Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God?

Some time ago, I had written a post regarding the Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam, dealing with the Catechism's statements on whether or not Muslims are fellow worshipers of the true God of Abraham. Since then, I've come across many people (mostly Roman Catholics) who continue to say that they, and Jews, do worship the same God as Christians. Mostly they will try to rationalize an argument in order to say this (and we will get to some momentarily) - however, the question ultimately boils down to this question: how do all three religions treat God the Son, aka Jesus Christ?

We must remember that Christians uphold God as a Trinitarian God. That is, God is one Being, made up of three co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal but distinct Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, it must be noted, is not Tritheistic with three separate gods, but rather each Person, while being distinct, represents the fullness of God. This is seen in scripture, where in Christ it is said "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God the Son, while being distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, still represents the fullness of God. Christ was not one third of God (which is tritheism), but he was God the Son made flesh.

Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, believe in a Unitarian God. That is, God is not one Being found in three distinct but equal Persons, but rather one Being and one Person. On this basis alone, we can see that the Christians worship a God that is already very different than the Jewish and Islamic gods. To Jews and Muslim, God is not a Trinity, and therefore they would deny not only the Messianic status of Christ (for the Jews) and the deity of Christ (for the Jews and Muslims), but they would deny, and reject worship of, God the Son.

What does scripture say about those who deny God the Son? The overall teaching of scripture is that those who deny the Son are denied by the Father as well. Christ stated that those who denied him before men, he would deny them before his Father (Mt 10:33). He told the unbelieving Jews: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:19); and likewise, "If God were your Father, you would love me" (Jn 8:42). He told the disciples: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and likewise, "Whoever hates me hates my Father also" (Jn 15:23). The apostle John put it in the most blunt manner when he wrote "no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 Jn 2:23). According to the resounding testimony of scripture, those who deny God the Son and reject worship of him reject worship of the true God. Why is this? It is because, as God the Son represents the fullness of God, denial of one Person of the Trinity is denial of God in toto. Those who choose not to worship one Person of the Trinity refuse to worship God in toto.

Many will of course try to rationalize out of this. Some responses to such arguments:

Did the people in the Old Testament worship a Trinitarian God? The fullness of the Trinitarian revelation was not yet given to those under the old covenant, however God still existed as a Trinity, and the people under the old covenant therefore worshiped a Trinitarian God. There are moments in the Old Testament where a pre-incarnate God the Son was even encountered by believers.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew, and didn't he worship as a Jew? Didn't he pray to YHWH, just as the Jews today do? Such questioning, in fact, is ironically similar to arguments made by Muslims against the Trinity (ie., "If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?", etc.). That Jesus lived under the Mosaic Laws is, of course, clear to be seen in scripture, but this was out of the necessity that, as the perfect sacrifice before God, he live post-incarnation as the perfect man, and therefore had to fulfill the Mosaic Law and all it required. Yet if we ask then, whether or not he prayed to YHWH, we have to first realize we are heading down a dangerous road, theologically speaking. That is, we have to ask if we are suggesting that Jesus prayed outside his role in the Trinity? When Jesus prayed, it was the Son praying to the Father - Jews of today do not have this ability. We have to also remember that Jesus, as God the Son, was himself YHWH - those who have evangelized to Jehovah's Witnesses realize how important it is to prove that the holy name of God was attributed to Jesus Christ. To be certain, those who argue "Jesus was Jewish" are simply giving a non sequitor.

Don't Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham? Let's first ask ourselves from where Islam came - to put it bluntly, it was from a false prophet in ancient Arabia who heard demonic lies in the desert. The god of Islam taught his people teachings so woefully different than the God of Christianity that, on this basis alone, one has to wonder how one can logically conclude the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same God, as God would not contradict himself in such a blatant manner. Simply claiming that you'd like to worship the God of Abraham does not automatically mean you are - I could claim my car was the God of Abraham and worship it, that wouldn't mean I was worshiping the same god as that of Christians.

Scripture says rejection of the Son will lead to rejection by the Father, but it says nothing for those who simply don't know any better. Where, however, in all of scripture is this such a distinction made? Such a question demands we find a gray area where the word of God sees only black and white. I am aware there are many pet verses taken by people out of context to prove inclusivist beliefs, therefore I might direct the rest of this conversation to this post.

More importantly, all of these arguments ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Those who forsake the teaching of scripture for human reasoning in essence forsake God's authority for the authority of man. Especially with Roman Catholics, who are fond of opening up arguments on this subject with "The pope said..." or "My church says...", they seem to unwittingly desire to quote a pope or church over and against the words of scripture. I'm sorry, but scripture trumps any words of man.

It must be noted here, as we conclude this post, that we should still witness to and pray for our Jewish and Muslim friends. They must hear who the true God is, and be invited to worship Him, for only God the Son can purify them of their sins and be made righteous before God the Father, sanctified and sealed by God the Holy Spirit. God bless.

Loyalty towards Christ

I think it's safe to say that Jonathan Edwards was neither a universalist nor an inclusivist.

Christ came into the world to engage in a war with God's enemies, sin and Satan; and a great war there is maintained between them; which war is concerning us; and the contest is, who shall have the possession of OUR HEARTS. Now, it is reasonable under these circumstances, that we should declare on whose side we are, whether on Christ's side, or on the side of his enemies. If we would be admitted among Christ's friends and followers, it is reasonable that we should profess we are on the Lord's side, and that we yield OUR HEARTS (which the contest is about) to him, and not to his rivals. And this seems plainly to be the design and nature of a public profession of Christ. If this profession is not made, no profession is made that is worth regarding, or worth the making, in such a case as this is, and to any such purpose as a being admitted among his visible friends. There is no other being on Christ's side, in this case, but a being so with an undivided heart, preferring him to all his rivals, and renouncing them all for his sake. The case admits of no neutrality, or lukewarmness, or a middle sort of persons with a moral sincerity, or such a common faith as is consistent with loving sin and the world better than Christ. He that is not with me (says Christ) is against me. And therefore none do profess to be on Christ's side but they who profess to renounce his rivals. For those who would be called Christians, to profess no higher regard to Christ than what will admit of a superior regard to the world, is more absurd than if a woman pretending to marry a man, and take him for her husband, should profess to take him in some sort, but yet not pretend to take him in such a manner as is inconsistent with her allowing other men a fuller possession of her, and greater intimacy with her than she allows him. The nature of the case, as it stands between us and Jesus Christ, is such, that an open, solemn profession of being entirely for him, and giving him the possession of our hearts, renouncing all competitors, is more requisite in this case, than a like profession in any other case. [from Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Christian Church]

Law, Righteousness and Salvation

Perhaps some of the main differences between universalism (everyone goes to heaven), inclusivism (some non-Christians will go to heaven) and exclusivism (salvation in Christ alone) rests both in the place of God's Law and Christ's Righteousness.

I created a diagram to explain this further:

Universalism excludes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. Some universalists might argue that Christ's righteousness covers mankind in toto and for this reason all go to heaven, but this contradicts the teaching of scripture that eternal life is dependent upon belief in Christ (John 3:16). Some universalists will likewise propose some level of God's Law - or at least some social standard for individuals to follow. The problem with this is two-fold: 1) it is no longer a standard of righteousness, but rather a therapeutic moral code of ethics; 2) the idea of a consequence-free afterlife makes any reason for morals in this life absolutely senseless. That is, why avoid being a Heinrich Himmler and shoot for being an Oscar Schindler if both Schindler and Himmler will, in the end, both be in heaven?

Inclusivism might include God's Law, but does not depend on Christ's righteousness. It recognizes that God has a standard and a set rule of morality and ethics, but that nothing else is needed of others to obtain salvation. If a person is "good," then it is possible for them to be considered saved and enter into heaven upon death. Therefore, whereas inclusivists may follow through the works of the Law, they will stop short at the righteousness of Christ. However, this seems to forget that "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), and that all our good deeds "are like a filthy garment" (Isa 64:6). The point of the Law is to "shut up everyone under sin," so that none may consider themselves righteous before God, and "so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal 3:22). As "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), there is none on earth who is without need of Christ's righteousness. Some inclusivists might argue that God may choose to bestow His righteousness upon unbelievers by His own mercy, but this thinking suffers in a few points:

1) No where in scripture does it say God has any obligation to save anyone outside of faith. Bringing unrepentant sinners into a state of repentance is enough of a sign of His mercy.

2) This ignores the constant teaching of scripture, which states that it is in faith by which we receive our righteousness. Those outside of faith are condemned already because they are outside of faith and still live in their sins (cf. John 3:18), and it is only "those who are in Christ Jesus" who are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1). Righteousness is given through faith, and the righteousness of Christ is solely conditional upon faith.

Exclusivism includes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. We are saved by Christ alone for the glory of God alone. This salvation is based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is that righteousness "apart from the Law," which is only "through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Rom 3:21-22). Christ told His followers:

I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. [John 15:5-6]

Man left on his own is helpless without God. No one will be in hell simply because they did not meet a set of beliefs - but rather, they will be in hell for their sins. However, with Christ, the sacrifice for our sins and the only righteous man to ever live, we are able to stand before the Father and be considered sons in adoption.

Of course the world, as a whole, does not care for exclusivism, as the very name sounds like something with prejudice or bias. The world at large wants us to believe in universalism, whereas most liberal Christians think only someone with a closed mind would reject inclusivism. Nonetheless, exclusivism is simply another word for the biblical teachings of salvation. Many times in Acts and the epistles, salvation is always conditional upon the words "in Christ." Always, always "in Christ." There is no other way to describe the focal point of salvation except "in Christ."

Scriptural Examinations of Inclusivist Proof Texts

Before we begin, it might be best to present some definitions of what we're talking about. Inclusivism might be differentiated from universalism in the sense that whereas universalism teaches that everyone will be saved outside of faith in Christ, inclusivism teaches that at least some might be saved outside of faith in Christ. Admittedly, I have, in the past, been confused over the difference between the two, but recently have come to a better clarification between them (with a special H/T to Kevin over at Wesleyan Arminian).

All the same, I cannot say that I could ever consider myself an inclusivist because of the testimony of scripture in this regard. However, I thought, for the sake of discussion, it would be worth touching on some of the passages popularly used to support inclusivism.

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." [Luke 12:47-48]

This is a popular one to be cited by inclusivists. The argument is that while the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready (the inference being unrighteous Christians) will get many lashings, the slave who did not know his master's will and was not ready (the inference being righteous non-Christians) will receive but a few.

I personally cannot comprehend why this is used to support inclusivism. Those who argue that the second servant received fewer lashes than the first seem to forget one important thing: both servants still got lashes. They were both punished. To say that one received a few lashes doesn't had the fact he was still lashed. Christ even says that he "committed deeds worthy of a flogging." To say that because one servant received less lashings means there is no eternal punishment for some people is like Rob Bell's argument regarding Capernaum and Sodom.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." [John 3:17]

The belief here is that this passage is saying that the Son is not here to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. However, those who might say this opens the door for inclusivism forget what follows:

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [John 3:18]

When Christ says "God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world," that does not mean there isn't any kind of judgment taking place. The Son does not have to judge - we are all already under condemnation. No one goes to hell because they don't believe in Jesus - they go to hell for the righteous judgment of their sins. It is Christ who saves us from that hell.

Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." [John 9:40-41]

The idea of using these verses is that Jesus says "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - hence it is perceived by some that those who are spiritually blind are excused.

The problem is that this is placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable. These verses come on the tail end of the story of the man born blind, who was healed by Christ, interrogated by the Pharisees, and eventually kicked out. Christ had just stated: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (v. 39). The Pharisees, who had condemned the man born blind, hear this and ask if they are also blind. Christ states, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - meaning the specific guilt of rejecting him as they were - but "now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ's own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.

The verses are not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32]

I've already touched on this passage in greater detail on my post regarding John 6:44, but will touch on it briefly here. There are, logically, three ways to interpret this passage:

1) The literal evangelical approach: Christ refers to "draw" as in drawing all men to be Christians in this lifetime. Many atheists and non-Christians interpret it this way in an attempt to show a contradiction in the New Testament. Their argument is that Christ is a failed savior since it's obvious that not all men have been drawn to Him, and millions upon millions have died in unbelief.

2) The universalist approach: Christ means He will literally draw all men to Him in salvation, so that all men literally will be saved on the day of judgment.

3) The ethnic approach: Christ refers to "all men" in regards to both Jews and Gentiles. This was (as I mentioned in my John 6:44 post) the opinion even of many past synergistic theologians (John Wesley, Adam Clarke) as well as Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact). More importantly, it comes from the original scripture reading, where Christ is approached by a group of Gentiles desiring to see Christ (v. 20-21) - in the end, Christ never sees them (v. 36). This was because the time of the Gentiles had not yet come. It would be after the resurrection that the gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 28:19), and then would Christ truly draw all men - not just Jews, but Gentiles as well - to Himself.

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." [Acts 10:34-35]

This is another popular passive for inclusivists. However, saying this teaches inclusivism is problematic with what is said:

...God is not one to show partiality... - The immediate context is in regards to Jews and Gentiles, not personal faith. Peter is saying that God shows no partiality between ethnic groups. Keep in mind this is said in the context of Paul learning of the faith given to Cornelius (v. 3-5), and the vision Peter had regarding the "unclean" animals (v. 9-16). At the time of Christ, many Jews of that time held such a poor opinion of Gentiles that many refused to even pass through their towns or neighborhoods, let alone interact with them. Peter's realization here is that God shows no partiality between a Jew or a Gentile.

...the man who fears Him... - What is the true context of "fearing God"? Is it fearing a vague concept known as "God"? On the contrary, it means - within the context scripture defines it - fearing the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient Israelites were told, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name" (Deut 10:20), and again, "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him..." (Deut 13:4). It was Him and Him alone that they should fear; they were explicitly told "you shall not fear other gods...but the LORD your God you shall fear" (2 Ki 17:37, 39). As religious as a devout Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shintoist may be, they are not fearing the God whom Peter is referring to here.

...and does what is right... - Many will leap to those part and declare: "Aha! 'Does what is right'! This means a good non-believer will probably be saved!" The problem, however, is that this is said alongside with "the man who fears Him." It is not merely "doing what is right" that will win salvation - that is a drum beat many times throughout scripture. It is faith in God which saves, and the works stem from that faith and show its sincerity.

In fact, the inclusivist use of this passage is contradicted by the fact that immediately after this, Peter peaches the gospel to the Gentiles present. Speaking of Christ, Peter says: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (v. 43). Salvation is of those who fear the one true God and believe in His Son.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [Romans 1:20]

Let's look at the full context:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [Romans 1:18-21]

Paul is beginning his attack against the pagan mindset of the world, which will lead into his condemnation of the hypocrisy of devout Jews in chapter two, and eventually the condemnation of everyone in the opening of the third chapter. Paul is not saying, "People see God in everything, so they'll be saved," he's saying, "It's obvious creation has a creator, yet they choose to worship creation instead." This is a statement of condemnation, not inclusivism.

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law [Romans 2:12]

The implication to many here is that this passage is teaching two different standards for how a person will be judged in the afterlife: those who have "sinned without the Law" will be judged without the Law (again, the ignorance clause of inclusivism), whereas those who "have sinned under the Law" will be "judged by the Law."

We have already established that Romans 1 dealt mainly with the pagan mindset of the world. Romans 2 deals with the Jewish believers who assumed that, because they had the Law, they were superior over the Gentiles. Hence Pauls stern warning: "Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3; ESV) This eventually leads to the passage involving the verse in question:

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. [Rom 2:9-13]

Paul's point is not that unbelievers will be held to a different standard - Paul's point here (and in the verses that follow) is that those who live by the Law will be judged by the Law, and those who are outside the Law will perish (note that they are not saved - they perish) without the Law. No one will have an excuse. The Gentile unbelievers from Romans 1 will not be able to say, "Well we didn't know the Law!", and the Jewish hypocrites of Romans 2 will not be able to say, "But we're the Jews! The Law belongs to us, so we should get a free pass!"

This is not about inclusivism, but making it clear that all will be held accountable for their deeds. This will lead to Paul's famous conclusion that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).

[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy 2:4]

This is yet another popular passage to cite for many inclusivists. I'd already touched on this in my review of Rob Bell's book Love Wins (where it was used to support universalism), but I'll touch on it again here.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. [1 Tim 2:1-8]

Paul urges that Timothy lead his congregation in "entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" on behalf of all men (v. 1), specifying "kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). This, Paul says, is "good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (v. 3), who "desires all men to be saved" and "come to a knowledge of the truth" (v. 4). That is, all kinds of men, even those who are kings and those in authority. Christians at that time were living under pagan and unbelieving authorities (as most still do today), and the temptation might be not to pray for them in thanksgiving or petition. Paul's contention is that God desires even such men as these to be saved.

Paul likewise says that there is "one God, and one mediator" between God and men, "the man Christ Jesus," (v. 5), who "gave Himself as a ransom for all," this being "the testimony given at the proper time" (v. 6). "For this," Paul says, he was "appointed a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth" (v. 7). When Paul says "ransom for all," does this mean unbelievers as well? No - for this, Paul says, he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles. As was seen in John 12:32, "all" refers here to both Jews and Gentiles of any profession. 

In summary, this passage is inclusivist in the sense that any person - prince or pauper, Jew or Gentile - can be saved by God...but it doesn't mean that those who die in unbelief will not perish in their unbelief.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 John 2:2]

Ignoring any arguments for particular or general atonement, what is the scriptural basis for the receiving the forgiveness of sins? As we saw with John 3:17, it is saving faith in Christ. It is through this alone that a person is saved. "To the one who does not work," the apostle Paul wrote, "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5).

John Owen once gave this dilemma: if Christ died for all sins of everyone, why aren't all men forgiven; if because of unbelief, are not those sins covered by the cross as well? Many have responded to this by saying that it is scripturally taught that saving faith in Christ is what forgives us our sins, hence our sins are only forgiven at the coming to faith. However, if we open the door for inclusivism, and say that a person is justified despite unbelief, then that is thrown out the window, and John Owen's point still stands. If God can forgive unbelief for subjective reasons (ignorance, being a "righteous heathen", etc.) because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then, following this to its logical conclusion, why aren't all people saved? This kind of argumentation makes inclusivism the camel's nose for universalism.

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands [Revelation 7:9]

Let's review the wording in this passage as we did with the passage from Acts.

...a great multitude which no one could count... - This is merely in reference to the large number of believers. We don't know the number or how many there will be, though God surely knows. This does not mean they believed to other faiths which denied Christ's divinity.

...from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues... - This is inclusive language, though not towards faith. Rather, it is to ethnic heritage, racial distinction and nationality. There will be all kinds of people before the throne of God: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc. There is nothing here to suggest religious or spiritual inclusivism.