In this third (read 1, 2, and 4) of four Kistemaker lectures, Dr. Volf examines the question of whether Muslims and Christians believe in the same God. Volf looks at this question from the context of the A Common Word (ACW) and the Yale Center Response (YCR) documents (see my introduction for background).
What follows are my lecture notes with my own interpretive comments [in brackets]. I am saving critical reflections for later posts.
This lecture, out of the four, was perhaps the most stimulating, challenging, and controversial, especially points 3-4 below. So, take a few deep breaths and grab a cold drink before proceeding :-). (In other words, Gentle Reformed Reader [ahem!], beware of being too critical too quickly so that you preclude the possibility of appreciating the creative strengths of Volf’s thinking, however controversial or inconsistent he appears to be on certain points.)
Introduction
The same God question is interrelated with the same love question, which will be covered in lecture 4.
In many ways, the same God question is the question that everybody wants answered. It is hotly debated, obviously due in part to recent political developments throughout the world. Why is the debate so fierce? Partly because the national identities of the parties in the debates are bound up with their beliefs about God. For these nations, religion is to state as a flag is to patriotism. But at the end of the day [in ultimate terms] the debate is theological, not political.
It is interesting to observe that during times of war we have a tendency to highlight theological differences [between waring nations], and during times of peace we tend to highlight similarities.
Scope & Goal of this lecture: Dr. Volf is not trying to give a definite answer to the question of whether the Muslim and Christian God is the same God; rather, he is attempting to point out aspects of the question that must be considered [in order to show the complexity of the question itself]. Specifically, Volf thinks that at least 4 aspects of the question must be analyzed in pursuit of an answer:
- Linguistic terms used for “God” across cultures. [Is using "God" in English equivalent to using "Allah" in Arabic?]
- Referents [ontological antecedents] of such linguistic terms. [Whatever linguistic terms one uses, can we know whether these terms refer to the same metaphysical object--same "God"?]
- Description/characteristics [attributes] of God. [Are the theological attributes of the Muslim God close enough to those of the Christian God to warrant the conclusion that they are the same God?]
- Worship/approaching God. [Even if Muslims and Christians believe in the same monotheistic God, do Muslims and Christians worship/approach God in the same way?]
1. Linguistic Terms
Allah is simply the [generic] Arabic word for “god” and is related to the [generic] Hebrew word El. Arab Christians have used the word Allah for the Christian God. And in the Arabic Bible the word for “God” is Allah.
Anytime the Gospel spreads to a new culture, there arises a problem of translation: Which word in the new culture should be used for God? For example, when the Gospel started spreading into China, the Dominicans debated Franciscans over whether the Chinese word Tian was an appropriate translation of “God.” (The debate centered on whether Tian was too abstract to represent the personal God of Christianity.) For another example, when the New Testament writers had to choose a Greek word to represent the Hebrew YHWH, they chose Kurios.
Whatever word a tradition chooses to use within their own culture, that word becomes infused with that tradition’s meaning for the term.
Therefore, the terms [Allah and God] themselves are not sufficient to answer the same god question. We must also ask about the terms’ referents.
2. Referents
There are two ways to decide whether the terms refer to the same object: (a) historical analogy to the Jew-Christian debate [over Jesus' deity] and (b) theological comparison between the monotheistic characteristics of Christianity and Islam.
(a) Jew-Christian debate analogy
The debate evident in the New Testament period between Jews and Christians [i.e. Peter's sermon in Acts 2. Volf listed early Christians who tried to "prove" the trinity by searching the Old Testament Scriptures as a historical example of the Jew-Christian debate] in which Christians sought to convince Jews that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is Judaism’s promised Messiah provides an historical analogy to the Muslim-Christian debate.
[If I understood Volf correctly, the analogy is that from a Christian's perspective, Muslims are in the same position as Jews: both Jews and Muslims worship the same monotheistic God, but not through God's Son, Jesus Christ. I may need to compare my notes to another students to make sure I understood what Volf was sharing on this point.]
(b) Theological comparison of Muslim monotheism and Christian monotheism
Christians and Muslims claim to believe in one sovereign, creator God who is categorically different than His creation [i.e. the doctrine of God's aseity]. Therefore, on monotheistic terms there is no room [i.e. metaphysical room] for another God besides the one, the only God. [In other words, if monotheism is true, then there is only one God. And if both Muslims and Christians believe in monotheism, then in general terms they must believe in the same one God.]
But since God is an invisible spirit, we can’t point to Him. Therefore, we must compare the characteristics of God as they are understood by Christians and Muslims to further wrestle with whether Christians and Muslims believe in the same God even if they both hold to monotheism.
3. Description of God’s Characteristics
Is there enough similarity between how Christians and Muslims each understand the attributes of God in order to warrant the claim that Christians and Muslims believe in the same monotheistic God?
In broad, general terms, both religions share very similar features (i.e. monotheism, revelation from God in holy books, eschatological judgment, etc.) but differ on the details. For Christians, the unique role of Jesus Christ’s self-revelation as God (i.e. John’s Gospel) is a key difference from Islam’s view of Jesus [as a mere prophet among prophets].
However, [before you make an inordinate big deal out of this difference] don’t forget the category of people in the New Testament referred to as “God fearers,” such as Cornelius [in Acts 10]. These people feared God, but they did not know Jesus Christ as God’s divine Son specifically. Dr. Volf argued, therefore, that if one’s beliefs are not contrary to Jesus’ self-revelation, then one does not necessarily need Jesus’ revelation to know the true God. Another example Volf used to make this point is the demons who knew the monotheistic God [i.e. James 2:19].
Dr. Volf called this type of monotheistic knowledge a knowledge of God based on “common grace” or the “seeds of the Word,” and he claimed that historic Christian orthodoxy has held to this position.
4. Worship/Approaching God
Herein, for Volf, lies the crux between the cross and the crescent: Even though it is possible for “God fearers” (who did not know Jesus Christ) to identify truly the One God [i.e. the God of the Old Testament], there is a difference between identifying God truly and approaching Him in worship truely [i.e. approaching God on His own terms].
In other words: You cannot rightly worship the wrong God (this is idolatry); but, neither can you wrongly worship the right God (this too is idolatry).
The eschatological goal of Christianity (as seen in Revelation 4) is for the true God to be truly worshiped [by all people]. However, we are not yet at our eschatological goal. Therefore, during our present eschatological moment [i.e. the "present evil age" of Gal. 1:3] there will always exist a mixture of
- wrong worship of the One true God (for example: Isaiah 58; Matthew 7:21) and
- partly right worship of the One true God ([God-fearers like] Cornelius in Acts 10).
All Christians are like Cornelius in the sense that during our “present evil age” we only see through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12); not until Christ returns will any of us “see face to face.”
Implications of our “dim” eschatological moment on Christology
During the question and answer time following this lecture, a student challenged Dr. Volf for not making a bigger deal out of the obvious differences between Muslim and Christian views of Christ’s deity. In response, Volf made an important point on how Christians ought not demand more theological unity from Muslim theologians than Christians themselves have historically attained.
Volf pointed out that we Christians must admit that within our own history Christians have debated many varying formulations of the attributes of God (such as the impassibility of God). But, in spite of these wide differences [among various theologians and Christian traditions], these Christians are all referring to the same monotheistic God [seen through a glass darkly].
More specifically on the historical development of the doctrine of Christ, in light of the fact that Christianity has taken hundreds of years of theological debate to hammer out credal unity on Christ’s deity, the Trinity, etc. [i.e. the great ecumenical creeds] it would be anachronistic [and perhaps hypocritical] for Christians to demand that Muslims [immediately and intuitively] see the deity of Christ as essential to the doctrine of God. To do so would be like ignoring the fact that the Christian tradition has fiercely debated his very point itself.
[Note that Volf's argument here is historical not systematic. He is not saying that there are no differences over Christology! Rather, he is saying that Christianity's own historical theological developments ought to humble us enough to allow for the fact that the deity of Christ is a tough question for Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Agree or not, I think the implication Volf is after on this point is that we Christians, in recognizing the complexity of the issues, ought to be willing to allow that Muslims may believe in the same monotheistic God--an admission that would give some much needed room to "breathe" in terms of finding a place at the table to begin discussions--while not denying that Muslims are truly wrong, from our Christian perspective, by denying Christ's deity.]
Related Volf Reads
Subscribe by e-mail
Excellent summaries, LO. We’ll have to talk about this some more. I posted some thoughts at KingdoMission and then took them down, as I think this requires some more reflection.
Do you think perhaps in looking at this question that examining the question of Jewish monotheism and the “God-fearers” is absolutely essential? It seems to me that some critical reflection on those two things is essential to examining the present question.
Additionally, have you read the Barnabas Fund’s response to ACW? It interacts with ACW much more than the Yale Response does and is more critical, but offers much food for thought.
Hey Joelos adelphos!
(a) Yes, much good fodder for some sweet lunch discussions!
(b) I’m with you on thinking the God-fearer bit is important. I might want to nuance things a little differently than Volf along the lines of Reformed biblical theology (hoping to write out my thoughts on this in the near future), but nonetheless Volf’s point is well taken in the sense that the question is not an easy binary/yes-no deal from the perspective of the unfolding history of redemption; it is more complex/messy.
(c) No, I haven’t read the Barnabas response. Thanks for the heads up. If I get some time I’m hoping to reflect some on various evangelical responses in future posts….
And I’d love to read whatever you have written out as well. If you don’t want to publish it, would you be willing to e-mail it to me?
(b) I don’t think it necessarily has to go along Volf’s lines either (and I’m also not entirely sure that the Jewish/Muslim analogy is entirely sounds, though definitely a must for consideration). But yes, the complexity of the question is something that I often forget.
I’ve emailed what I wrote, but I’m planning on redoing it completely soon and posting it.
Hello Laurence and Joel,
I appreciate very much your careful approach to this whole issue. I myself have an analysis which is posted on the Opinion webpage of Come and See, http://www.comeandsee.com, which is an Arab website out of Nazareth.
The issue of God-fearers is interesting, but the difference in Cornelius and the Muslims is that Cornelius feared the God of Israel, the God of the Jews, whereas the Muslims are taught that God is finished with the Jews and with Israel. Cornelius was contemporary with God’s unfolding redemptive history, while Mohammed and Islam came centuries afterwards in direct opposition to the Old and New Testaments as being the unchanging Word of God, all of which focus on Jesus, as He Himself says.
Allah is an impersonal ‘name’, yet Muslims use it as if it were personal: Allah achbar/ God is great; There is no God but God/Allah. The God of the Bible has revealed His name as YHVH/Yehovah/Yahweh, and, ultimately as Father, which Islam rejects and denies. Yeshua/Jesus/Isua is Himself YHVH, as the NT makes clear.
It is one thing to reach out to Muslims at the personal level, which is incumbent upon us all, but another at the macro/governmental/theological level to bring in confusion as to the substantive differences (1Jn 2:22). Jesus builds His church on the truth of Him being the Messiah/Anointed One of YHVH, and the Son of God the Father.
If you don’t mind, please e-mail me your responses in addition to posting them.
Thank-you, and God bless you.
Howard
Dear Howard,
Greetings in Christ’s peace from Florida!
Thank you for your kind words. Further, thank you for letting me know about your article, Light Dispels Darkness, and for sharing your further insights in your comments. As one currently living in an American context, it is beneficial to hear and learn from Christians in other parts of the world.
I have decided to use the “A Common Word” issue as one of the topics for some research papers I am writing for my seminary classes this semester. So, what I share here is a very brief preview to what I have just begun to research and think through.
In reference to how Dr. Volf used the idea of God-fearers in his third lecture, I agree with you that there is a difference between Volf’s usage and how this category appears to be used in the Scriptures. However, the way I am thinking through the difference is slightly different than your angle.
In my opinion, the whole thrust of the Cornelius story in Acts 10 is not that Cornelius was OK without Jesus; rather, the thrust is that Cornelius’ household needed to hear the Gospel of Jesus–they needed further revelation, specific revelation about Jesus the Messiah. As we find in the text, Cornelius’s house needed the apostolic proclamation of Jesus (vv. 34-43), the Holy Spirit’s illumination and regeneration to understand Peter’s Gospel proclamation (vv. 44-46), and they needed to be baptized (vv. 47-48).
Cornelius’ needs correlate exactly to the specific commands Jesus gave to his apostles in Matt. 28:19-20. Thus, what we see in Acts 10 (and all throughout Acts) is initial fulfillment of Jesus’ Great Commission through the proclamation of the Gospel, the Spirit’s regenerative work, and administration of the sacraments.
If my reading of Acts 10 is correct, then I cannot agree with Dr. Volf on the point that God-fearers can know God rightly without knowing about Jesus as long as the God-fearer’s worship does not contradict Jesus’ teachings. For, to claim this is an anachronistic eschatological retrogression: in other words, when Messiah Jesus came, the Old Covenant worship was fulfilled and transformed by Jesus’ New Covenant (i.e. the whole point of the book of Hebrews); to ignore Jesus, then, is to inappropriately turn back the redemptive clock.
You made similar points in your Light Dispels Darkness article about (a) the relation of “mutual social welfare” and “theologically based” peace and (b) the name “Allah.” If I may reply with a few humble thoughts given in love:
First, I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding the exclusivity of the Christian faith. Because there is One God and One Mediator between God and man–Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5)–Christians exist by definition in an antithetical relationship with non-Christians. As light is to darkness, so Christian faith is to non-Christian.
Second, however, we Christians are living in between Christ’s first and second comings. The antithesis is not yet ultimate. Our light shines now in the darkness until the time comes when God’s light will dispel all darkness forever, when “night will be no more” (Rev. 22.5). Therefore, our posture as Christians, those who live in the light but still amidst darkness, toward those dwelling in darkness must be one of always seeking to call people into the light.
Two difficulties make living in our present “in between” state extremely difficult: On the one hand, we are tempted to give up the light in order to attract darkness (to pursue the “lowest common denominator,” in the terms of your article). On the other hand, we can condescendingly shine our light down upon those in darkness, holding them in contempt, as if we ourselves are the source of light and judge of darkness. Obviously, both tendencies are unbalanced, and we see that we must find a balance in seeking to live faithfully as salt and light in “this present evil age” (Gal. 1).
In my opinion, in spite of whatever weaknesses Dr. Volf’s work may display on the former (and these must not be ignored!), if we fail to hear the strengths of what he is saying on the latter, then we are missing vital aspects of God’s outward-focused love in our approach toward Muslims.
Your article appears to me to be slightly out of balance in the opposite direction from Volf’s unbalance. The strong points you make about the antithesis are true. But it would appear that perhaps your article is missing some other vital aspects of the Gospel related to how it spreads during the time between Christ’s first and second advents. In this regard, the story of Jonah comes to mind. Even though God knew full well that the Ninevites were wicked, and even though Jonah did not want to proclaim God’s salvation to these wicked people, the book ends with God’s reaching out to his enemies in love: “And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” (Jon. 4). God’s amazing love toward his enemies served as a rebuke to the overly antithetical prophet without budging on the stark antithesis (i.e. the Ninevites must repent!).
Third, the issue of church-state relations in Islam and Christianity is a huge topic. (i.e. What is the church’s role in pursuing world peace?) I won’t attempt any comments here, but this is one of the topics I am thinking through as I plan my research this semester.
As I mentioned above, I am still researching this issue, and my comments here are more by way of preview. Also, my comments on your article are given in much humility before God and His Word.
I will post my papers, D.V., on this blog, probably near the end of May. Until then, I’ll be posting related thoughts from time to time and will interact with comments as time permits.
Shalom,
LO
Shalom LO (is this how you are usually called?),
Thanks for answering, and your graciousness in expressing your views.
I completely agree with you on the points you have raised with respect to what you perceived in my blog entry and in my article, Light Dispels Darkness.
Living in the Middle East now for the last 26 1/2 years, we are in what has been termed the ‘epicenter’ of the conflict. There is a harsh reality to the theologies of the three main religions here, and a real battle for the souls of people from all people groups and religious faiths and culture. My reaction and response to the “Loving God and Neighbor Together” was out of real concern for the deception and falling away from the true faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. So I wasn’t really addressing the outflow of our faith to evangelize, for example, which is a normal part of our lives and testimony with other people who are not saved from any and all religions– not so much of what is called ‘friendship evangelism’, because people may feel used and abused if they think our relationship is based only on whether or not we can get them to believe in Jesus or to come to a church service. Christians need to know who their God is and who Jesus is in order to both make disciples of all nations for HIM, and in order to stand against every effort of the enemy to cause us to dishonor Him as the only true God and way of salvation.
For many years here I have been involved in reconciliation ministries between Jewish and Arab believers. The sticking point, as you may realize, is always the ‘land’. I’ve always tried to maintain the position that our common salvation through and in Jesus is paramount to our fellowship and unity for the sake of the gospel and the Kingdom of God. On these other ‘important’ issues — which they very much are — I can let the Holy Spirit work out in me and in them where there is disagreement. To give you an example of the clash we face, some dear Palestinian friends of ours believe that the ‘occupation’ began in 1948 with Israel’s independence. That means to them that my very presence here is an injustice. On my part, I had come to Israel twice as an unbelieving Jew, considering Israel important to me as a country but not as home. When I was saved, God brought me back to Israel as home, I am here by the will of God and as a believer in Jesus Christ, who has brought me back home to the land He promised in covenant; in other words, I live in Israel as home on Earth because of Jesus! This is a clash of world view, both of us calling on the name of the Lord! Islam’s view is that any land which was once under Muslim rule still properly belongs to them, and make this a matter of honor and justice. Islam denies, however, YHVH God’s own prior and superior claims to the Earth, and He gives lands and boundaries to whomsoever He wills, and has redeemed and paid the price to do this according to His sovereignty and wisdom.
For our friends and for us, there is a price to pay to demonstrate our love for one another for Jesus’ sake. But when it comes to the testimony of who the true God and Savior is, there can be no room for muddling and confusion. This sometimes happens, as I mentioned in my article, when even Jewish believers deny the deity of Jesus, for then we are not speaking of the same Jesus. I am well aware of the difficulties historically of Christians to satisfactorily explain the triune God, but since He insists on true and spiritual worship and no idolatry, He is not going to leave us in a debatable situation over this. Again, this goes to the issue of the deception and the falling away in the last days, which the Holy Spirit expressly warns believers about.
Cornelius is a great example, as you well say, of a ‘good person’ who fears God and does good deeds, but is not able to be saved by that: He must repent and believe the gospel and be born again. He is distinguished from, I was thinking after reading your letter, those ’sheep’ nations whom the Lord Jesus will set at His right hand after He has taken up the earthly throne of His glory. They will be granted to enter into life in His Kingdom during the Millennial reign of Christ over Israel and the nations because of their good works towards the least of His brethren — those who are believers and maybe those who are Jews (His brethren in the flesh; this could also be expanded to include any human being since Jesus is the Son of Man). These remnants of these Gentile nations to whom God has shown mercy and compassion will still need, though, to be born again over the course of those 1000 years (which for me, as you can see, is a literal prophecy and promise of God to yet be inherited at the coming of the Lord. Those of us who have part in the first resurrection have an even better promise at this time.).
Islam’s whole foundation — whose spirit can be traced all the way back to Lamech, one of Cain’s descendants — puts real fear of [their] God which is more akin to Baal worship which is so prominent in the Old Testament, and which Israel was always prostituting herself to go after, forgetting the name of her own God YHVH because of the false prophets: every other god was okay to mention but Him! In Athens, Paul was vexed to see so much religion and superstition by those who may have seemed to be God-fearers. This is not the same fear as that of Cornelius.
After reading your blog, I found another entry which provides, according to its own words, “resources for Christians to help them understand, evaluate and respond to the 2008 letter ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’, which was sent by 138 key Muslim leaders to the Christian leaders of the world.”
http://acommonword.blogspot.com/2008/02/reflections-upon-loving-god-and.html
The writer’s 3 February blog entries give his full treatment of the subject in response to the “Loving God…..” letter.
God bless you, LO, as you continue to search out this matter to the glory of God and for the edification of the church in love.
Howard (also ‘not sorry’ for the grace of God who saved me through finally repenting and believing His good news about His Son!)
[...] four lectures on the Yale Response to A Common Word at my seminary. (Read my notes for each of the lectures.) Then, in May of 2008 I used Volf’s lectures as my topic for two term papers: One [...]