because something is done doesn't mean it is right.)

I refuse to yield on this point. Anyone I encounter who I find using the word Allah, I rebuke them. It is a word that conveys that God has not revealed himself as masculine. 
But what do I know. 

Wait, I'm going to ask some Arabs at work.


----------



## Covenant Joel

SolaScriptura said:


> Joel -
> 
> The word means things. The only pre-Muslim uses for the word "Allah" that I've been able to find are in reference to a pagan god.



It means things just like _theos_ did to the Greeks and "God" does to English-speaking pagans. No one disputes that it means incorrect things in some contexts. But you have offered no proof that the word inherently means those things, only that Muslims mean certain things by it, a point that is not disputed. 

The uses of Allah by Christians before Muhammad exist, and they're pretty well attested. If you really want I can dig up some sources on that, but from your abbreviated comments and assertion of your position being right, it seems to me that you aren't interested in really discussing it, but in saying what you want to hear loudly.



> As to what Christians in those areas presently do, my reading and experience is contrary to yours. But regardless - something isn't legitimized by practice. (Just because something is done doesn't mean it is right.)



Granted, practice doesn't mean legitimate. But even in the examples you cite, they used "allah," they just added clarifications. Much as I might do by saying "Triune God," or by explaining that "Son of God" does not mean that God shacked up with Mary. So even your examples attest that Christians do use the word, which you say you would "rebuke" people for.

And to be honest, brother, it seems a little presumptuous for you, a non-Arabic speaking Westerner, to make claims about their practice being wrong. If an Arab came in and said you shouldn't use the word "God" because it originally had some other meaning, and you cannot divorce it from that meaning, my guess is that you would want some proof and a legitimate alternative before you'd just accept his rebuke.



> I refuse to yield on this point. Anyone I encounter who I find using the word Allah, I rebuke them. It is a word that conveys that God has not revealed himself as masculine.
> But what do I know.


 
Ben, brother, you haven't responded to any of the points that I made responding to this. I'm willing to listen to the evidence, but you seem unwilling to offer it, other than, "Look it up, buddy." Perhaps before taking it upon yourself to rebuke those who would have been using this word for centuries, you should be able to clearly defend your position on this.

And I notice that you didn't answer my question: what word should Christian Arabs use then? This is no theoretical question. If you're going to tell thousands of Arab Christians that they can't use this word (despite the fact that they've been using it for a very long time), then you should be able to offer an alternative. Likewise you did not answer my point about "theos": did not the Greeks give it a wrong meaning, and yet biblical authors used it anyway, explaining that they indeed meant Yahweh revealed in Christ by it? And similarly, you did not answer my point that we should not be tied to Hebrew words in our own languages, as per the WCF. 

Don't take any of this personally, brother, but you've hit on things that are very close to my life, my ministry, and I'm trying to offer reasoned, careful, and gracious responses. I don't believe that is being reciprocated.


----------



## Pergamum

Ben, 

Maybe you've been reading too much Robert Morey who latches onto the idea that Allah is a personal name for the Arab Moon God instead of a generic word for The God in general that was common even in pre-Islamic times. Morey over-speaks a lot and is not really a helpful source for finding out what most Muslims really believe as a whole (he cherry-picks to find the worst cases and is overly polemical).

I assume you are untroubled that ELohim and BaEL share the same root word and that only in some places does God use his "personal name" in Scripture.

There is a movement here where I serve that wants to re-translate the Bible and take out all uses of the word Allah and exchange them for Jehovah, but this is simply bad translation.



Here is a link to help you mentally process the use of Allah in Bible translations: http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/23_4_PDFs/Thomas.pdf

and also here,

http://www.camelmethod.com/downloads/ShouldChristiansUseAllahinBibleTranslations.pdf


----------



## ADKing

For the record, I am _not_ an Arabic scholar. However, in reading the interaction, it makes me wonder if there are not analagous situations in the Bible itself. For example, the term "baal" can be used as a generic term for "lord". Yet because it became so identified with idolatry that we find the prophetic anticipation of Hosea 2.16-17: "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shall call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembered by their name." Note, Israel would not only cease mentioning the pagan god named Baal, but would not apply that language to the true God himself either. 

I would be curious to hear interaction from others on what you think of the applicability of these verses. Is it too much of a stretch to hope for the day when former Muslims will no longer speak of the true God as Allah (whatever we may say of the etymology of the word) because it has become so identified with an idol?


----------



## Rich Koster

DMcFadden said:


> Have any of you read the book? Reactions?



1) No, and I don't plan on doing so.

2) 21 GUN SALUTE


----------



## SolaScriptura

I apologize for not bringing it home regarding the OP. 

Pergy, I've not read that guy. I've read a lot of things. But not him. 

What none of you seem to get is that in the Muslim world there is no bifurcation of sacred and secular. It isn't like the west. Islam has so thoroughly pervaded the culture - including the vocabulary of that culture - and the world view is so thoroughly Muslim that we are simply naive if we act like the words can be used in that context without the people in that culture thinking you mean what they mean. And sorry to sound defeatist, but it isn't the extreme minority that gets to define the word, it is the cultural majority. So, for example, within our context we can't use "******" because our world around us has attributed meaning to the word that people simply find incredibly offensive. So too is it with religiously charged words. Muslims use the word Allah for a reason - it has theological significance. You can push up your glasses with your index finger and in a nasally voice object that it "just" means God. But this thread is about being a Muslim and 100% Christian at the same time - and you can't use words in a Muslim context that Muslims themselves attribute meaning that is anti-Christian and pretend that because you don't mean what they mean that everything is fine. 

Incidentally, as evidence that Muslims don't just see it as a "word," please note that many Muslims come over here and they speak English. Yet I've only been able to find the most liberal, the most "evangelistically posturing" Muslims who'll refer to their deity as God. Virtually all English speaking Muslims naturally (though not necessarily) refer to their deity as Allah. Becuase the "word" has meaning within their system and indeed functions as a name.

And let me underscore: You aren't being faithful if you willfully use words that are part of a larger system that have theological significance and by their use you yeild the field. We should be like Baptists who won't even grant the use of the word "baptism" to describe what transpires what occurs when we baptize our infants. Or more to the point, the word Allah should be as odious to our lips as the word "Trinity" or the phrase "Son of God" is to them. (The Koran, which I've read, repeatedly and pointedly rejects these ideas... in case you didn't know.)

Again, this is about claiming to be a Muslim and "100% Christian." Impossible because the vocabulary - and the attendant theology - is incompatible. So incompatible is it, that (once again) a Christian to use the Islam-meaningful word "Allah" is like a Christian going on to an Indian reservation and praying to the Great Spirit. (And yes, it IS comparable. Why? Because when I was at Moody I heard a great many people talk about their missionary work on reservations and how they would create Native American friendly "translations" of the Bible and use the term "Great Spirit" to refer to God. Thus for them it WAS functioning as a translation.)

But please, I realize you feel the need to prove you're so smart about the Muslims. But you're barking up the wrong tree. I've read too much, known too many, too many Muslim evangelists, I've seen their culture, listened to their nonsense, seen how their cultures "virtues" look in real life... man, you can forget it. It's vile. Their religious vocabularly is incompatible with the theology of our glorious faith.


----------



## Covenant Joel

ADKing said:


> For the record, I am _not_ an Arabic scholar. However, in reading the interaction, it makes me wonder if there are not analagous situations in the Bible itself. For example, the term "baal" can be used as a generic term for "lord". Yet because it became so identified with idolatry that we find the prophetic anticipation of Hosea 2.16-17: "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shall call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembered by their name." Note, Israel would not only cease mentioning the pagan god named Baal, but would not apply that language to the true God himself either.
> 
> I would be curious to hear interaction from others on what you think of the applicability of these verses. Is it too much of a stretch to hope for the day when former Muslims will no longer speak of the true God as Allah (whatever we may say of the etymology of the word) because it has become so identified with an idol?



Pastor King, thanks for your thoughts. That is an interesting passage in connection with this topic. I haven't considered these verses before, but let me attempt to offer a few thoughts here:

(1) As Pergamum pointed out above, Baal has a similar root to Elohim, and yet that was not forbidden. Do we have any examples of Israelites calling God "Baali" elsewhere in the OT? A quick search didn't reveal anything. This would make it seem to be a particular historical circumstance. "Adon" was a generic word for Lord, also used by pagans, yet God is still referred to as "Adonai." If it could be shown that the Israelites regularly called God "baali" but then God told them to reject it because of Canaanite influence, then that might seem to hold more weight, as that would be more comparable to how Christians used "allah" before Muslims were around. 

(2) As I mentioned above, "theos" was surely used of false gods before the NT authors used it (the same would also apply to Logos in John 1). Yet they used it, infusing it with the meaning of Yahweh revealed in Christ. So we have another Scriptural example that seems go the other way. This might again indicate that Hos 2 was a specific historical situation with specific direction from the Lord...since the opposite is done elsewhere.

(3) I don't know that I would argue that it "has become so identified with an idol." As noted above, it was used by Christians before Muhammad came on the scene. It is still used by Arab Christians. So then how can we say it is so identified with an idol that it necessarily leads in the wrong direction? Additionally, God gave specific direction on the issue of Baal (who was obviously one of many gods, not identified as the one true God), whereas he has not here.

(4) Lastly, because this is not a theoretical issue, but one with immense practical significance, an alternative has to be provided. If you are going to say that Hos 2 indicates that Allah should not be used (which I'm not sure holds water), but even if so, you have to provide an alternative. So what would that be?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> I assume you are untroubled that ELohim and BaEL share the same root word and that only in some places does God use his "personal name" in Scripture.




Pergy, that's spliting hairs and it has the effect of justifing aqueiscence to a the vocabularly of a religion that emerged after Christianty as a rejection of Christianity. First of all, no one is denying that God speaks in human language, and the language of people includes religious language. But Ba'al (not Bael) simply means "master" and God doesn't tell the Israelites to call him Ba'al. He gives them his name. And yes, they choose to describe him in terms like "lord of armies" or whatever but that isn't his name. 

What IS significant is that the true God is always contrasted with those false gods by name. And whenever God is being spoken of amongst the pagans they don't use the "ba'al" that would be familiar to the pagans. Thus they spoke intelligently but were able to use different words to distinguish.

And so too should Christians there. They should use words within the Arabic language that don't have the same theological signifiance as "Allah" (which was the name of a pagan deity... it wasn't revealed to Mohammed.) Sorry to suggest that Arab Christians should be so inconvenienced as to suggest that they should go out of their way as the cultural minority to not use the language of a heathen religion and the name of the heathen god.


----------



## Pergamum

SolaScriptura said:


> I apologize for not bringing it home regarding the OP.
> 
> Pergy, I've not read that guy. I've read a lot of things. But not him.
> 
> What none of you seem to get is that in the Muslim world there is no bifurcation of sacred and secular. It isn't like the west. Islam has so thoroughly pervaded the culture - including the vocabulary of that culture - and the world view is so thoroughly Muslim that we are simply naive if we act like the words can be used in that context without the people in that culture thinking you mean what they mean. And sorry to sound defeatist, but it isn't the extreme minority that gets to define the word, it is the cultural majority. So, for example, within our context we can't use "******" because our world around us has attributed meaning to the word that people simply find incredibly offensive. So too is it with religiously charged words. Muslims use the word Allah for a reason - it has theological significance. You can push up your glasses with your index finger and in a nasally voice object that it "just" means God. But this thread is about being a Muslim and 100% Christian at the same time - and you can't use words in a Muslim context that Muslims themselves attribute meaning that is anti-Christian and pretend that because you don't mean what they mean that everything is fine.
> 
> Incidentally, as evidence that Muslims don't just see it as a "word," please note that many Muslims come over here and they speak English. Yet I've only been able to find the most liberal, the most "evangelistically posturing" Muslims who'll refer to their deity as God. Virtually all English speaking Muslims naturally (though not necessarily) refer to their deity as Allah. Becuase the "word" has meaning within their system and indeed functions as a name.
> 
> And let me underscore: You aren't being faithful if you willfully use words that are part of a larger system that have theological significance and by their use you yeild the field. We should be like Baptists who won't even grant the use of the word "baptism" to describe what transpires what occurs when we baptize our infants. Or more to the point, the word Allah should be as odious to our lips as the word "Trinity" or the phrase "Son of God" is to them. (The Koran, which I've read, repeatedly and pointedly rejects these ideas... in case you didn't know.)
> 
> Again, this is about claiming to be a Muslim and "100% Christian." Impossible because the vocabulary - and the attendant theology - is incompatible. So incompatible is it, that (once again) a Christian to use the Islam-meaningful word "Allah" is like a Christian going on to an Indian reservation and praying to the Great Spirit. (And yes, it IS comparable. Why? Because when I was at Moody I heard a great many people talk about their missionary work on reservations and how they would create Native American friendly "translations" of the Bible and use the term "Great Spirit" to refer to God. Thus for them it WAS functioning as a translation.)
> 
> But please, I realize you feel the need to prove you're so smart about the Muslims. But you're barking up the wrong tree. I've read too much, known too many, too many Muslim evangelists, I've seen their culture, listened to their nonsense, seen how their cultures "virtues" look in real life... man, you can forget it. It's vile. Their religious vocabularly is incompatible with the theology of our glorious faith.


 
Ben, 

You write:




> And let me underscore: You aren't being faithful if you willfully use words that are part of a larger system that have theological significance and by their use you yeild the field.




But it has already been pointed out that John uses logos despite the gnostic's use of logos, and Paul uses pleroma, despite (or maybe because of) the Stoic's use of that term as well. 

What is your alternative for the generic substitute for God that we may put in place of Allah? Do we import the german Gott, or the Greek Theos? Or try to change everything to Lord like in Malaysia for Christians (but kurios and theos are not the same).

Also, culture and religion are linked but it is not 100% linked and the use of postures, dress, and some religious vocabulary may take into account culture without evidencing religious syncretism. 

Ben, I find you making several sweeping and unproven generalizations in this thread. It is probably because you are sick of seing compromise and are reacting against it. But, I think you are not fully weighing the arguments. 

What did you think of the links that I provided?


----------



## Covenant Joel

SolaScriptura said:


> I apologize for not bringing it home regarding the OP.
> 
> Pergy, I've not read that guy. I've read a lot of things. But not him.
> 
> What none of you seem to get is that in the Muslim world there is no bifurcation of sacred and secular. It isn't like the west. Islam has so thoroughly pervaded the culture - including the vocabulary of that culture - and the world view is so thoroughly Muslim that we are simply naive if we act like the words can be used in that context without the people in that culture thinking you mean what they mean.



I find the insinuation that Perg and I have forgot the lack of bifurcation of sacred and secular...considering that we have lived/are living in countries where this is evident every day. I'm quite aware of that. And Ben, why do you refuse to answer the specific questions that I asked you? I've responded multiple times to the claim that Muslims will misunderstand what we mean (regarding theos, the nature of language in general after the fall, etc). Please answer the questions.



> And sorry to sound defeatist, but it isn't the extreme minority that gets to define the word, it is the cultural majority. So, for example, within our context we can't use "******" because our world around us has attributed meaning to the word that people simply find incredibly offensive. So too is it with religiously charged words. Muslims use the word Allah for a reason - it has theological significance. You can push up your glasses with your index finger and in a nasally voice object that it "just" means God.



I think if you look back at this thread, I have hardly just objected in a nasally voice that it "just" means God. I have argued (1) that Muslims do mean more than that by it, (2) that there is nothing inherent in the word itself that implies this, based on pre-Islamic Christian use of it, the current practice of Arab Christians, and Arabic grammar, and (3) that the NT use of theos (and Logos is John 1) shows that we can expect misunderstanding, and yet clarify what we mean. You have not responded to anything that I have said.



> But this thread is about being a Muslim and 100% Christian at the same time - and you can't use words in a Muslim context that Muslims themselves attribute meaning that is anti-Christian and pretend that because you don't mean what they mean that everything is fine.



I reject the idea of being Muslim and 100% Christian at the same time. I'll likely post some more thoughts on that once I've read Volf's book. And one doesn't have to "pretend that everything is fine." The whole point of work in those countries is that everything is not fine, and that we have to patiently, consistently, and graciously address why everything is not fine, even as we live and operate in their language and culture.



> Incidentally, as evidence that Muslims don't just see it as a "word," please note that many Muslims come over here and they speak English. Yet I've only been able to find the most liberal, the most "evangelistically posturing" Muslims who'll refer to their deity as God. Virtually all English speaking Muslims naturally (though not necessarily) refer to their deity as Allah. Becuase the "word" has meaning within their system and indeed functions as a name.



Arguments like this ring hollow, because I've talked to numerous (both here in America and in the Middle East) Muslims who will indeed use the word God to talk about God. And I've never contended that it doesn't have meaning in their system. That's obvious. My point is, we are not bound to it for the reasons I've listed above.



> And let me underscore: You aren't being faithful if you willfully use words that are part of a larger system that have theological significance and by their use you yeild the field.



I do not think that you have shown that we yield the field. You have not responded to any of my specific arguments on that score, showing that we don't yield the field by using it.



> We should be like Baptists who won't even grant the use of the word "baptism" to describe what transpires what occurs when we baptize our infants. Or more to the point, the word Allah should be as odious to our lips as the word "Trinity" or the phrase "Son of God" is to them. (The Koran, which I've read, repeatedly and pointedly rejects these ideas... in case you didn't know.)



Brother, I've tried to respond to these, and I'm willing to consider any arguments that you would really present on this score, but continually asserting the same thing more loudly without dealing with any of the arguments I've presented rings very hollow. And you still haven't suggested an alternative if one were to stop using it.



> Again, this is about claiming to be a Muslim and "100% Christian." Impossible because the vocabulary - and the attendant theology - is incompatible. So incompatible is it, that (once again) a Christian to use the Islam-meaningful word "Allah" is like a Christian going on to an Indian reservation and praying to the Great Spirit.


 
No dispute about being a Muslim and 100% Christian. But one need not accept Volf's whole argument to accept the use of Allah for God, as I have tried to show.


----------



## ADKing

Joel,

1. Yes, the word baal was used for the true God in the OT (by God himself!) see Isaiah 54.5. 

3. Your appeal to pre-Isalmic use of "allah" is not very compelling. Granted it is as you say, time and usage give it a connotation that cannot realistically be ignored. Jeremiah Burroughs in his excellent commentary on Hoseas (BTW I highly recommend that you read his section on those verses as very germane to this discussion--it is on Google Books) gives an example of the word tyrnat. The word "tyranos" used to denote kings generally. However, if you try to call one a tyrant today it necessarily connotes more than merely authority. Trying to appeal to the earlier use would not be clear communication. Likewise, even if "allah" was a generic word for God, it has now become appropriated by a false religion almost as a proper name (much like baal/Baal). This situation is, I believe parallel to what is being discussed in Hosea 2. Burroughs is too long to quote here but I refer you to his treatment as superb. Note also Matthew Henry:

_The very word Baal shall be laid aside, even in its innocent signification. God says, Thou shalt call me Ishi, and call me no more Baali; both signify my husband, and both had been made use of concerning God. Isa. liv. 5, Thy Maker is thy husband, thy Baal (so the word is), thy owner, patron, and protector. It is probable that many good people had, accordingly, made use of the word Baali in worshipping the God of Israel; when their wicked neighbours bowed the knee to Baal they gloried in this, that God was their Baal. "But," says God, "you shall call me so no more, because I will have the very names of Baalim taken away." Note, That which is very innocent in itself should, when it has been abused to idolatry, be abolished, and the very use of it taken away, that nothing may be done to keep idols in remembrance, much less to keep them in reputation. When calling God Ishi will do as well, and signify as much, as Baali, let that word be chosen rather, lest, by calling him Baali, others should be put in mind of their quondam Baals._

This is extremeley germane to the issue, in my opinion. 

4. Lastly, I agree with you entirely that it is a very practical issue. If the principle stands, an alternative is not only desireable but necessary. What should it be? I am afraid that I do not personally have an answer. It is something the church as a whole ought to seriously consider. Thankfully, the validity of the principle and interpretation does not depend upon my own ability to solve all the practical difficulties associated with it.


----------



## he beholds

This is a great discussion! Rev King, I read your side and agree, and Joel, I read yours and agree! I think that the word intrinsically is neutral. However, to different audiences, the meaning changes. (OK, I'm Captain Obvious, here.) I do not know how an Arab-Christian who is a non-English speaker would feel calling the true God "Allah." But I think that is the most important aspect of this debate. I think it is very American of us to see a word that we don't like and demand that another culture adopt ours! I am very uncomfortable with thinking of or referring to the God of the Bible as Allah and so were I to hear another Christian do it, I might be_ tempted_, like Ben above, to "correct" them. However, my brain does know that the word simply means "God," and God is God, regardless of the language, and the word Allah, apart from the Triune God of the Bible, is, in fact, powerless, anyway. 
In the end, I think that if an Arab Christian wants to call God by his name in Arabic, he should not be corrected. 

Anyway, what I really wanted to write was this conversation reminds me to be more vigilant in my own conversations with people about who the God that I speak of actually is. In America, "God" typically connotes this very, very vague idea that sort of resembles the God of the Bible and sort of resembles Oprah merged with Santa Clause and Joel Osteen. So I thank you guys for the encouragement to be more explicit in my own English conversations, perhaps identifying God as the Triune God or by using Christ's name in conjunction with the Father, etc.


----------



## Covenant Joel

ADKing said:


> Joel,
> 
> 1. Yes, the word baal was used for the true God in the OT (by God himself!) see Isaiah 54.5.



Thanks for that citation. I'm going to do some research on this and Hosea 2.



> 3. Your appeal to pre-Isalmic use of "allah" is not very compelling. Granted it is as you say, time and usage give it a connotation that cannot realistically be ignored. Jeremiah Burroughs in his excellent commentary on Hoseas (BTW I highly recommend that you read his section on those verses as very germane to this discussion--it is on Google Books) gives an example of the word tyrnat. The word "tyranos" used to denote kings generally. However, if you try to call one a tyrant today it necessarily connotes more than merely authority. Trying to appeal to the earlier use would not be clear communication. Likewise, even if "allah" was a generic word for God, it has now become appropriated by a false religion almost as a proper name (much like baal/Baal). This situation is, I believe parallel to what is being discussed in Hosea 2. Burroughs is too long to quote here but I refer you to his treatment as superb. Note also Matthew Henry:
> 
> This is extremeley germane to the issue, in my opinion.



I do see your point, and as I say, I will reflect more on this specific point. But as I said above, I think a few points perhaps indicate that they are not entirely parallel: (1) God gave them a specific command about that specific word (obviously because they time and time again were worshipping the Canaanite god Baal, not just that it had just a connotation, as "adon" and "el" were also misused. We have no such specific command regarding the Arabic word. 

(2) Your point about how language changes is well-taken, but nonetheless, a few factors mitigate that concern: First, Arabic Christians did not just use it that way in the past, but they have continued to use through to the present. They know their own language better than we do, and the fact that Arabic Bible translations still use Allah indicates that the word has not come to mean what Baal did to the Israelites. Secondly, the same thing occurs in English. When I say, "God bless America," do all the non-Christians around me understand that to mean the transcendant and immanent, Triune, revealed in Christ God of the Scriptures? I doubt it. The majority of them probably think something like a deist version of God, not the Christian God. Must we always say Yahweh/Father of Jesus Christ, or something like that? I don't think so. This is the point that Jessica makes very well above...that we have to define what we mean just as an Arabic-speaker would have to do.

(3) Given, as in (1), that we don't have a specific command, I think we do seriously have to ponder how the apostles used the Greek language of their time. What did "theos" refer to before the time of Christ? "ho theos" probably often referred to Zeus in the minds of pagans, and in the mind of the philosophers, it referred to the One of Aristotle and Plato. Were those false, but accepted by the majority meanings for theos? I think that surely we could agree they were. Did the apostles use it nonetheless? Yes. The same occurred with Logos in John 1. Who was called kurios in the Roman world? The emperor in the emperor cult? Yet that was applied to Christ. So in the absence of a specific command, it seems to me that these are more similar situations.



> 4. Lastly, I agree with you entirely that it is a very practical issue. If the principle stands, an alternative is not only desireable but necessary. What should it be? I am afraid that I do not personally have an answer. It is something the church as a whole ought to seriously consider. Thankfully, the validity of the principle and interpretation does not depend upon my own ability to solve all the practical difficulties associated with it.


 
Granted, it is not on you to figure that all out. But there is no other direct word for God in the Arabic language. There is "Lord" and other similar things, but it is the only word for God, which should also indicate that perhaps it is not quite the same as the situation in Hosea 2.

Thank you very much, Pastor King, for an irenic discussion on this. I don't think that the argument fully holds water in light of the other points I've raised, but it is something that I will consider further.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Pergamum said:


> Or try to change everything to Lord like in Malaysia for Christians (but kurios and theos are not the same).



Perg, it's interesting that you bring up Malaysia. My wife is Malaysian, only 2 1/2 years removed from living there. I am not familiar with the linguistic discussion there regarding kurios and theos in translation. However, I am aware of a rather significant legal battle that has been raging for a few years now where the Malaysian Christians have been demanding the right to use "Allah" to refer to God, while the Muslims have objected (strenuously enough, in fact, to firebomb some churches), saying that "Allah" holds a meaning exclusive to Islam. The courts ruled in favor of the Christians. There are numerous articles online about this. I quickly pulled up this one.
It begins:

Daniel Raut, a senior leader of the Borneo Evangelical Church — the largest Malay-speaking congregation in the country — said it will not drop the use of the word ”Allah,” even though Christians fear for their safety.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, Steve, that is why I bring up Malaysia. There we have Christians fighting to use the word Allah as the generic for God, since, before, they were forced to use "Lord" only (Tuhan). At least one of Malaysia's neighbors as well, has no other generic word for God besides "Allah" and thus their bible translations would naturally use Allah for God in the generic.

---------- Post added at 03:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 AM ----------

-
-
-
p.s. let's remember that the OP is not about Allah in Bible translations, but is about the curious phrase "100% Muslim and 100% Christian."


----------



## Covenant Joel

Pergamum said:


> p.s. let's remember that the OP is not about Allah in Bible translations, but is about the curious phrase "100% Muslim and 100% Christian."


 
Thanks for the reminder. My apologies to Dennis for participating in the hijacking. I'll post some thoughts on Volf's book and what he means by that, etc., after I've read it (probably next week).


----------



## Pergamum

Joel, I also just ordered it. Though it will take awhile before I receive it.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> Yes, Steve, that is why I bring up Malaysia. There we have Christians fighting to use the word Allah as the generic for God, since, before, they were forced to use "Lord" only (Tuhan). At least one of Malaysia's neighbors as well, has no other generic word for God besides "Allah" and thus their bible translations would naturally use Allah for God in the generic.




Actually, I think this case proves my point: The Muslims - who are hands down the majority - know what the word means and they want it to refer to THEIR god, they don't want it being used to describe other gods. (Which I've been saying all along.) I think what we've got here are Christians who haven't absorbed the significance of the word to their "neighbors" and want to fit in better by using a word that is used by their neighbors regardless of the fact that the word means so much to the pagans that they've legislated against non-Muslims even using the word.

Really, if that doesn't establish the point.... sheesh.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I only want to make an observation. I will not participate any further in this discussion due to time constraints.

I had an Arabic-speaking congregation under my care for 2+ years, and we used the conservative Arabic translation, Smith / Van Dyke. It was provided for us by an Arabic-speaking OPC pastor who is also the director of Middle East Reformed Fellowship, which ministers throughout the Middle East, Africa, and other regions. Myself being familiar with pastors throughout the Arabic-speaking world, they all used Allah when referring to the Christian God, without exception.

When a Muslim would speak about _their_ Allah, they would be told he is not the true Allah. It is exactly equivalent to when I would be ministering to JWs: I would tell them that their Jehovah is not the true Jehovah of the Bible. They use the name erroneously.

Likewise with the New Agers. That which they term "God" is not God, but a deception of demons. The fight is really over the use of language: may other religions co-opt words _originally_ used by the Christians for their own use? Of course they can, and do. "God" now is generic for any sort of deity; thus we decry the false "Gods", naming them demonic substitutes and pretenders.

It is true that the apostles co-opted the Greek _Theos_ and _Logos_, using words originally meant to convey other concepts. But the Almighty and true _Theos_ and _Logos_ saw fit to apply those names to Himself — and He has the right to make words mean what He wants them to.

It is an ancient usage for the Arabic Christians to use the word Allah for the triune Jehovah in their translations; then the Muslims came along and said Mohammed revealed the true Allah in the Koran, and they — eventually — killed those who said Allah was the God of Jesus Christ. The question is, Do we yield an ancient and true Arabic word to the demands of those who stole it from the Arabic churches? Who infused it with demonic content and vile praxis?

Were you to go into Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc and tell the Christians Allah was not the name of the true God revealed by Christ and the prophets, and they must no longer use that name for Him, they would be incredulous at such a thought. And if the Muslims would make that demand of them — as they indeed do of Christians in other regions — they would rather die than concede to have the name of their God forbidden them to speak.

Were JWs to gain control of the government and the churches today (as their spiritual ancestors did in the Byzantine Empire from about 335 to 385 AD) and legislate that the word "God" could only be used to refer to the deity propounded by Arius, would we concede that? If their reign lasted for two millennia, would Christians finally give in, and cease to use the generic "God" for the true God? I doubt it, seeing how doggedly we followers of Christ hold to the truth, and to the integrity of Biblical language.

Why then should we concede to thieves who steal Christian — _Biblically based_ — words (not only in English, but Arabic, Russian, Greek, Farsi, Swahili, etc) for their own ill use? Concede to those who infuse good Christian words with demonic meaning?

By God's grace in Christ, I will defend the Biblical reality — and the Gospel — of my God. Arabic Christians will do the very same for their Allah. They will not yield His name to thieves, not on pain of death.

I just couldn't refrain from putting in my 2¢. But I can't debate this as I'm trying to leave this country where I am, and must attend to those preparations. Forgive me, please for this "hit and run"!


----------



## Covenant Joel

I'm not going to be involved in the conversation further either, but for any who are interested, I've written a review of the book in question here.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks!


----------

