A God by Any Other Name?

Larycia Hawkins, a tenured professor of political science at Wheaton College in suburban Chicago, recently made headlines by wearing a hijab to class, or a traditional Islamic woman's headscarf. Ordinarily this wouldn't have caused much of a stir, but this attracted attention because Wheaton is a highly respected Evangelical Christian college. But the hijab was only a prelude to the ensuing fireworks.

Professor Hawkins decided to continue wearing the hijab to class, and on December 10, 2015 posted the following on her Facebook page:

"I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God."

In a press conference that followed on the heels of her decision, surrounded by religious leaders of various faiths who beamed with support and approval, Hawkins publicly reiterated her position that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Five days later, the school placed Professor Hawkins on administrative leave pending a full review, something to which any tenured faculty member is entitled. This provoked a firestorm of criticism and accusations of bigotry and intolerance from every quarter, coupled with an outpouring of support for and solidarity with Professor Hawkins.

For their part, administration officials at Wheaton College repeatedly stressed that Hawkins was being suspended for the content and implications of her theological statements, and not due to any perceived impropriety of her Muslim attire. Then, on January 5, 2016, things came to a head when Wheaton College issued a statement to the effect that they were initiating formal proceedings to terminate Hawkins' employment. It was a move that outraged many, but to others (this writer included) it was a refreshingly rare display of biblical integrity. The kid gloves finally came off.

They're firing her.

For her part, Hawkins is sticking to her guns. She and her legions of politically correct supporters are convinced that she is being persecuted for merely demonstrating Christian charity—loving her neighbor and showing tolerance and brotherhood. At one point, Hawkins commented:

"I have integrity. If I didn't, I would leave. I'm a Christian—there's nothing else to explain."

Uh, I'm sorry Professor Hawkins, but if you are a Christian, you have some major explaining to do. But I'll get back to Larycia Hawkins later.

While it remains unclear how the situation at Wheaton College will ultimately pan out, this entire event has served to cast a spotlight on a fundamental issue that is ripping through the Christian world like an F5 tornado:

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

At least Larycia Hawkins was right about one thing: Pope Francis has indeed stated publicly and unequivocally that Christians and Muslims (as well as Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Rastafarians, Raelians, and Cherokee Indians, evidently) all worship the same God. He also equated the Bible with the Qur'an, placing them on equal theological footing. I'll be back for the pope, too.

In this article, I have three basic goals:

(a) First and foremost, I want you to understand with rock-solid certainty and absolute clarity that, based on exactly what both the Bible and the Qur'an actually say, that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God in any way, shape, or form, and as a result Christianity and Islam are utterly and completely incompatible.

(b) Christians in the West are increasingly being schmoozed into believing that it's an oh-so-tolerant and in fact "Christian" display of unity and solidarity with Muslims to call the God of the Bible by His so-called "Arabic name" of Allah. I want you to understand what a dangerously deceptive smokescreen this is.

(c) Finally, I want to share with you why I believe all of this is happening and what it means in relationship to end-time prophecy.

"Mono" means one, right?

This idea has been around for a long time, but it has come to the forefront and is gaining unprecedented traction and respectability as of late in the wake of some highly publicized pronouncements by the pope and others, and the argument goes like this:

• Judaism is monotheistic.
• Christianity is monotheistic.
• Islam is monotheistic.
• Since they all worship one God, they must worship the same God.

That seems reasonable, doesn't it? If there's only one, it must be the same one, right? It just sounds so right and wholesome. So natural. So gluten-free.

I want to look specifically at the issue of Christians and Muslims worshiping the same God from several different angles in order to let you see more clearly how wrong this idea is. I don't want to leave a shred of doubt in your mind that the deity described in the Bible is by no means the same deity described in the Qur'an, and so Christians and Muslims by no means worship the same God.

Much has been written on this subject by theologians of every stripe; but in reality, even a thumbnail sketch of several basic points is sufficient to convince any thinking person that the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur'an are in no way the same, and that Christianity and Islam are not compatible on any substantive theological level.

To that end, I want to briefly discuss four different aspects of the issue:

1. The nature of God
2. The nature of Jesus
3. The Trinity
4. Salvation

I want to include quotes from the Qur'an as well as the Bible to back up what I say, because I don't want you to simply take my word for anything. Obviously Christians need to know what the Bible says, but it is becoming increasingly important these days for Christians to gain at least a passing familiarity with what the Qur'an says in regard to the basic elements of Christian theology. And if more Christians would make a minimal effort to do that, the sweet, smooth lies being foisted upon the Church wouldn't have the effect they are having.

1. Loving Father or aloof tyrant? The nature of God.

God is love. You can't miss this in the Bible—it's everywhere, especially in the New Testament after God judged man's sin once and for all by executing its punishment on His own Son. Love defines His being and permeates everything He does:

Throughout Scripture, God is characterized as a loving Heavenly Father, and born-again believers are His children—His adopted sons and daughters who are free to call Him "Daddy."

For first-century Jews, "abba" was a term of endearment, equivalent to "papa" or "daddy." Jesus was constantly referring to the "Father," and in fact the only time in His earthly life when Jesus didn't address God as "Father" was when the moment came for Him to take the full brunt of His Father's wrath for our sin, and Jesus quoted the opening words of Psalm 22:

God not only loves us, but He wants us to love Him in return. Yes, He wants us to obey Him, but He wants us to obey Him because we love Him:

Since we are created in His image, we also seek love and acceptance. We have a deep-seated need for a personal God who loves us, who understands us, who listens to us, who answers our prayers. We seek a God who has compassion, and can be touched with our weaknesses and our infirmities. We need a God who is exactly what the Bible says He is—a loving Heavenly Father.

But you can scour the pages of the Qur'an until Muhammed is resurrected at the Great White Throne Judgment and find no such description of the god of Islam. The god described in the Qur'an is aloof and completely transcendent, and created mankind for no other purpose than to be the recipient of man's slavish devotion:

(In Islam, the "jinn" are spirit beings, presumably angels and/or demons.) Unlike the God of the Bible, who loves all of mankind (John 3:16), Allah only "loves" those who worship and submit to him, and neither seeks nor requires love from us in return. Allah doesn't qualify as anyone's "loving father"; he is unknowable and so far above us that for Muslims the idea of having a loving relationship with Allah is as absurd as it is blasphemous.

As a result, the following fact should come as no surprise:

The Qur'an lists 99 names for Allah. "Father" is not one of them.

The word Islam literally means "submission," and that is its essence: complete submission to the will of Allah. The essential character of Islam is not love and affection; it is will and submission.

Muslims must faithfully adhere to the Five Pillars (reciting the shahada or profession of faith, giving alms, praying five times per day, fasting during Ramadan, and making a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during one's lifetime). Women are required to wear coverings over their bodies, heads, and faces in public and submit to their husband's authority. Everything about Islam screams "submit."

The intimate father-son relationship born-again believers know with the God of the Bible simply doesn't exist in Islam. Muslims' relationship with Allah (and I hesitate to even call it a "relationship") is better characterized as master-servant. The concept of submission even characterizes the Muslim approach to spreading Islam: subjugation.

The Bible tells Christians to go and make disciples.
The Qur'an tells Muslims to go and make subjects.

If you don't believe me, pick up a newspaper once in a while.

To Muslims, the idea of having an intimate loving relationship with Allah is so offensive that it is unthinkable. In their minds, such an idea deeply insults and demeans the great and mighty Allah, and deigns to bring him down to our level. But that's just it:

The God of the Bible did come down to our level.
Why? Because we could never reach His.

So, do Christians and Muslims agree on the nature of God?

Yes:
No: ✔

2. Son of God or second-string prophet? The nature of Jesus.

The fundamental message of the entire Bible is that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for man's sin so that we could be made righteous in God's sight and reconciled to Him for eternity if we repent and believe in faith in the finished work of atonement Christ made on our behalf.

But how in the world could this parable-spouting drifter from Nazareth do such a thing? What makes the sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross of sufficient value to atone for all of man's sin? Simple.

He was the Son of God.

Jesus was God in the flesh. He was born of a virgin, in whom God's own seed was planted by the Holy Spirit. With no earthly father, He inherited no sin nature from Adam like the rest of us. He was the visible manifestation of an invisible God. He is the second Person of one God that exists eternally as three distinct Persons (more on this shortly). Because Jesus is God in the flesh, fully human and fully God, His life—His blood—was of infinite value. It was sufficient to atone for all of our sin, which is an offense against an infinitely holy God.

Nothing less would do.

Jesus fulfilled around 300 specific Old Testament prophecies in the First Advent two thousand years ago—and yet when He stood in their midst, the nation of Israel rejected and crucified Him. This, however, actually served to fulfill the key component in God's plan of redemption—a plan that includes not only His people Israel, but the entire world.

One thing is abundantly clear, however: If Jesus is in fact not the Son of God, the whole of Christianity collapses in a pile of rubble. Let me come right out and say it—it's gone. It blows away like a grass hut in a hurricane. If Jesus was just a man and not God in the flesh, then He was either a pathological liar or a nutcase who died for nothing—and it really doesn't matter which. If He's not the Son of God, we Christians are left sitting in the corner, clutching our fictional little New Testament with its phony little "fulfilled prophecies" that are so many fairy tales.

But that's not the worst of it. If Jesus isn't the Son of God, we have deluded ourselves and will die in our sins right along with the rest of this fallen world and stand guilty before a holy God with nothing but a smile and a shoeshine.

If Jesus isn't the Son of God, we're up a spiritual creek without a paddle. And not just Christians. This leaves all of us in the spiritual hurt locker. It leaves all of mankind on the hopeless treadmill of salvation by works—desperately trying to do good deeds to make ourselves more acceptable and pleasing to an infinitely holy God in spite of the fact we are born with a sin nature that makes the best of such efforts an exercise in futility.

But...the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is almost overwhelming, and more than sufficient to satisfy all but the most rabidly biased skeptics. The best skeptics can do is spurious, ill-founded claims the Gospels are fiction written by anonymous zealots who mythologized Jesus to messianic status for some nefarious reasons, claims that wither and die under logical and historical scrutiny.

Although it comes as a surprise to many Bible-believing Christians, it is true that Muslims believe in Jesus. In Arabic His name is Isa, and He is highly regarded in the Qur'an.

Almost as highly regarded as the prophet Muhammed.

One thing that is emphasized in the Qur'an, however, is the fact that Jesus is absolutely not the Son of God. No way, no how. But hey, Jesus is a great prophet—one of Allah's top guys, second only to Muhammed, the undisputed kingpin of Islam.

Muslims have been indoctrinated to believe that the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God implies that Allah had to come down to earth and find a woman to have sex with, which, of course, is grotesquely absurd. No mentally competent Christian on the planet believes that. The Bible, in its demurely veiled manner when dealing with delicate or intimate matters, simply states that the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35). We're not privy to the details.

All we know (and all we need to know) is that God caused His seed to exist within Mary's body before her marriage to Joseph was consummated, and things proceeded in the natural way for the next nine months.

Not only does the Qur'an insist Jesus is not the Son of God, it denies that He was ever crucified (and thus was never resurrected):

It's interesting to note, however, that the Qur'an does in fact teach the virgin birth of Jesus, but still insists He was a mere human and not divine—not the Son of God.

But the sticking point is the one thing that just sticks in Satan's craw—the divinity of Jesus Christ. One of Satan's chief goals for the last two thousand years has been to deny, disprove, and cast doubt on the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. And the religions of the world have been some of the most powerful weapons in Satan's arsenal.

So, do Christians and Muslims agree on the nature of Jesus?

Yes:
No: ✔

3. Three in one or just one? The Trinity.

The Bible teaches that while God in essence is one God, He exists eternally in the form of three distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and together they are one God. There are a number of verses I could quote to flesh this out, but the following passage of Scripture will suffice since it neatly packages all three together into one scene—Jesus' baptism in the Jordan River:

When Jesus went to His cousin John to be baptized, all three members of the Trinity, also called the Godhead (Col. 2:9), made their presence known in one scene. God the Son was in the water, God the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove, and God the Father announced His approval from heaven, confirming Jesus' status as part of the Trinity.

The concept of the Trinity, or the fact that God is presented as a triune Being in Scripture, is absolutely essential to the gospel for the reason we just discussed in no. 2 about Jesus. If God is not a triune Being, then Jesus can hardly be considered God in the flesh. And make no mistake—that is precisely what Jesus claimed to be:

Jesus was speaking to a group of Jews, and every single one of them knew exactly what Jesus meant when He said "I AM." He was putting Himself on the level of God the Father, who revealed His name as "I AM" to Moses in Exodus 3:14. That's why they immediately picked up stones to kill Him on the spot: This was blasphemy of the highest order for the Jews and punishable by death.

The Qur'an, of course, hammers away at the Trinity, denouncing it as a blasphemous lie perpetrated by those deceived Christians, and plays up the fact that Allah is one single, solitary entity:

A careful reading of this passage, however, reveals something interesting. Whoever wrote this (presumably Muhammed) was apparently under the impression that the Christian concept of the Trinity consisted of Allah, Jesus, and Mary! It is clear from this passage that the author believes Christians worship Mary as God. The author emphasizes that Mary actually ate food, and the only logical reason to do so is to refute the presupposed "Christian" belief that she was divine.

There are other verses that support the same conclusion: According to the Qur'an, Christians believe that Allah, Jesus and Mary together are three Gods and together supposedly form our so-called "Trinity."

So, Muhammed vehemently rejected and denounced the Christian concept of the Trinity—but he didn't even understand it!

It is worth noting that there are people who believe the Roman Catholic Church invented Islam in the seventh century to eliminate opposition by the Jews and the true Church. Personally, the whole idea strikes me as fodder for conspiracy theorists and I don't quite buy it, but it would explain where the Muslims got their goofy (and unbiblical) ideas about Mary.

So, do Christians and Muslims agree on the Trinity?

Yes:
No: ✔

4. The cross of Christ or cross your fingers? Salvation.

In the Bible, salvation is a free gift God offers man by His grace, and we receive it through faith—by changing our mind about our sin and our need for a Savior and asking God to forgive our sin based on the fact that Jesus' death and resurrection paid the penalty for it.

In the Bible, man's sin is a central issue that must be dealt with, and it teaches that God took it upon Himself to remedy the situation by extending grace to man. That grace took the form of His Son, who He sent into the world to die on the cross to pay sin's eternal penalty on our behalf, and God did that because He loved us while we were lost and unlovable.

We are separated from Him spiritually by our own choices and actions and utterly unable to repair the spiritual breach on our own.

All He requires from us is to believe in faith—to acknowledge that we are sinners separated from Him, and believe in faith that His Son died and was resurrected to pay sin's penalty on our behalf. The moment we do so, all our sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in our spirit, and we are eternally sealed as one of His own.

We are spiritually regenerated by being born of His Spirit, set free from the law of sin and death, and our destiny is changed from an eternity in hell to an eternity in God's presence in heaven.

Although we will still sin at times in this life because we still possess a sin nature, which can interrupt our fellowship with God (but has no effect on the status of our salvation), our continued repentance restores that fellowship and allows us to continue growing in our faith and in His grace.

The moment we trust Christ for our salvation, He's got us—and He'll never let us go.

Conversely, the Qur'an presents us with a rat's nest of contradictions when it comes to Allah's forgiveness and salvation. For example, in one place it says Allah forgives or doesn't forgive whomever he pleases:

In one place, the Qur'an says Christians will be rewarded for their good deeds and have nothing to fear in the afterlife:

...and then in another it says that Christians are unbelievers, cursed by Allah:

...and then in another it says that idolaters (i.e., unbelieving polytheists such as Christians who believe in the Trinity) will spend eternity in hell:

Other verses suggest that you have to earn your forgiveness, that you're not forgiven unless you repent "properly," that the measure of your good deeds is ultimately balanced against the measure of your bad deeds, that Allah makes people sin, and so forth and so on.

Amid the considerable confusion and contradictions, what it seems to come down to is the fact that Allah basically forgives whomever he chooses of whatever sin he chooses, for whatever reason he chooses, under whatever circumstances he chooses, makes whoever he chooses do good or evil as he chooses, and he doesn’t have to explain his inconsistencies or incongruities to anyone. So there.

This leaves Muslims with no assurance of salvation of any kind, and they are left with no course of action other than to slavishly worship Allah and diligently follow the Five Pillars.

And keep their fingers crossed.

So, do Christians and Muslims agree on salvation?

Yes:
No: ✔

As you can see, according to the Bible and the Qur'an, there are substantial and irreconcilable differences in the way Christians and Muslims view God, Jesus, the Trinity, and salvation, and these few points alone are more than enough to seal the deal as far as establishing beyond any doubt that Christianity and Islam are irrevocably incompatible.

The bottom line is abundantly clear:

Christians and Muslims absolutely do not worship the same God.

Now, back to Larycia Hawkins. As I said, after publicly proclaiming that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, she defended herself by saying that she was a Christian, and there was nothing else to explain. She later added the following comment on what she perceives as the tolerance of hatred, bigotry and Islamophobia:

"It's against Christian values. It's not what the Bible teaches me to do. As a little girl, I've known to love thy neighbor. That's the message."

Yes, Professor Hawkins, the Bible does tell us to love our neighbor. But that's not all it tells us:

It also tells us not to worship our neighbor's false god.

Incidentally, much was made of the fact that Professor Hawkins had on a number of occasions affirmed Wheaton College's Statement of Faith, an official statement of the biblical principles and beliefs upon which the school was founded and which every faculty member must sign and is expected to uphold and adhere to. Here is an excerpt from that statement:

So every time she signed this statement, she lied—either that or she didn't understand the question. And as far as her claiming to be a Christian and having nothing else to explain is concerned...

Professor Hawkins, but if you really are a Christian, you do indeed have something to explain:

You claim you are a Christian, and that's wonderful, Larycia. As a Christian, you are one who has realized you are a sinner separated from God, and received God's free gift of salvation by believing in faith that God's one and only Son Jesus Christ was born into the world, lived a sinless life, died on a cross, and was resurrected from the grave three days later to pay the penalty for your sin. This is only possible because the God you worship is one God who exists in the form of three distinct Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, with the one you sincerely believe did all of the above being the second Person of that triune God. That's the God you worship as a Christian.

Yet you claim that Muslims worship the same God you worship as a Christian, even though the god described in the Qur'an has no son, offers man no such salvation by grace, and exists as a single, solitary being—all unlike the God of the Bible.

Please, share with us how you reconcile these glaring discrepancies.

We'll be waiting.

No more Mr. Nice Guy

Not only is there a push these days to get people (especially in the West) to believe that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but there is a steadily growing effort to persuade Christians to call that same God "Allah" as a way to demonstrate solidarity and unity with Muslims. They claim that Allah is simply the Muslim or Arabic name for the God of the Bible, and so to show Christian charity and goodwill and to promote unity of the faith, Christians should be willing to use the name Allah to appease Muslims, who are our spiritual brothers. (They must be, because after all, the pope himself said we worship the same God, right?)

Of course, biblically literate Christians who balk at this suggestion are accused of being intolerant, narrow-minded bigots who are failing to display the love and tolerance Christ commanded us to show for our precious Muslim brothers and sisters who simply call God by another name.

Shame on you, you monotheistic bigots!

So, the question before us is this:

Is it OK for Christians to call the God of the Bible "Allah"?

The short answer is "no!"

The long answer is "n-o-o-o-o-o-o!"

Now for the long-winded answer. In the early days of Islam, when Muhammed was trying to promote and spread his new religion in regions with large Christian populations and trying to get Christians to accept it (and him as its prophet), he would assure the Christians that Islam's god Allah was really the same as the God of their Bible. It was a calculated strategy to lure them into the Islamic fold, but these efforts met with much resistance and largely failed. Call me naive, but apparently many Christians back then had enough sense (and I'd like to think enough biblical discernment) to know that the bill of goods Muhammed was selling was not scriptural.

This can be seen in some of the early Suras of the Qur'an that Muhammed wrote, where he would praise the Christians and esteem them as "people of the book" and so forth. For example, in Sura 2:62 (one of the earliest Suras) that I quoted above in no. 4 about salvation, Muhammed says the Christians will "have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." Sounds downright warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

But when Muhammed saw that the Christians weren't buying what he was selling and refused to convert to Islam, he turned on them and started denouncing them as infidels and unbelievers. The tone of later Suras in the Qur'an changed dramatically (see Sura 9:17 and 9:30 quoted above in no. 4): Suddenly they are cursed of Allah and destined for hell. As soon as the Islamic armies were able to conquer a region, Muhammed would order them to subjugate and destroy the Christians. Same God? Yeah, right. Once Muslims were running the show, it was no more Mr. Nice Guy.

So here's the $64,000 question:

If Muslims truly believe that Christians worship Allah and that Allah is the same as the God of the Bible, then why have Christians been denounced as infidels and targeted for subjugation (if not slaughter) in many Muslim nations for centuries? Why are Christians not accepted and protected as spiritual brothers in Muslim countries that live under Sharia law, rather than being persecuted, tortured, and killed?

The answer is obvious:

Muslims know they don't worship the same God as Christians!

Although there may be a certain percentage of Muslim-in-name-only cultural Muslims who might be naive enough to fall for it, the majority of true Muslims no more believe that Allah is the God of the Bible than they believe Muhammed played for the New York Mets.

Well, then why are there voices coming from the Muslim world that are saying such things to Western countries?

Simple. That's how Islam works.

When Islam first enters a region dominated by Christians, they come at them with the same old "trust us, we worship the same God" spiel to gain acceptance—to gain a foothold. Muslims seek to play on people's sense of tolerance and inclusion and use it to their advantage. Then, when the time comes that Islam is able to dominate that country, they change their tune. Then it's death to anyone who insults Islam; and although there are innumerable ways to do that, three surefire ones that leap to mind are to (a) get caught with a Bible, (b) get caught referring to the God of the Bible as "Allah," and (c) get caught drawing cartoons of Muhammed.

As soon as Islam gains control, what were once overtures of brotherhood metastasize into accusations of blasphemy. It's death to the infidels, which is exactly what the Qur'an clearly teaches Christians are.

Think I'm just blowing smoke? Think I'm just ranting? Think I'm just spouting some ill-informed Islamophobic tirade?

Consider the case of Malaysia. Prior to the introduction of Islam in the thirteenth century, Malaysia had been a predominantly Buddhist and Hindu nation. Islam steadily grew in influence (especially among the elites), and by the fifteenth century had become a well-established religion in the country. While Malaysia was under colonial rule by various European powers during the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, it coexisted with Christianity as well as Buddhism and Hinduism, and the period was generally characterized by overall religious tolerance.

Muslims were at least tolerant of the idea that they and Christians worshiped the same God, and Malays were free to read Bibles in their native language, in which God was often referred to as "Allah" or possibly "Allah Taala."

That was then. This is now.

In 1957, the Federation of Malaya became an independent nation (the name was changed to Malaysia in 1963), and although its constitution guarantees religious freedom, Islam is the official state religion and its legal system is based on Islamic law. Although the population today is roughly 60 percent Muslim, 20 percent Buddhist, and 10 percent Christian, all ethnic Malays are legally defined as Muslim, regardless of their actual religious affiliation.

In other words, Islam started running the show.

And things started to change. Conversion to Islam is almost automatic, while conversion from Islam to anything else is virtually impossible and fraught with danger. In 2002, Bibles written in Malay (referring to God as "Allah") were banned (although reportedly the ban was later overturned). Many states have laws banning the use of "Allah" in various Christian materials, and although these bans are not always strictly enforced, it is common knowledge that such materials, as well as any type of Christian proselytizing, are strongly discouraged and often lead to violence.

In the last few years, with the rise of Islamic terrorism worldwide, persecution of Christians in Malaysia has risen sharply (ditto for other Muslim countries). Churches are being burned and Christians are being persecuted, tortured, and killed at an increasing rate.

Not exactly what you'd expect from people who worship the same God, wouldn't you agree?

The bottom line is that Islam wants to have it both ways, and most Americans are so bent over the politically correct barrel of tolerance and inclusion that they can't see it coming. So, keep all of this in mind the next time you see some smiling, soft-spoken religious leader on CNN proudly and reassuringly spouting the siren song of how Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

We don't, and they know it.

So, my tolerant, inclusive, politically correct Christian friends who wish to demonstrate brotherhood and solidarity with the Muslim community, if you call the God of the Bible "Allah," you are no longer speaking of the God of the Bible. The name Allah refers to the cold, aloof god of the Qur'an who has no son, no plan of salvation for mankind, and no other purpose for creating man other than to have sentient beings submissively, slavishly worship him in utter hopelessness and futility.

If you think Allah is just another name for the God of the Bible and think it's a Christian display of unity and brotherhood to call God by that name, consider the following scenario:

One day at the office, a man learns from a new co-worker from a distant country that the word for "beautiful woman" in his country's language is "whore." When the man gets home from work that evening, he walks in the house and shouts, "What's for dinner, you whore?" He then proceeds to explain to his wife that it really means "beautiful woman."

Ask yourself: Do you think his wife will be pleased?

If you said "no," then don't call the God of the Bible "Allah."

Incidentally, I have noticed a lot of people on the Internet lately yammering about how Allah and Elohim (one of the Hebrew names for God) have a common linguistic root (al/el). Ergo, they must refer to the same God. Obviously, right?

Now, unlike such Internet know-it-alls, I am not going to sit here and pretend to be a some kind of expert on ancient Semitic languages. I'm not. But I do know one thing:

Superficial similarity does not imply substantive sameness.

So the names Allah and Elohim share a common linguistic root. Really. Look, I'm not saying they don't—but so what if they do? It certainly doesn't prove the two deities are the same. What it does prove is not exactly a shocker to people who know anything about ancient Semitic languages, or any kind of languages for that matter: There are linguistic connections between ancient Hebrew and Arabic. Stop the presses!

If this type of argument were valid in any way whatsoever, we could just as easily equate Elohim with Baal, one of the pagan gods of the Old Testament.

Or hey, how about the Lord of the Flies himself: Beelzebub.

I rest my case. This is just garden variety YouTube stupidity.

Ready for departure

Before I bring this in for a landing, I want to comment on why I believe this is happening at this juncture of history. First of all, make no mistake: To genuinely believe the God of the Bible is the same god described in the Qur'an is tantamount to denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist:

The message Pope Francis is trumpeting around the globe is that we all worship the same God, the God of the Bible is the same as the god of the Qur'an, the Qur'an is every bit as much the inspired Word of God as the Bible, all paths lead to the same God, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I don't toss this word around lightly, but this easily qualifies as pure, dyed-in-the-wool heresy, and effectively denies the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Now, the pope hasn't come right out and stated point blank that Jesus is not the Son of God; but if he is pressed on the matter, he is just about going to have to at some point. I don't see any way to dance around it. When the time comes, after what he has publicly stated, if he declines to deny the divinity of Christ, he'll have to make the most epic retraction in the history of the Roman Catholic Church—one that would cripple his influence and authority. I just don't see that happening.

Frankly, I am personally convinced that just such a proclamation is part of the pope's agenda—right along with the announcement of alleged contact with demonic...er, I mean alien life. I believe it's just a question of timing.

So while we wait for that faith-shattering announcement, let's shake this tree and see what falls out of it, shall we?

If the major monotheistic religions of the world all worship the same God, it follows that we simply call Him by different (equally holy) names, and that He has apparently revealed Himself in different (equally divine) ways to different (equally sincere) groups of people, and through different (equally inspired) writings. Thus, all people should be free to seek Him in different (equally valid) ways.

And while we're at it, why restrict this to the major monotheistic religions? It must be that all religions ultimately worship this one God in one way or another, in spite of the fact that they may perceive Him as many gods. After all, you Christians have that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit thing, right? So who are you to get on your high horse and judge the religious beliefs and experiences of others?

And speaking of judging...fundamentalist zealots who try to exclude people of other religions by telling them they are not worshiping the "true" God or that their "holy" book is not holy, and arrogantly insist that they alone are possessors of God's truth are in fact hateful, intolerant bigots who are devoid of the love of the God they claim to worship. They must be stopped. They must be silenced. They must be censored. They are a cancer and, if need be, must be eliminated if man is ever going to evolve spiritually and if the world is ever going to worship the one true God in peace, love, and unity, and as a result enjoy His blessings.

This is the narrative that is congealing and being promulgated these days, and it is clearly gaining momentum. So, expect to see more incidents like what happened with Larycia Hawkins at Wheaton College in the future, as the apostasy continues to get ramped up. It has reached the point where you cannot take a stand for the truth of the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ without offending everybody in sight and suffering the consequences. And as this accelerates, it obviously doesn't bode well for the true Church.

Or does it?

Students of the Bible have long argued about the interpretation of the Greek word apostasia, translated above as "departure," and translated in other versions as "apostasy" or "falling away." Note that it was always translated "departure" until the translators of the venerable King James Version rendered it "falling away" in 1611 for reasons that are unclear, and ever since then the trend has been to interpret this as a "falling away" from the faith rather than a "departure" from a physical location.

Note, however, that the verb at the root of this word is istemi (to stand), and it is used 15 times in the New Testament. Of those 15 instances, 12 refer to a physical departure. Only three suggest a departure from the faith.

So although a lot of people today interpret the above verse as referring to a widespread departure from the gospel (which is currently in overdrive), a strong scriptural case can also be made for the "physical departure" interpretation—which in this case would undeniably be the Rapture. I personally agree with this interpretation, but I won't argue the point here.

But consider: The Holy Spirit—the Author of all Scripture—is known to make liberal use of wordplay, in both Hebrew and Greek. One problem is that many people tend to assume every doctrinal issue must be either/or, but that's simply not always the case. In other words:

Who says it can't be both? Why can't the "departure" refer to the Rapture and a huge falling away from the faith?

Because it very well could. My point is that if the Holy Spirit intended for us to interpret this as a great apostasy, and that's entirely possible, then the rampant defection from the biblical gospel that all this "we worship the same God" schlock is contributing to is exactly the sort of thing Paul is talking about. If the Holy Spirit also meant this verse to refer to the Rapture (and I am fully convinced He did), then Paul is also telling us that the Rapture must take place before the Antichrist can be formally revealed.

This makes perfect sense, because an overwhelmingly strong case can be made for the Holy Spirit, in His ministry of indwelling born-again believers during the current Church Age, being what is "restraining" the Antichrist from being revealed in the first place, and who will be "taken out of the way" at the Rapture. So, the takeaway is this:

If you're born again, this should make you squirm with anticipation.
If you're not, it should make you squirm for a different reason.

As far as what people call God is concerned, the revealed names of God is a fascinating study in and of itself, with the original Hebrew giving us such names as Elohim, YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah), Adonai, and compound forms such as El Shaddai, Jehovah Jireh, etc. Greek gives us Theos (God), Kurios (Lord), Pater (Father), etc.

Allah, on the other hand, was the chief god of pagan, polytheistic Arabs long before Muhammed ever came along:

This is why it should surprise no one that the name Allah never appears in the Bible as a name for God.

The real problem, however, is that when Christians in the West naively presume to refer to the God of the Bible as "Allah," it is virtually impossible for them to be unaffected by the oppressive Qur'anic baggage the name brings to the table. You can scarcely utter the name Allah and not feel the weight of the futile submission the Qur'an demands, and the aloofness of the capricious taskmaster the Qur'an describes.

But the true, living God is nowhere to be found in the pages of the Qur'an. He has revealed Himself through His Word, and His revealed Word is the Bible. So if He's the God you're looking for, that's where He can be found.

But please understand:

His name wasn't Allah when He created the heavens and the earth.
His name wasn't Allah when He chose Abraham to father the Jewish race.
His name wasn't Allah when He freed His people from bondage in Egypt.
His name wasn't Allah when He gave Moses His law on tablets of stone.
His name wasn't Allah when His Son died on a cross to atone for our sin.

And His name isn't Allah today, as He prepares to bring the final prophecies in His Word to their fulfillment as we watch it unfold on the evening news.

Shakespeare once wrote that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," which is a self-evident truth: Calling the same thing by a different name does nothing to change its nature or characteristics. The entire point, however, is that Allah is not the same as the God of the Bible.

The cold, aloof god of the Qur'an seeks only slavish submission born of fear, and has no plan for man's redemption.

The holy, just, loving God of the Bible seeks obedience born of love, and sacrificed His only Son for man's redemption.

Big difference.

Allah is not just a God by any other name.

And he certainly doesn't smell as sweet.

Greg Lauer — JAN '16

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 JAN '16 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit