The Nature of God (Allah) Explained

The Nature of God (Allah) Explained:  

Several attempts have been made to describe the Trinity. The one that I like most is perhaps the analogy of H₂O as an example of how something that is one can be three.

 

Water is composed of H₂O, ice is composed H₂O, and vapor is composed of H₂O. None of these is considered to be separate in essence from H₂O. All are H₂O. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God—that is separate parts; each of them is God. However, keep in mind that we are not capable of describing God, we must allow him to do that.

 

God describes himself in Scripture (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5) as in essence one—yet, we must keep in mind that God is in essence a trinity (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). Just like in essence H₂O is potentially three, water, Ice and vapor, we can easily reason that God is capable of a Trinity of Divine essence.

 

Now, the word Trinity is not found in Scripture, it is only a word used to express what God’s essence is.

Christians do not worship three gods. They worship only one God (Allah) who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are one, so that is why we use the term Trinity to describe who God is.

For example, traditionally Muslims attribute 99 names to Allah to describe Him; yet no one that I know accuses a Muslim of worshiping 99 gods. More specifically, however, Christian scholars, just like Muslim scholars distinguish between the attributes of God and His Divine essence, as I have illustrated above. Christians also ascribe many attributes to God. However, when we Christians refer to The Trinity we do not talking about His attributes—that is, His names or what He is like; but rather Who He is—His Divine essence. 

A man, for instance, is a body, a mind and a soul; but man is not three men, he is one. Similarly, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, that is His essence, just as the essence of man is what man is.  Therefore, we must carefully distinguish between what God is like from who He is.  Christians believe that He is in essence One, just as Muslims do; and that essence is expressed in and through who He is. Stop and think for a moment. Since God is self-sufficient and has never had to depend on anyone or anything for his total existence, does it not seem reasonable to believe that He had the capacity to communicate before creation?

Now, if this is true, then to whom did He communicate prior to the creation? He must have communicated with someone other than His creation. The Bible (the Holy Injil)  and the The Qur’an  clearly tells us that God is the Creator  and that absolutely nothing was created without Him. How then is God complete unless He is fully capable of communicating both within Himself and to us His creation? In regards to what I have just said in the preceding paragraph, consider what both the Bible and the Koran say about God:1.   

The Qur’an recognizes The virgin birth of Jesus was a sign from God. The Qur’an says, "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples." (Qur'an 21:91) So, my question is, “To whom was God referring to when he said, “Our spirit” in the sura 21:91? We know that God is one, so why would he associate himself as “our” spirit?2.    We

Christians believe that when the Bible says that God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1:26) The “let us” is referring to his triune nature.3.   

Jesus said, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9), and ‘I am the way and the truth and the live. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6)4.    Jesus also said that “God is a Spirit’ (John 4:24).

So, we see that God has an essence of three personas—or as some Christian theologians say, persons. However, when we use that word, we do not mean three separate individuals; but three personas, or relationships—He is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we relate to Him as such, that is His essence.

Christians believe that the Father, The Son (Isa) and The Holy Spirit are the Divine essence of God and, therefore, present at creation and could be the only “Our spirit” worthy enough to form a union with God and man.  Could it be, therefore, that God  and Jesus in this instance is the Divine “our” which sent forth their spirit? Why would any creature’s conception be described in this manner unless they were indeed Divine? I am from my father, as was Jesus. I was not created; neither was Jesus. Adam was created from dust, I was not; neither was Jesus. Jesus, came from and was God (Allah). 

John, one of the early disciples of Jesus put it this way in the Holy Bible, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1-2)  It is also very interesting to note that the Qur’an refers to Jesus as a Word from God.

Here is the sura 003.045 translated by three outstanding Arabic scholars:

1. YUSUFALI: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
2. PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
3. SHAKIR: When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).

And, who is this Word? Both the Bible and the Qur’an say that this is Jesus (Isa). It is interesting to note that the Qur’an seems to recognize Jesus as the Christ, which most definitely is to associate Him with Divinity.

So, since this declaration is a fact agreed upon in both the Bible and in the Qur’an, how do we then reconcile this with the contradictions we find in both texts?  Admittedly, we cannot reconcile all of these contradictions, but in this instance, reason alone argues that you cannot have the “our spirit” entering Mary to conceive a child—whom both the Bible and the Qur’an call “the word of God”—without that Word (Isa) being in the form of God. This fact of reason, however, we must accept by faith. So, although, we may not be able to describe God completely we do know that we can relate to Him personally since the Word became flesh and lived among us.

Furthermore, many of us have also experience God’s great mercy in the forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ, the Son or Word of God. Otherwise, how can we say with any confidence that as the Koran states that God is The Most Merciful in Essence, The Compassionate, the Ever Forgiving, or The Loving and the Kind One  unless we have some visible proof that He is. 

Jesus is that proof!

Jesus came as God in the flesh; and, although, he never sinned (which the Koran confirms) and he was willing and did become our Savior by dying on the Cross suffering our punishment for us and was affirmed as such by God the Father when He raised  Jesus the Son from the grave by the power of His Spirit. 

I do trust this will satisfy a curious mind; however, if one wishes to argue, it will be absolutely impossible to convince them.

 

Islam is not an easy push over. Keep up on your apologetics!

Brief on-line seminars by Dr. Harvey Skinner that will prepare you for a thoughtful dialogue or in sermon preparation on the subject of Islam. For access, click on mosque (above)

Caught in the Middle

Anarchism as a political philosophy never made much sense to me until now. I think I finally get it. Anarchist must have a strong faith in fate in a deity or social evolutionary force that directs purpose through chaos. The role of the anarchist is to ferment the chaos. Fate will take care of the rest.

Take the case of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the number two man in Al-Qaeda and self appointed "Emir of Al Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers," i.e. Iraq. Fancy title, I must say. However, be that as it may, why this megalomaniac ever retained a following or gained so much notoriety is beyond a civilized mind to comprehend, unless one understands anarchy as a political philosophy.

And, to understand anarchy as a political philosophy one must enter the spiritual realm, really of the underworld. The Prince of Chaos is, of course, Satan, himself. He is also the anonymously sinister force that encourages and orchestrates these evil agents of death and destruction. In hopes, I believe that eventually his plan will prevail, and he will be able to rule his evil empire.

Unfortunately, America has been caught up in the struggle, and can not see its way clear because of egalitarian principles that refuses to allow evil to be designated as evil, or in simpler terms, sin designated as sin.

It is strange to me why sinister organizations like the Aryan Brotherhood and the Klu Klux Klan can be infiltrated and shut down by Homeland Security, and Islamic extremist are allow free range, as long as they don’t discretely break the letter of the law. My suggestion is that we lock the whole shooting caboodle up, and throw away the keys!

Tough times, call for tough measures. You can not reason with insanity, or tidy up terrorism through political summitry.

Long ago Paul asked “if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for war?” [1 Corinthians 14:8] I think that in the context of the apocalyptic struggle that has gripped the entire world today, that is high time that we as a body of believers sound a clear alarm that calls the church to spiritual warfare against the evil of jihadism and any and all of their silent or vocal sympathizers.

Otherwise, if we do not, chaos and political turmoil will continue. Because if history has taught us anything, it has taught us that evil knows no compromise, whether we are talking about the Klu Klux Klan, the Emporer of Japan, or Islamic extremist, it’s all the same. We must meet determined force with determined force. Otherwise, all that evil needs to survive is for complacent, yet good men to do nothing.

Caught In The Middle

Anarchism as a political philosophy never made much sense to me until now. I think I finally get it. Anarchist must have a strong faith in fate in a deity or social evolutionary force that directs purpose through chaos. The role of the anarchist is to ferment the chaos. Fate will take care of the rest.

Take the case of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the number two man in Al-Qaeda and self appointed "Emir of Al Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers," i.e. Iraq. Fancy title, I must say. However, be that as it may, why this megalomaniac ever retained a following or gained so much notoriety is beyond a civilized mind to comprehend, unless one understands anarchy as a political philosophy.

And, to understand anarchy as a political philosophy one must enter the spiritual realm, really of the underworld. The Prince of Chaos is, of course, Satan, himself. He is also the anonymously sinister force that encourages and orchestrates these evil agents of death and destruction. In hopes, I believe that eventually his plan will prevail, and he will be able to rule his evil empire.

Unfortunately, America has been caught up in the struggle, and can not see its way clear because of egalitarian principles that refuses to allow evil to be designated as evil, or in simpler terms, sin designated as sin.

It is strange to me why sinister organizations like the Aryan Brotherhood and the Klu Klux Klan can be infiltrated and shut down by Homeland Security, and Islamic extremist are allow free range, as long as they don’t discretely break the letter of the law. My suggestion is that we lock the whole shooting caboodle up, and throw away the keys!

Tough times, call for tough measures. You can not reason with insanity, or tidy up terrorism through political summitry.

Long ago Paul asked “if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for war?” [1 Corinthians 14:8] I think that in the context of the apocalyptic struggle that has gripped the entire world today, that is high time that we as a body of believers sound a clear alarm that calls the church to spiritual warfare against the evil of jihadism and any and all of their silent or vocal sympathizers.

Otherwise, if we do not, chaos and political turmoil will continue. Because if history has taught us anything, it has taught us that evil knows no compromise, whether we are talking about the Ku Klux Klan, the Emporer of Japan, or Islamic extremist, it’s all the same. We must meet determined force with determined force. Otherwise, all that evil needs to survive is for complacent, yet good men to do nothing.

Your continued support of this ministry is greatly appreciated!

Ahmadinejad: mad man or master mind?

Comedian Jay Leno recently quipped,

"The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahma-nut job, has arrived in the United States. Did you know he was issued a visa to come here? Isn’t that amazing? You need a visa to get into the United States now, when did they start with that? … You know the interesting part? After he landed, he actually drove his own cab in from the airport."

Well, Mr. Leno, Ahma-nut job, the president of Iran is not! And, for you or me, or anyone else to dismiss him as just another "rag head" is to undermined the seriousness of this man’s ideology.

Nutty, Ahmadinejad is not. Sinister and calculating, yes! But a nut job? Hardly.

In 1976, Ahmadinejad took Iran's national university entrance contests, and was ranked 132nd out of 400,000 participants that year, following which he enrolled in the University of Science and Technology (IUST) as an undergraduate student of civil engineering. Eventually, he took his PhD (1997) from the same university at the campus in Tehran.

Supporters of Ahmadinejad consider him a "simple man" that leads a "modest" life. As president, he wanted to continue living in the same house in Tehran his family had been living in, until his security advisers insisted that he move. As a further expression of his piousness, Ahmadinejad had the antique Persian carpets in the Presidential palace sent to a carpet museum, and opted instead to use inexpensive carpets. He is said to have refused the V.I.P. seat on the Presidential plane, and that he eventually replaced it with a cargo plane instead.

Now, allow me to insert a word of caution to the cynic, I suggest that we take this piousness at face value. He is sincere, dedicated, and on a religious jihad in the truest sense of the word. As further example, it is interesting to note that upon gaining Iran's presidency, Ahmadinejad held his first cabinet meeting in the Imam Reza shrine at Mashhad, an act perceived as "pious".

Now, if you need further help in understanding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, consider these words from the heart of his Prophet, Muhammad, as expressed in the Qur'an:

"When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam." Qur'an:47:4

Now does the July 31st 2009 kidnapping, and hostage of the three American hikers—Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, suddenly make sense and illuminate his stratagem? Listen, once again, to the words of Muhammad, “Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam).” To further elucidate his thinking, consider what author and Middle East authority Joel C. Rosenberg has to say,

"When [Ahmadinejad] addressed the United Nations General Assembly last year [i.e., 2005) he concluded his speech by praying for Allah to hasten the coming of “the Promised One,” the Islamic Messiah also known as the “Twelfth Imam” or the “Mahdi.” When he got back to Tehran, the Iranian leader told colleagues that during his speech he was surrounded by a halo of light, and that for 27 or 28 minutes as he spoke, delegates were so mesmerized by the words Allah was speaking through him that no one blinked. Not once.

In the months that followed, Ahmadinejad made his Islamic eschatology even more clear. He told followers that he believed the end of the world was rapidly approaching, and that the way to hasten the coming of the Messiah was to launch a global jihad to annihilate Israel and the United States. He also told followers that the “Mahdi” is already on the planet, but has not yet chosen to reveal himself. What’s more, Ahmadinejad has said that he has personally been in contact with the “Mahdi” and received instructions from him, instructions that are apparently leading Iran to prepare for an apocalyptic war to annihilate Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it." Joel C. Rosenberg, National Review Online, 9/20/06

Is Armageddon just around the corner? Friends, I have no way of knowing, other than trying to decipher the words of Christ who instructed us with:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door." (Mark 13:28-29)

I for one, want to be ready. But that is not enough. Christ died for the whole world. We must tell them also. If you would like to help click onto the button below:

Dare We Reach Out To Muslims?

2 Corinthians 5:16-19 (NIV)

16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul says in verses 16 & 17,

16 We have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Now, he continues in verse 18 with,

18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world (that is, the Kosmos, the world of human beings) to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

All of this is said against the backdrop of Calvary and The prayer of our Lord recorded in John 17:21 (NIV)

“that all of [the disciples] may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

Now, if we get nothing else out of these verses, certain facts clearly stand out:

This Godly reconciliation is not for Christians only. It is also for Muslims, and those of all faiths, including those who may even embrace atheism.

So, in light of this, I want you to know that today, I come to you with a very heavy heart. Some of the recent incidents that have transpired in the past few days have been very disturbing to me, as I feel they should be to all peace loving men and women regardless of their religious, ethnic, political or religious affiliations.

Two outstanding cases in point are:

1. Pastor Terry Jones’ proposal to burn the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11.

2. And, of course, the controversy over the plan of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to initiated the Cordova Center project near Ground Zero.

I will leave decision to you to decide which of the two have shown more of the spirit of peace and reconciliation. For, I with Paul, have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view. (v. 16)

I do, however, know what my role is—and yours, also; for God has committed to us the message of reconciliation. (v. 19)

So, in light of what God has committed to us, let us briefly consider what this ministry of reconciliation is.

Dr. Malcolm Tolbert in reference to the text has said that Paul attributes his change in attitude to two things—

"First, [God] reconciled Paul to himself through Christ, and second, He gave [Paul] the ministry of reconciliation (v. 18). This is an amazing statement. [In other words, he continues] The reconciled become reconcilers. (Tolbert 1983:68).”

(In passing, it is also interesting to note that Paul is the only New Testament writer to use the noun katallage (reconciliation) and the verb katallasso (to reconcile). The basic idea is to change or make otherwise. I have been told also, that in Greek social and political spheres the term denoted a change in relationships between individuals, groups or nations, while in the religious arena it was used of relationships between gods and humans. Or, in this case, God and humanity.)

So, I think we can safely say that in Paul's writings, God is always the reconciler. Those in need of reconciliation are hostile human beings (2 Cor 5:18-19; Rom 5:10-11). This is the reverse of Hellenistic religions, where it is the human being that seeks restoration of the gods' favor, and also of Judaism, where confession of sin and repentance are the means by which reconciliation with God is sought (as in 2 Macc 1:5; 7:33; 8:29, Vorlander 1978:167).

The initiative now is with God who changes a relationship of enmity to one of friendship. The work of peace within and without is the work of God, who wishes above all that peace will reign supreme within the hearts of men ever where and therefore, we should, as the writer to the Hebrews said,

“Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.” Hebrews 12:14 (NIV)

This peace is accomplished through Christ, that is, through his death on the cross (Rom 5:10).

And, it is thus with good cause that George Kitchin, the great hymnologist could write and we can sing:

"Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim / Till all the world adore his sacred name"

I don’t know what you think of Karl Barth as a theologian, I feel he got one thing right, however; and that is that there is a Christological principle (or as I prefer to call it, the spirit of Christ) at work in the kosmos reconciling mankind to God.

I also found great comfort and reason for a personal optimism when E. Stanley Jones spoke about the prevenient grace at work in all cultures and religions. He, too, was right on this.

Although, Jones was criticized and labeled a syncretist, I do feel he carefully distinguished between the reconciliation principle (or as Barth called it, the Christological principle) at work in Christ with that of syncretism, which is just the opposite.

Reconciliation is not compromise. Reconciliation is good news! The good news of the Gospel. And, that news is that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.

And, that means that in real truth Christ is the answer. This I believe, however, certainly does not preclude making an effort to find common grounds on which we may dialogue for peace, and reconciliation with men of all faiths.

Muslims believe in the unity of God, and so do we. Muslims believe in the Virgin Birth, and so do we. Muslims believe in the original inerrancy of the New Testament, or as they say, the Ingil, and so do we. Yes, even surah Maida 5:72 refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and sura An-Nisra 4:171 refers to him as a messenger from God and His word.

So—to me, at least this gives us a common ground from which we can and should reach out to Muslims—all Muslims, but in particular to men like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf[1] who has initiated the Cordova Center project near Ground Zero and Professor Tariq Ramadan[2] who has long sought a dialogue with the West. Why should I not? God has given me the ministry of reconciliation, and if you are a sincere and informed Christian—whom, I believe you are, it is your ministry also.

Why do I say this? I say this because it is true, and many of these men are sincerely searching for truth.[3]

Does this mean I agree with Muslims theologically, certainly not; but it can facilitate a dialogue and reconciliation in the truest sense of the word—and that is reconcilation between God and mankind.

This is not a statement that I make lightly either.

Since October 2008, and up until now, our at ministry Network211, which I helped build and where I served as Director of Evangelism until I reached manditory retirement age, has seen over 269,445 unique visitors on our Journey Answers website from predominately Muslim nations with thousands either accepting Christ or with questions about Christianity together with hundreds of prayer requests. And, I can remember only one that was hostile.

And, I must be quick to add that each of these responses was the results of a message of love and reconciliation. So, in a practical sense, God has not limited our message of reconciliation to Chirstians only, but to men and women of all faith.

And, how fitting it is today for us to celebrate in fellowship one with another the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the great reconciler.

I wish to close with a quote from Tony Blair, former British prime minister, that my wife brought to my attention as we discussed my message to you today. In a topic entitled, “Why Faith Matters”, he writes:

I remember very clearly what would nowadays be called my spiritual awakening, the moment when faith became something personal to me. Until that day, I had been an extremely lucky child. I had a loving family and a comfortable life, and my father was a successful lawyer.

When I was 10, my father, just 40, suffered a severe stroke and was rushed to the hospital. The doctors were uncertain if he would survive. My mother, trying to keep a sense of normality for her children, sent us to school that morning.

To provide comfort to a frightened and bewildered boy, the head teacher, who was ordained, suggested that he and I kneel and pray for my father's recovery. I knew this was not as straightforward as he thought, and I plucked up the courage to whisper, "I'm afraid my father doesn't believe in God."

My teacher's reply was to make a lasting impression on me. "That doesn't matter," the man said. "God believes in him. He loves him without demanding or needing love in return."

In light of what I have said today, I wish to ask three simple questions of each of us:

Have we stopped evaluating others from a human point of view?

1. Are we willing to commit to our minsitry of reconciliation?
2. Are we willing to allow God to initiate this course of reconciliation?

For we dare not force His hand, or use unethical means to advance our causes.

Build a mosque near Ground Zero? So, what?

By now, most have taken sides on the controversy as to whether the Cordova Islamic Center which includes a mosque (adroitly called a prayer room) should be built near Ground Zero.

Right off the bat, let me concede that Constitutionally, and, yes, legally, the Muslims have a right (including the necessary permission) to build the center near Ground Zero. On the other hand, should they?

The answer is a contorted one, that's for sure.

Of course, the presenting answer is that these peaceful Muslims want to establish an interfaith center for peace, brotherhood, tolerance and understanding.

So far, so good.

However, a couple of question beg for answers; if, indeed, a center for peace is their reason for proposing such a mammoth edifice near Ground Zero. Surely, the imam and his congregation know that the majority of Americans, and certainly the overwhelming majority of those that lost loved ones because of the Muslim terrorist on 911, fiercely oppose the construction of the center.

The question is, “Do these Muslims truly want to promote peace? If so, then is this logically the first step?” Rubbing salt into the emotional wounds of those affected is certainly not promoting peace!

If the peace seeking imam and his followers really want to promote peace, then why do they not offer to negotiate an acceptible site with the opposition. At the very worst it would at least it show good faith.

I, for one, however, am not convinced that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf [left] and those backing the project have clear motives. I base that suspicion on the name chosen for the center. Why is it called the Cordova Center?

Perhaps, a little history lesson will help to answer this question.

Córdoba was the capital of the Spanish Muslim dynasty of the Ummayads (756-1031), and it was during this period that The Great Mosque of Córdoba (La Mezquita) was founded in 785 CE. Further, It is of interest to me, that previously the site had been occupied by a Christian church dedicated to Saint Vincent. Be that as it may, however, The Cordova mosque was added to and expanded over the next two hundred years to make it the third largest structure in the Islamic world. Eventually, by God’s grace, Córdoba was captured by the Christian Spanish king of Castile, Ferdinand III, in the 13th century, and the mosque reverted to a Christian sanctuary.

The Cordova, Spain mosque site, however, has remained a luminary nostalgic symbol ever since for agressive Muslims with spiritual and political hankerings for the good old days when the sword of Islam ruled over the Baltic and most of the lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

And, a center of peace, the Great Mosque in Cordova, Spain, was not.

Furthermore, who can say that this newly proposed Cordova Center (mosque) will serve a peaceful purpose in the future, if and when radical jihadist use this as a sanctuary to hatch yet another 911 under the guise of a center for peace? Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf can not guarantee that. And, that’s for sure. However, in all honesty, and to be fair, these plots can be engineered almost anywhere, and diehard Islamist probably will.

This is one man’s opinion. Now, what’s yours?

Koran vs. Bible Burning

The Reverend Terry Jones, author of a book called "Islam is of the Devil," is also Pastor of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida. As far as I can determine, about the only thing global about the outreach center is his self appointed crusade to rub 911 in the face of Muslims around the globe by declaring September 11th "International Burn a Koran Day."

Most political analysis agree that his timing could not be at a more an inauspicious time. Besides the fact that his tactics are counter productive and blatantly disregard Christ's command to turn the other cheek, this radical act is also scheduled at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are gearing up for a new round of Mideast peace talks.

 (Click Koran for CNN interview with Jones)

Gen. David Petraeus, the man tasked with getting things right in Afghanistan, condemned Jones's proposal and warned of the backlash—which, incidentally has already begun on the streets of Kabul and Baghdad, and I am sure most Middle Eastern and Muslim countries will follow in hot pursuit. General Petraeus further stated that. “Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."

In spite of this caveat by the good general, the mutton chopped pastor, simply licked his mustache and continues with the mission as planned. (And, eventually carried this out, as it was later leaked to the press, resulting in several lives lost in Afghanistan because of his foolishness,)

As far as I can see, Pastor Jones has a lot to learn about the difference between rights and just good common sense. Yes, he has the Constitutional right to burn the Koran, but is it right? He also has the same right to turn the other cheek. That, I submit, as a Christian is the proper thing to do.

Where in Scripture does he find any justification for this radical act? I can think of no reason that he would promote such an activity except to cause conflict and rile a bunch of fanatics into frenzy, besides offending Muslims of a more moderate disposition.

He says he wants to send a message "loud and clear" to jihadist Muslims and their sympathizers that we have had enough; as if the ‘shock and awe’ campaign over Baghdad and the continued war effort in Afghanistan and Iran following 911 were not  message enough.

Unfortunately, missionaries laboring selflessly in Muslim countries will suddenly become convenient targets for radical jihadist to vent their anger on. So, Mr. Jones, instead of burning, may I suggest that you pray? Prayer along with goodwill will do more to spread the Christian message of love and redemption than burning a 1000 Korans—that's for sure!

Now, if we could get Saudia Arabia to stop confiscating Bibles from unsuspecting tourist and burning these, we might be another step ahead in establishing peace between Islam and Christianity.

Well, this is my opinion. I would appreciate reading yours in the comment section below. Thanks for your interest. We covet your prayers and friendship.

What would Jesus have done? Click here to see what Muslims do.

The Old Testament listed adultery as a capital crime (Lev. 20:10). This is horrifying to the modern reader, when it merits no punishment in our society. Though we are no longer under Old Testament civil law, it is defensible--especially when compared to the other ancient Near Eastern law codes. The Mosaic law was very tough on crimes against people, relationships, and the family unit. The other law codes were very tough on property crimes (cut off hands). This difference highlights the different value-systems (things vs. people).

But, we know Jesus took a different attitude. The Gospel of John says,

8:1 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

We have our Christian answer, but what do we do with the rest of the Bible? And, are we right in condemning Muslims for following a custom practices since Old Testament times? I would like your thoughts, as I have some Muslim friends who want an answer.

How Secure Are Our Borders

Islamic terrorists posing as Mexicans are crossing our borders by the scads, and the mainstream media and the Federal Government has apparently put the whole issue on the hush list. Otherwise, how else can we explain why most of us have not heard that there has been a steady flow of jihadists from the Middle East, Somalia, and other Muslim countries entering our borders illegally for at least a decade?

National security is an issue, that’s for sure. However, far more frightening is the number of home grown terrorists that are linking up with these foreign Al Qaeda mercenaries, who are Hell bent (Yes, that is an intentional use of the word) on destroying us and our way of life.

Yet, we seem to be more intent on the ups and downs of the Stock Market, or who wins Dancing With The Starts, or who the new Bachelorette is, then on tracking down these agents of destruction. Mark my word, 911 will pale in sight of what we will experience in the not too distant future. I hope I am wrong; but I doubt that very seriously.

Here are a couple of videos that I would like for you to watch, and give me some feedback on:

Islamic Terror Threat, part one

Islamic Terror Threat, part two



Knowing about the problem, and then doing something about it, however, are two different things. You and I can do very little, other than maintain a sense of alertness and report any suspicious activity we see, including any and all illegals (since we have no way of knowing where they are from, other than they crossed our borders). And, of course, we can contact our elected officials and register concern over the lacksadasial and politically correct attitude of many of our "representatives" on the issue. In any event, we should make this whole problem a serious matter of daily prayer.

So, I close this article with the words of Scripture,

However, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God." Philippians 4:6 (TNIV)

Islam & Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham has been criticized and even barred from speaking at a prayer service in the Pentagon because he said that Islam is an evil religion. Watch what he has to say, then watch the videos below and give me your opinion?

(Warning: Some of the language is rather raw, but I believe they are informative)
Okay For Father To Marry His Own Daughter In IslamChild Sex Normal In Islam and Koran
Now, however, before we pull our sanctimonious robes around our great home of the brave and the free, we need to take a close look at some of the vices that are permitted under the cloak of freedom here. Two wrongs don’t make one right; but it does—or at least it should—cause us to pray as never before that God will bring revival to this great land of ours.   

Franklin Graham on Islam

Franklin Graham Disinvited by Army (4.22.10)

Pentagon Prayer Debate Rev. Franklin Graham Stands By Remarks on Islam

Obama is Giving Islam A Pass! Rev Franklin Graham

Rev. Franklin Graham: "I Said Islam Was Wicked and Evil

Now watch these videos to better understand why he is sticking by his guns on this:

Islam & Sex With A Minor

Brainwashing In Islam

Honor Killing

A Psychiatrist Give Her Opinion Of Islam

What do you think?

Muslim extremism redefined

Right now, whether you know it or not, the Obama administration is busily redefining Muslim extremism. If those in the administration get their way, it no longer will be politically correct to use any of the following words in conjunction with terrorism or extremism: Muslim, Islam, Muhammad, jihad, Koran, or any other word that will tie Al Qaeda or the jihadist in with the Muslim religion. The new term suggested is the word, “Takfirism.”

Now, let me ask you a question, do you have any idea of what the word means? . . . No? . . . I didn’t think so. Neither did I, and I consider myself better informed than the average.

Well, in case, you are interested (and you should be!) “Takfirism” is the practice of Muslim fanatics killing fellow Muslims who disagree with them. In other words, a Muslim fanatic can kill a brother Muslim over a religious disagreement, simply because they consider them apostates. This is why you have Sunnis killing Shiites, and visa-versa, in Iraq and elsewhere.

Of course, I disagree with these Obama revisionists. But, for the sake of argument, let me concede the point. That takes care of Muslims who want to kill Muslims who disagree with them. Now, what about the almost 3,000 non-Muslim innocents slaughtered on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001? The overwhelming majority of casualties were non-Muslim civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.

Who killed those people? Takfirs? I think not. These murders were not out to just to kill non-conforming Muslims. They wanted to kill us—Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, any of the so-called infidels.

Come on now, let’s get serious. These people are Muslim extremists. And, dressing them or their deeds up in all kinds of fancy politically correct words will not change their character or their intention. We had just as soon call Osama bin Laden, Santa Claus, and expect that to change his character, as we have to change the nature of these beast.

So, as long as the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cohorts insists on tar and feathering virtually every Christian on the face of the earth because of the Crusades, and deny the Holocaust, and bow down towards Mecca 5 times a day, I think it is appropriate to call them Islamic extremists.

Dressing up sin and evil in a fancy suit of words only encourages more of the same, in my opinion.

Now, for those who question my attitude towards these extremists allow me to say that I know many peaceful Muslims, who by disposition would not harm anyone. Some of them are my friends. But, in saying so, I must not deny that Islam by its very nature is anti-Christ, for as John writes,

1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." This is someone who denies Christ as the only anointed one and refuses the interrelationship of the persons who are deity.

1 John 4:2-3 "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." Several times this term is used in the plural, and can be applied to almost anyone who is opposed to Christ. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are anti-Christ or of the spirit of antichrist. This is one of the ways to discern a false teacher from a true one.

John is writing after the resurrection and is using perfect tense in Greek which denotes a past action with continuing results into the present, and continuing on into the future. He came in the flesh, rose in the flesh, and is still in the flesh. The same body that He was born and died with, He rose with. If one claims that Christ rose as a spirit creature, and not physically, they are of the anti Christ spirit and are denying the third point of the Gospel. It was the Gnostics that John is specifically addressing in his epistles.

The word Anti can be understood to mean either against Christ or it can also means in place of, a substitute is the fuller meaning. He will be a substitute for the real one. In this way he opposes him. The common use of this title applies to the great world dictator, the last Caesar in the end times. He is Satan's chosen vehicle the beast receiving from the dragon dominion and power (Rev.13:2).

Now, may I ask you, who in history best fits that description? If you answer that question truthfully, then you have identified the False Prophet with the spirit of the antichrist.

Critique: “A Lifelong Journey with Islam,” a Christianity Today article by Chawkat Moucarry

Critique by Jim Roane:

Dr. Chawkat Moucarry has written a thoughtful article and deserves a thoughtful reply; however, since time is limited, I shall simply take certain exemplary excerpts from the article and comment on those.

Chawkat Moucarry wrote,

“I have never understood why some people look at dialogue and mission in either-or terms.”

Jim Roane in reply:

Dialogue is always subsequent to the purpose of mission, and must remain subservient to the truth of a Biblically based and thus a God ordained mission.

For Paul and the other Biblical authors, Truth to them was always God sourced—an encounter with The Divine. Divinity expressed in human language is, however, only descriptive. Words are just that, words. They stand for something; but mere words, even divinely inspired words, only express truth. The succinct source of all truth is the Triune God—the I AM, who has graciously and definitively expressed Himself through Jesus Christ in intention as both Lord and Savior in and for all creation.


For dialogue to remain meaningful, however, mission must embrace the salvic intention of God, to bring all men to himself through Jesus Christ, as we know him from Scripture in kerygma (κήρυγμ). (Ref: Luke 4:18-19, Romans 10:14, Matthew 3:1; Isa 61; Luke 4:17-21).


Paul, for instance—as I have written elsewhere, gave definition to the Agnostos Theos at Athens to express the intention of the Triune God of Scripture and personal encounter, rather than allow the Athenians provide the meaning of God. Perhaps, I am selfish, or uncompromisingly ignorant, but for me, only God can give definition to God or the essence of His creation.


Jesus was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:4) In the spirit of this Scripture, I believe, that godly dialogue is confined to the parameters of the succinct revelatory declaratives of the God of Scripture. In simple English, God alone is capable of telling us who he is. Even in what I call the “aha” moments of the intuitive knowledge of God, God’s grace is at work, enabling us to see; albeit, as with Paul, we now see through a glass, darkly. (1 Corinthians 13:12) But, what we do see is clearly truth. Whereas, to the contrary, the carnal minded, know not the things of God, and that in my opinion, would include the supposed revelations of the Prophet of Islam and his disciples.



Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
In my experience, these words belong so much to each other that they should never be divorced. Evangelical Christians (whose theology I share) have shown an unwarranted suspicion of dialogue, simply because some have used it as a substitute for mission. Not only are the two words compatible, but they must shape each other.

Jim Roane in reply:

With this I disagree. As stated above, dialogue is subservient to the context and intention of mission. Mission is never shaped by dialogue; as this would suggest compromise. Truth can never subjugate to falsehood, no matter how slight or noble the cause.

The end results has been in far too many cases, what I have called hyphenated Christians. Christians that are neither fish nor fowl. Messianic-Christians; Hindu-Christians; yes, even Muslim-Christians who wish to follow Isa, but otherwise, attend the mosque, and  who wish to retain Islamic and cultural practices that are contrary to traditional Christianity and in my opinion the Scripture.

I don’t believe, however, I see Moucarry advocating such a compromise; at least not in this article.


Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
I have always believed in God and Jesus Christ. Growing up in a Muslim-majority society, I knew as a child that I was different, and I gradually realized that this difference implied that I had something precious to share with my Muslim friends.


I was born into a Catholic home and was an altar boy in my early teens. I attended a missionary primary school, which gave me my first opportunity to discuss religion with my Muslim peers. However, my significant conversations about Christianity and Islam started after I moved to a government secondary school, where the majority of pupils were from working-class families. I was surprised to realize that many Muslim schoolmates were very interested to know more about Christianity and Christians. And I wanted to better understand Islam. A unique opportunity presented itself when the teacher of Islamic religious education granted me permission to attend his class. I was the only Christian there. He regularly asked me to give my views as a Christian on certain topics. These discussions extended outside the classroom.


Jim Roane in response:
This is admirable. And, as long as the dialogue is kept open and honest, I see no problem with that.


Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
What is dialogue? Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26) is paradigmatic.


First, Christians and Muslims meet each other as human beings. They have much in common—physical and emotional needs, human and spiritual aspirations, joys and sorrows, hopes and struggles.


Jim Roane in response:
Absolutely. I am in total agreement here.


Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
Second, they meet as monotheistic believers who share many beliefs (for example, creation, human stewardship, divine guidance, sin, forgiveness, final judgment) and ethical values (for example, moral standards, the sacredness of human life, sexual fidelity, a commitment to the poor), even though the way they think of these is not exactly the same.


Jim Roane in response:
One major caveat is that one must not assumed that Muslims share any of our Christian beliefs. Each of the “shared beliefs” mentioned above suffer modification if shared ipso facto simply because in actuality they are not the same since the Allah of the Koran is not the same God as the God of the Bible, at least not in description. As one who has studied Arabic and taught Islam in classes in World Religions on both University and Seminary levels, I can tell you that the word Allah to a Muslim does not mean the same as the word God means to a Christian, or as depicted in the Bible or as defined by the acceptable creeds.


Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
We can measure a fruitful dialogue by its outcomes.

It should result in a better understanding of each other's faith and of one's own.

Dialogue should lead to better relationships between the two communities and strengthen their social commitments.


Dialogue is also an excellent school for tolerance. It helps us overcome our ignorance, our prejudice, our self-centeredness, our fanaticism, and our spiritual pride.


Is conversion a legitimate goal in dialogue? Yes. It is perfectly legitimate for believers who take seriously the exclusive claims of their religion to try to persuade others of the truth they proclaim.


Relating to Muslims Christ's way . . . I would like to highlight some implications of the Golden Rule for Christians who want to engage missiologically with Islam and Muslims.


First, as an expression of loving our neighbors, we must show respect to Muslims and to the heart of their identity—their prophet, their religion, and their scriptures.


Second, we should do our best to be fair. Fairness also requires comparing like with like—for instance, not comparing moderate Christians with extremist Muslims, ideal Christianity with popular Islam, beautiful texts in the Bible with problematic passages in the Qur'an, and so on. Some Christians are often tempted to compare Islamic teaching with the New Testament, which is understandable. However, Christians do not disown the Old Testament, and it would be unfair to ignore the Old Testament when looking at issues such as holy war, polygamy, the penal code, prophethood, and theocracy.


Finally, we need to study Islam and befriend Muslims. . . . it is critically important that we adopt a humble attitude. Some approaches tend to Christianize Islam, others to demonize it. Neither does justice to Islamic teaching, which should be considered on its own merits.

Dialogue is indeed the privileged way of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) to Muslims and members of other religious communities.

Jim Roane concludes . . .

I would agree in essence with the article. He seems to be particularly strong in his relating to Muslims Christ’s way section above. I liked his emphasis on respecting Muslims as human beings, respecting their culture and their religious persuasion.   

Chawkat Moucarry is World Vision International's director of interfaith relations. He has written several books and articles, including The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian's Perspective on Islam and Christianity (IVP, 2001); The Search for Forgiveness: Pardon and Punishment in Islam and Christianity (IVP, 2004); and Two Prayers for Today: The Lord's Prayer and the Fatiha (CSS Books, 2007).

Allah or the Trinity: which shall it be?

Many times, my Muslim friends ask me, "Why do Christians worship three gods?" So, I will attempt to answer that question.

The truth is, Christians do not worship three gods. They worship only one God (Allah) who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are one, so that is why we use the term Trinity to describe who God is.

More specifically, however, Christian scholars, just like Muslim scholars distinguish between the attributes of God and His Divine essence. For example, traditionally Muslims attribute 99 names to Allah to describe His attributes; yet no one that I know accuses a Muslim of worshiping 99 gods. Christians also ascribe many attributes to God; yet, these Divine attributes only flow or emanate from who He is. So, when we Christians refer to The Trinity we do not talking about His attributes—that is, His names or what He is like; but rather Who He is—His Divine essence.

Christians believe that He is in essence One, just as Muslims do; and that essence is who He is. Stop and think for a moment. Since God in essence is self-sufficient and has never had to depend on anyone or anything for his total existence, does it not seem reasonable to believe that He had the capacity to communicate before creation?

Now, if this is true, then to whom did He communicate prior to the creation? He must have communicated with someone other than His creation. The Bible (the Holy Injil) and the The Qur’an clearly tells us that God is the Creator and that absolutely nothing was created without Him. How then is God complete unless He is fully capable of communicating both within Himself and to us His creation?

The answer is, of course, that He is so great and His essence is so unfathomable that we will never be able to fully comprehend or exhaustively describe Him; however, we must be careful not to limit Him, either. Therefore, we must depend on Him to tell us Who He is, even when at first we may not comprehend who He says He is. In the Bible He tells us who He is. He tells us that He is the Holy Spirit; He is the Son, Jesus ; and He is the Father. That is these three are the nature of His (Allah) essence.

Do I understand it? No! But, I do believe it because the Bible declares it. For easy reference, here are some of the verses that declare who God is:

So, we see that God has an essence of three personas—or as some Christian theologians say, persons. However, when we use that word, we do not mean three separate individuals; but three personal relationships. This is simply a way of describing the nature of God’s essence. He is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we relate to Him as such.

The Qur’an also recognizes The virgin birth of Jesus was a sign from God. The Qur’an says, "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples." (Qur'an 21:91)

To whom was God referring to when he said, “Our spirit” in the sura above? Christians believe that the Father, The Son (Isa) and The Holy Spirit are the Divine essence of God and, therefore, present at creation and could be the only “Our spirit” worthy enough to form a union with God and man.

Could it be, therefore, that God and Jesus in this instance is the Divine “our” which sent forth their spirit? Why would any creature’s conception be described in this manner unless they were indeed Divine?

God created Adam, the first man. My father and mother are the progeny of Adam, as am I. Whereas, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and is therefore the progeny of God and his mother Mary. Therefore, Jesus is both the Son of God and the son of man (i.e., a virgin called Mary). This is not a mystery; it is rather a miracle. It is a matter of faith based on a matter of fact.

John, one of the early disciples of Jesus put it this way in the Holy Bible, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1-2)

And, who is this Word? Both the Bible and the Qur’an say that this is Jesus (Isa). So, since this declaration is a fact agreed upon in both the Bible and in the Qur’an, how do we then reconcile this with the contradictions we find in both texts?

Admittedly, we cannot reconcile all of these contradictions, but in this instance, reason alone argues that you cannot have the “our spirit” entering Mary to conceive a child—whom both the Bible and the Qur’an call “the word of God”—without that Word (Isa) being in the form of God.

This fact of reason, however, we must accept by faith. So, although, we may not be able to describe God completely we do know that we can relate to Him personally since the Word became flesh and lived among us. Furthermore, many of us have also experience God’s great mercy in the forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ, the Son or Word of God.

Otherwise, how can we say with any confidence that God is The Most Merciful in Essence, The Compassionate, the Ever Forgiving, or The Loving and the Kind One unless we have some visible proof that He is. Jesus is that proof! He came as God in the flesh; and, although, he never sinned he was willing and did become our Savior by dying on the Cross suffering our punishment for us and was affirmed as such by God the Father when He raised Jesus the Son from the grave by the power of His Spirit.

1. Jesus said, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9), and ‘I am the way and the truth and the live. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6)

2. Jesus also said that “God is a Spirit’ (John 4:24).

Therefore, we must carefully distinguish between what God is like from who He is.