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]

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]

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]

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?

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 ----------

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

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]

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.]

Practicing Muslim and 100% Christian

What a profound and irrevocable oxymoron.

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

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

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]

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]

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.[/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]

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]

"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]

"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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

Have any of you read the book? Reactions?

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

2) 21 GUN SALUTE