Practicing Muslim and 100% Christian???

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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).
 
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.
 
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"!
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top