“The theological construct represented by the term “Allah” in the Quranic [Koranic] system is deficient and unacceptable. However, the primary issue is not the term. The same name is used by devout Christians and it represents a sound, scriptural view of God. In fact, historically, the Christian use of “Allah” predates the rise of Islam. The missionary task is to teach who “Allah” truly is in accord with biblical revelation.”

Is this what FTME’s testimony does? Fails to do?
Are the above comments theologically acceptable? Unacceptable?

Thanks.

Just trying to test our new commenting plug in. Thank you all for your comments.

Blessings,
Tim

I am just testing our new commenting plug-in. Thanks for your contribution.

Blessings,
Tim

First of all, the Gospel of God is the power of God unto salvation. The genitive of possession is God Himself.

Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

You said, “The Muslim who hears FTME’s “testimony” is still going to hell at the end of the testimony.” I’m sure you realize that it is not FTME’s testimony that will send the Muslim to hell or heaven.

Good grief, this was just a testimony, not Calvin’s or Dr. Yarnell’s thesis on Justification. Nor was it meant to be the Gospel itself.

Second of all, the “40 Days of Purpose” is very offensive to many that read and study the bible. The saddest part of approximately 19 of the days is that it is fiction or ambiguity or lawkeeping (no gospel). Several years ago my mom called me from across the country one day. She said her church had passed out a book for them to read and study. As she began to read it,..it didn’t seem quite right, but she couldn’t put her finger on the problem. I ask her what the title of the book was,…and she said the “40 Days of Purpose”. I simply said give me the contact number for your Pastor, because he probably has not read the book very closely. She did, and as suspected the Pastor had not read the book, but was placing trust in its notoriety. I encouraged him to read the book. Several weeks later the study disappeared.

I honestly do use the “40 Day” book as an example how not to study the bible in our hermeneutics classes.

I didn’t mean to offend those that liked the book. It is not a harsh book to read, it is just tough to dig out the real meaning of the scriptures….on page 325 the author states that he “deliberately used paraphrases in order to help you see God’s truth in new, fresh ways.” That was not comforting to hear, but he was true to his word.

I also didn’t compare the two, I said I liken it to other books (using it as an example) to illustrate how not to study the bible. Similarly, I have used a translation of the Qu’ran for the same purpose to show inconsistencies when compared to the Word of God.

Blessings,
Chris

“There’s no right way to come to the wrong god.”

Beautifully said.

I will pray with you that God will finish the job.

Grace,
Wes

I understand your point. If I say that I believe in god, when in my mind, that god is named “Nebo,” I need more than just understanding how to properly come to him. I’m trying to come to the wrong one altogether. There’s no right way to come to the wrong god.

You write: “Now, if in conversation, my wife asked, “Do you believe in God?” our neighbor may have replied, “Yes, of course.” She didn’t necessarily mean Jesus. She meant some creator of her own making. But my wife isn’t wrong for beginning the conversation there.”

That is an excellent point. It is not wrong to begin there – but I trust your wife will not end there. She will lovingly and graciously lead this other lady to realize that the god of her own making is not really the true God. That is not what FTME is doing. Yes, he will come to present Jesus as Messiah and God (the testimony that started this is simply a pre-evangelistic tool and I think has much value). However, if you read his posts closely you see that he believes they already worship the True God, but incorrectly because they do not come through Jesus. The truth is, however, that Muhammad rejected the gospel – with its presentation of the True God – for a god of his own making. From this rejection has come a new religion into which billions have been deceived. The Muslim doesn’t need just the right Way to god – they need the right Way to the right God.

Again, for me this is not just about particular words. It is about the Being.

Grace,
Wes

Well said. Maybe just a tweak. I, like you, have to speak with a variety of folks, which is why I’ve found this post fascinating. My wife has been building a relationship with a neighbor lady. When they first met, I think she believed in “god.” Now, if in conversation, my wife asked, “Do you believe in God?” our neighbor may have replied, “Yes, of course.” She didn’t necessarily mean Jesus. She meant some creator of her own making. But my wife isn’t wrong for beginning the conversation there. We know what we mean when we say God. I’m afraid some of the arguments here sound like Jehovah’s Witnesses, because they are adamant that Christians are wrong every time we use the word “God.” It’s Jehovah, they tell us, and every other name is idolatry. Well.

Thank you for your patience with me. We had a glorious Lord’s Day service this morning. This evening we are having a missionary from Brazil share with us about the work there.

Contextualization of the gospel message, in my feeble little mind, takes place virtually every time we share the good news of Jesus Christ. True, someone living outside of their native homeland experience additional variables that I do not in my home country – but for most of us, sharing the gospel is not an assembly line process. On a regular bases I am sharing the gospel with native Mexicans, Texan Hispanics (trust me, there different), Anglos, farmers, business people, city slickers, country folks, gang members … etc. I don’t necessarily use a cookie cutter method, but I attempt to meet people where they are.

Two important disclaimers: First, that does not put me on par with an international missionary in my experience of contextualization. I am just trying to express the fact that contextualization is done by most anyone who shares the gospel to one extent or another. Second, I am not opposed to people who use the various evangelistic tools such as EE or Faith, etc. I use them sometimes too – but not every time.

So, the issue for me is not contextualization – the issue is idolatry, and the idea that the god of the Muslim faith is being presented as Yahweh.

Here is the deal (for me anyway). Muhammad encountered both Judaism and Christianity in his search for “God.” If my memory serves me right, he not only rejected Judaism, but also the Christian gospel. He believed they (Jews and Christians) were corrupt in their understanding of “God.” Thus this is not about an “Unknown God” as in Athens, though as FTME points out they teach that allah is “unknowable.” Muhammad took bits and pieces from both Judaism and Christianity and created Islam and its “Allah.” He created a new god – allah – and that is idolatry.

Darby, just because you call your god “creator” and use certain terms from the Bible to describe your god – does not make it the Lord God. (BTW, I am not saying you do, please understand that). I think Chris did a masterful job of explaining this in post #166 when he wrote:

“The Qu’ran uses the word Allah for the God that is attributed to Abraham, Isaac, etc. The God of Abraham is the one true God. Muhammad used the true God deceptively in his crafty design for power (supersyncretism). So the result of his efforts renders his teaching as damning and anti-Christ, destined for the wrath of the true God. Muhammad did not worship the true God of Abraham. He worshipped a god of his own making. The Jewish exodus crowd had a similar situation and fate.”

In your #4 to me last evening you asked about Bel and Nebo – that is exactly what it is. Remember in the OT “Ba’al” was also a common Canaanite name for god – but that didn’t equate him with Yahweh.
Thus, Paul’s message at the Areopagus speaking of the Unknown god to the Athenians is not really applicable when dealing with Islam and allah. The revelation God had given the Athenians through natural means and their consciences is not the revelation of truth that Muhammad had and rejected. The issue for me is not simply the contextualization FTME uses in his presentation. It is that he goes too far in equating the false god of Islam to the true Yahweh of Christ.

Grace,
Wes

To the Three Amigos! (FTME, Abu Daoud and Strider 8-))

You’ll forgive me I trust if I don’t throw up a white flag and start to sing “I Surrender All.”

Grace,
Wes