This idea is very dangerous. If you believe that Muslims are worshiping an idol, then there is no basis even to talk to them. They are pagan idolaters like Hindus and Buddhists. It is alleged that although Islam is a monotheistic religion, the Muslims’ only God is simply another idol that Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) chose (or in some versions of the story, he made it up).

To invalidate this foolish theory, one has to take the story from different angles.

The crescent is not a symbol of Islam, but of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans are those tribes that moved to Turkey from east and middle Asia. They converted to Islam and built a huge Muslim Empire that ruled the whole Muslim world for centuries. When they took Islam as a religion they started using the lunar calendar, the calendar that was used by Muslims, Jews and early Christians. Even today, the flag of Turkey has a crescent on it. There was no crescent on any mosque built before the Ottomans era.

Prophet Abraham built the Kaaba for people to worship God. While pagan Arabs admitted this fact and even kept the stone where he used to stand to build the Kaaba (Abraham’s station), they brought idols to the Kaaba and worshiped them to get closer to Abraham’s Lord, Allah, God of gods. Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) came with the monotheistic message of Islam. Arabs defended these idols and refused to give up the religion of their fathers and grandfathers. They offered to Muhammad a deal, that is to worship their gods for one year, and they worship Allah alone for one year. A chapter of the Quran came with the response from God to this evil invitation:

[Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. ]109:1-6

Later on, the Quran started calling Allah by other names. One of those holy names was Al-Rahman (the Gracious). Arabs wondered:”is this a new God?” The Quran responded again:

[Say: "Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. ]17:110

It is not a new god; it is a new name for the same God. Allah has ninety nine names in Islam; all of them are holy and speak about different attributes of the same creator, almighty Allah. As an example, read these verses of the Quran:

[Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god; Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god; the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to Allah! (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him.

He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory; and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.]59:22-24

When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) came back to Mecca, he entered the city peacefully on the top of an army of 10,000 men, exactly as the Bible described him “pre-eminent above ten thousand.” (Solomon 5:10). He did not burn a single home; he did not harm a single person; he just went to the Kaaba and destroyed all the gods Arabs had there. He kept nothing in the Kaaba. Where is this picture of the moon god coming from? I don’t know. Did anyone of the pagan Arabs have a digital camera by then?

There is evidence that the word Allah existed before the birth of Muhammad PBUH for thousands of years. It is probably the oldest name man used to call God. Most likely, Adam used the word Allah to call the Lord. On the other hand, the word “GOD” was born with the English language, less than ten centuries ago. Can we say that all English speaking nations are pagans because they use the word “God”? What about Chinese monotheists? How should they call God?

Prophet Muhammad’s father’s name was Abdullah (The slave of Allah). This name was common among Arab pagans and Jews. Abdullah bin Salam was one of the first Jews to convert to Islam in Medina. When Arabs call Allah in prayer they say: “Ya Allah” or “Allahoma”. Aren’t these words familiar to you? “Alleluia” and “Elohim” are the words used to call Allah in the Bible. In Hebrew, the suffix im means many. So Elohim literally means many Allah(s). This is a known way to express dignity and respect to almighty Allah by calling Him pleural. This phenomenon is known in Hebrew, Arabic, English and other languages. In Quran, the same pattern is seen many times. For example, God says in the holy Quran:

[ We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). ]15:9.

In the English translation of the Bible, you read, “Let us make man in our image”-Genesis 1:26-KJV.

The word Allah is used in all Arabic translations of the Bible. It was used in some English translations of the Bible like the original “Scofield Reference Bible”-reference: what is his name? by Deedat. In the New Testament, Jesus is believed to cry before his death “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” Eloi is the exact Arabic word “Elahi” which comes from the same root as Allah.

I have no doubt that the word “Allah” is the oldest known name man called God with. For those who choose to ignore this fact and transgress, Muslims have nothing to offer. Allah says in the holy Quran:

[If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers.] 3:94

For Muslims, Allah is perfect. He has no partners. We worship Him and Him alone. Our faith is summarized in the holy Quran:

[Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.]112:1-4

If your last comment was about my statement that “God of the Bible” /= “Allah,” that comment was made in the context of a discussion regarding Muslims. It makes sense that an Arabic-speaking Christian would use the Arabic word for God to mean “the triune God fully revealed in Christ.” People can use the same word, pour very different meanings into it, and be talking about different things.

If your last comment wasn’t about my “Allah” statement, then please disregard.

Some Christians resist and continue practicing their religion, worshiping God as they have always done. They stand up against years of persecution, trials and martyrdom. Years later the dualists claim that the [consistent] Christian use of the word “God” is idolatry, since it gives yet another reason to attack.

Across the sea some other Christians who’ve been calling God “Jehovah” and, whose only “trial” involves waking up at 9am to go to church for an hour on Sunday, now criticize the American Christians for capitulating to the dualists. “How dare the Americans not give up their use of the word ‘God’ now that the dualists have sullied it.”

I think in this case it is perfectly acceptable for these Christians to call God “Allah”.

No, you still misunderstand the point of that example. Nothing about that example’s relevant turns on “God = Allah” or the other identity you proposed, and I never suggested those as part of that argument. All that matters on this point, and all the water-H2O argument is showing, is that your argument uses a substitution of identically referring terms (which are “God” and “Christ” – and I know, if I know anything, that you believe that Christ is God) in an intensional context. And that makes it a fallacy. So when you say things like, the Jews don’t believe in Christ, but Christ is God, therefore they don’t believe in God, that’s a fallacy.

As for the Scriptural points, I agree that we’re at an impasse. The question is whether the rejection of Christ is sufficient to make it the case that the God Jews worship is not God at all. I don’t think it is, precisely because though Christ’s coming is indeed the definitive revelation of God, it doesn’t contradict God’s prior revelations, but rather fulfills them. And that being the case, if a Jew worships and has in mind the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that’s still God he has in mind. I suppose you would say he doesn’t really have the God of Abraham in mind, though he thinks he does. I think we’re both agreed that’s a bigger Scriptural argument than can be handled in this forum.

Now that Christ has come, Jesus has made it clear that anyone who rejects Him rejects the Father, does not have the Father, does not know the Father, is under the wrath of the Father, is condemned by the Father, will be denied by Christ before the Father, etc., etc.

I just want to make it clear that I agree with this. I don’t think it follows that they’re ipso facto idolaters. Rejection by God is not just for idolatry.

And finally, as for the motivation, I think it’s just to be accurate when making charges of idolatry. I should think that’s a pretty good motivation, even if it’s not as significant as who’s worship is accepted by God.

Yes, my point exactly about H2O and H2SO4. Which is also the case with all who deny that Christ is God. They are denying the central and ultimate revelation of God regarding Himself, and in doing so they are no longer worshiping God. Even demons are monotheists (see James 2:19) – so what?

Jews received revelation from God. He told them who He was, even before Christ came.

If it were still B.C., you’d have a point. Now that Christ has come, Jesus has made it clear that anyone who rejects Him rejects the Father, does not have the Father, does not know the Father, is under the wrath of the Father, is condemned by the Father, will be denied by Christ before the Father, etc., etc.

So the answer is pretty simple.

Finally we agree.

I agree that we’re talking past each other.

I’ve tried to point out why your argument doesn’t hold from Scripture. In your example, yes, there’s a fallacy because Mark Twain = Sam Clemens. But as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, “God of the Bible” /= “Allah” or “(the Father – the Son).” The formal equivalence you’re assuming is what’s at question (and in fact I believe I’ve shown from Scripture not to exist), so your charge is groundless and your argument fallacious.

Additionally, I’ve given you multiple texts, one or two of which you’ve actually addressed. The one text which is alleged to support a “deficient worship” view of Muslims and Jews, John 4:22, I’ve pointed out is irrelevant because Jesus is there presenting himself to those who have not heard of him. It does not go to the issue of those who formally reject Christ. If the Samaritans reject Christ, then they, along with Muslims and Jews, remain in the state Christ and his apostles clearly describe. I can’t make it any more clear from Scripture that to reject the Son is to reject the Father, to not have the Son is to not have the Father, to deny the Son is to deny the Father, to not honor the Son is to not honor the Father, to be opposed to God, to be condemned, to remain under God’s wrath, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

I don’t understand the motivation behind the insistence that Muslims and Jews worship the God of the Bible in the face of overwhelming Scriptural evidence to the contrary, but I think your argument is with Jesus and his apostles, not me.

You have some fun playing around with what I said about something “working.” But as to the substantive point, you are saying that if I’m right, then everybody who worships a god must be worshiping the true God, since He’s the only one. Actually, I think you’re onto something important here. There is sort of a slide from worshiping God deficiently and worshiping something other than God. Blasphemy can indeed slide into idolatry. How to draw a bright line? I’m not sure there is one, and that’s not because I’m a wishy-washy Christian, it’s because if you believe more and more false things about any object, eventually you won’t be talking about that object at all. That holds true for all things we can name. So someone who thinks that God is the Creator of the world is on the right track as far as that goes, but might also think that God is some statue passed down by his tribe. Well, that’s certainly idolatry, but there’s still a shred of truth there.

I guess the take-away point from your remark is that it’s not enough just to say that God is the only god – if that were sufficient then it would be impossible to be an idolater. I think you’re right about that, and if I suggested that it was sufficient to say that God is the only god, then I retract that.

But I think there is a line that can be drawn between Jews (and perhaps Muslims, depending on their relationship to the faith of Abraham) and other non-Christians, and it’s not arbitrary at all. Jews received revelation from God. He told them who He was, even before Christ came. So the answer is pretty simple.

Sorry, the “maybe” stuff was argumentative habit, not an expression of doubt as to those claims. I don’t doubt those claims. I’m a Catholic, and I don’t know if we would see completely eye to eye on the doctrine about salvation, but I’m really not meaning to argue about that at all, and I don’t think that’s crucial to our discussion. However, I fully admit that the “maybes” were misleading. If there’s something I’m doubtful about in that neighborhood, it’s the theological significance of the continuance of the Jews after the Incarnation. That’s probably just because I’m kind of ignorant about that. I suspect that made you a little upset at the outset of my comment, because as for the rest of my post, you seem to have completely misunderstood it.

You’ve totally missed the point of my example with the water and H2O, and I’m starting to wonder whether it’s really going to help to go through this again. No, it has nothing to do with “water” and “agua,” and the fact that you think it does confirms my judgment that you have never understood the point about language and the kind of fallacies possible in certain contexts. It’s not an analogy, it’s an example to show that your argument form is invalid. If you are serious about wanting to engage or understand that point – which you have no obligation to be, but if you aren’t I will stop forcing it on you – then I suggest, again, trying to put your argument into a form that’s not the same as fallacious examples like this:

Jews don’t believe that Samuel Clemens wrote Tom Sawyer.
Samuel Clemens is Mark Twain.
Therefore Jews don’t believe that Mark Twain wrote Tom Sawyer.

It’s a fallacy, ok? That means that it doesn’t establish the conclusion – not at all. And it remains a fallacy even if you substitute other terms for the names and terms here. Let me make the similarity more clear, if possible.

Replace “Samuel Clemens” with “Christ”. Replace “Mark Twain” with “YWHW.” Replace “wrote Tom Sawyer” with “is God.”

Thus:
Jews don’t believe that Christ is God.
Christ is YWHW.
Therefore Jews don’t believe that YWHW is God.

You have made that argument multiple times in this discussion. An argument of that form shows absolutely nothing. And it has nothing to do with “water” and “agua”. It’s an invalid form of argument – no matter what terms you use, the premises don’t imply the conclusion.

Since Jews and Muslims have rejected Christ, I am still at a loss to understand who is the God — who is not Christ — that they worship.

Focus on the “who is not Christ” part. I have to ask whether you even read the last part of my last comment. Honestly, I said very clearly that we shouldn’t accept the word of Muslims and Jews when they say they worship a God who is not Christ. How could I could say that more clearly? They are simply wrong. They think the God they worship is not Christ (of course!), but they’re wrong. You may disagree, but at this point you are not responding to my arguments at all. Nothing you say justifies the presumption that Muslims and Jews are correct when they say the God they worship is not Christ. Of course they think that, but they’re wrong. Maybe you can tell me why you think they’re right? (Using a non-fallacious argument, that is.)

Your other main strand of argument, which is much better than the foregoing one, is that Jesus simply says it. It seems like your best text so far is John 4:24: “those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” But possibility and permissibility are not always the same thing. Is Jesus saying, “those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth, otherwise they aren’t worshiping Him at all, in any way”? Or is He saying, “those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth, otherwise they incur the wrath of God and are rejected by Him.” Your quotations seem to suggest the latter, actually, which favors my position rather than yours.

I think those are the two main arguments you have: the fallacious one, and the direct one from Scripture. The former is fallacious, the latter confutes permissibility with possibility. I don’t know if I can persuade you regarding the Scriptural point, but at this stage I’d be pretty happy if I could successfully convey to you why the first argument is a fallacy, and get you to stop using it over and over again.

Look, I’m happy to continue the discussion, because I think it’s worthwhile and you’ve brought up some important texts from Scripture that bear on the question. And I don’t mind vigorous argument and even a little heat. But I honestly don’t think this will do anybody any good if we don’t make an attempt to follow each other’s arguments.

Your argument seems to be, “We say ‘water,’ they say ‘agua,’ but there’s no real difference. It’s still water.” We’re not talking about water, but a person with whom one may or may not have a relationship and may or my not actually know.

For your argument about H2O to be right, it would have to be true that it doesn’t matter what we call God or believe about Him because it doesn’t change his nature. To you your analogy, what’s really happening is that someone has been shown H2O, told what H2O is, and chooses instead to reject your “version” of H2O and instead drink H2SO4, claiming that your knowledge of H2O is wrong and theirs is right.

But assume your argument is right. Why draw the line at monotheism? By your argument, everyone is worshiping the God of the Bible, because there is no other god. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, ex-Christians, agnostics, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus — they may deny that water is H2O, but there’s only one water, right? So if it “works” for them, that’s what matters.

The fact that the Muslim and you can’t both be right doesn’t mean you can’t both be talking about God … since they are also worshiping in response to God’s true revelation to Abraham, Moses, etc., they are in fact worshiping nobody other than God.

Actually, Jesus’ own words seem to force us to that conclusion. Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that the time has now come that those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Since Jews and Muslims have rejected Christ, I am still at a loss to understand who is the God — who is not Christ — that they worship.

In rejecting the Son, they reject the One who sent him. The Father “has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father” (John 5:22-23). According to Jesus, they are condemned, and God’s wrath remains on them (John 3:18, 36). Anyone who denies Christ is a liar, an anti-Christ who denies both Father and Son and has neither (1 John 2:22-23). One simply cannot divide the Trinity, accepting the Father but rejecting the Son and Spirit. Such people are not co-religionists, but “cut off” from God and “enemies for the sake of the gospel” (Romans 11:17, 28).

You’re right at least when you say this is monumentally important. But then you write, “As to how that worship benefits them, I don’t know … Maybe it’s to no avail. Maybe it doesn’t benefit them…”

Maybe attempting to worship God while rejecting Christ is to no avail? Maybe it doesn’t benefit them? What do you suppose God has to say to those who would reject His Son and try to come before Him on their own? (see Matt 22:1-14 or Luke 20:9-19 or Psalm 2:12). If you’re not sure about those propositions, we’re definitely farther apart than I supposed, and I’m not sure there’s much common ground for further discussion.

The problem with your argument is that you put most devout believers in a god in a situation where they are accidentally believing in Christ.

You still haven’t dealt with Romans 10:13-14

““Whoever will call on the Name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?””

So, in your scenario, how WILL they call on Him on whom they have not believed?
And, if you’re saying they believe by accident (wanting the Creator’s forgiveness and not knowing who the Creator is), how WILL they believe in Him whom they have not heard?

Paul leaves no room there for accidental Christianity.

I’m completely in agreement that to worship God without acknowledging Jesus is to worship wrongly.

As to how that worship benefits them, I don’t know. I honestly don’t. Maybe it’s to no avail. Maybe it doesn’t benefit them, but testifies to God’s faithfulness? But it’s worth being clear about it for our own sakes, I think. My concern is just that we don’t attribute idolatry where it’s not warranted.

Jeff,

I completely agree that it matters to God how we worship, and that everything is not ok for non-Christians just because they still worship or acknowledge the true God in some fashion. I completely agree.

Is blasphemy the same as idolatry? I didn’t think so, but I could be wrong. On the face of it, blasphemy is precisely what it is because it says something false, irreverent and terribly wrong about God, not about something else. You seem to leave no room for blasphemy that’s not idolatry, but that’s got to be wrong.

My point is that anyone who knowingly rejects Jesus as Lord, God and Savior and continues to insist that he is worshiping God cannot be worshiping the God of the Bible. It is a God of his own invention. “I worship God, but Jesus is not God” does not work.

As far as Romans 1:20, keep reading the rest of the chapter. Heck, read all the way to Romans 3:21. What do we do with the limited knowledge of God we have? We ignore and pervert it to our guilt. Again I ask, on what basis may anyone approach God in worship? Any God that can be approached outside of Christ is not the God of the Bible.

To the first paragraph: this is the same fallacy again. My son knows that he drinks water, but denies that he drinks H2O. That “works” just fine. He’s wrong about something, just as the Jew is wrong about something (important!), but the proper conclusion is NOT that he doesn’t know that he drinks water. He does know that. Here’s a challenge: put your argument in that paragraph into a form that doesn’t have the same fallacious structure as that example. You’ve made the argument many times and in many contexts, but as long as it relies on that structure, it’s still a fallacy.

(Your last response to Craig is shot through with that kind of argument. The fact that the Muslim and you can’t both be right doesn’t mean you can’t both be talking about God – any more than the fact that my son and I can’t both be right about H2O means that we’re not talking about the same water.)

As to the second paragraph, I don’t really disagree with most of it – but for the last sentence, it seems to me you’re confusing possibility with permissibility. When you say that only in Christ can one approach God in worship, you can mean that God accepts, approves of, or listens to worship only if it’s worship through Christ – fine. But your argument needs more than that – you need it to be strictly impossible (not just impermissible or blasphemous or unpleasing to God) to worship God at all, in however perverted a fashion, without acknowledging Christ as God. As I’ve said before, part of the difficulty here is that it seems impossible for there to be blasphemous worship of God – you seem to think it wouldn’t be worship at all. I don’t think that’s justified, and you’ve admitted that there can be deficient worship in general. Sometimes we use worship as a “success term” – to be worship it has to be good worship or acceptable or proper worshp. But that’s not the only way we use the term (and the words matter!) – and it’s not the only way Jesus uses the term either. Sometimes worship is blasphemous, but that doesn’t always mean that it’s worship of something other than God.

————————
Ok, backing up a little, I think I have a better grasp on where you’re coming from now – try this out:

Here is a valid argument that you seem to be making:

Jews and Muslims worship a God who can be approached without Christ.
The true God can’t be approached without Christ.
Therefore Jews and Muslims don’t worship the true God.

The problem is the first premise. They claim that they worship such a God, but they don’t, because there isn’t any such thing. And since they are also worshiping in response to God’s true revelation to Abraham, Moses, etc., they are in fact worshiping nobody other than God. They are wrong in thinking they are worshiping a God who is not triune. They are wrong about what and who it really is they are worshiping. And again, there is nothing contradictory about that – nothing whatsoever. All the attempts so far to derive some absurdity have been fallacious arguments.

You can use the hypothetical, to be sure:

“If your God is not Christ, then you’re not worshiping the true God at all.”

This is a point worth making, and I am not in favor of skating over this in the name of inter-religious dialogue, etc. So I’m with you there, one hundred percent. Let me repeat – this is a real disagreement, with real and unimaginable significance. IF they’re right about the God they worship, then they’re not worshiping anything but an idol. But the crucial point is that the “if” part of that hypothetical is false – they are simply wrong about that! You want to accept that they know what it is they’re worshiping, but why accept that? Why on earth should any Christian accept that? If you accept that, you have to say not only that they’re idolaters, but that they know that the God they worship is a product of their own imaginations! That’s absurd.