Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Apologetics Open Line

Posted by truthtalklive on August 24, 2007

Topic: Should we call God “Allah” in order to make peace with Muslims? Todays guest host is Alex McFarland www.alexmcfarland.com  President of Southern Evangelical Seminary and he opens the phone lines to take your tough questions. You can also post them right here.

14 Responses to “Apologetics Open Line”

  1. Anonymous said

    Does faith come to us from reading books that purport to demonstrate the scientific reliability of the bible?

    For myself, I have faith despite what science and my own skeptical nature tell me. My faith is in something that can’t be scientifically verified.

  2. Sharon said

    On “What should we call God?” Read Psalm 2.

  3. Omar Reed said

    Even though, in a christian sense, the arabic term for God is allah, but we should not change the name of God to please someone who is in a false religion. God’s nmae is always and will continue to be The LORD. Amen

  4. Joe Hodges said

    are we to belittle the GOD of the bible with a false and deadly religion such as the muslim faith. that saids “befriend your enemy while you’re weak, but when you’re stroug slit his throat. why on GOD’s green earth will you want to call Jesus allah? these people are killing there own. they’re in darkness. pray for them in Jesus name amen.

  5. Anonymous said

    The God of the Bible tells us that anyone who blasphemes His name shall be put to death. So one person’s holy book tell him to behead offenders and the other’s tells him to stone them to death. I guess there’s a difference?

  6. Yes, there is, for the portion of the Bible that tells us this is the portion that constitutes signs and shadows. Christians “stone” those who “blaspheme God” within the covenant community by, when the church discipline process is exhausted and if the person remains unrepentant, putting that person out of the local church and treating him like an apostate, like an unbeliever.

  7. Anonymous said

    Once again Genembridges misses the point.

  8. RaynaRenee said


    1. [10] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

    The scriptures say nothing about Allah. Jesus is the way to the Father. There is no other way except to the Father but by Jesus Christ.

    People are just trying to do away with the name of Jesus. This is demonic.


  9. Me said

    I must have missed the part about doing away with Jesus. I never heard that topic today on the radio.

    I did hear the question about calling God another name such as Allah? My question is why in the world would we do that……..his name is “GOD” and there is no other god but “GOD”, there is only “GOD”!!!!!!! and his name is “GOD”!Allah and Mohammad and whatever else, don’t count……they are not “GOD”!
    Yes, he does mention other names in the bible such as “I AM”, etc. but never Allah. It is my understanding that Allah is a false god and therefore since there is only one “GOD” all the others (if there were other gods, but there aren’t other god’s, there is only one “GOD”) would not be “GOD”! A little redundant I know, just making a point!

  10. kandace said

    There is only one God – Jehovah. There are three manifestations: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit). The name of God is so sacred that the Jewish people who wrote down the very words of God had to change pens at every mention of the name YWVH which is transliterated to Yahweh or Jehovah.

    To Anonymous (Response#1): Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17.

    God’s name reflects His character of holiness and purity. He has granted His blood-bought children the privilege of calling Him Abba or Daddy, which is the most intimate of names.
    However, we must always remember to give Him the reverence, the awe, the respect that He deserves – not only because He is the Creator, but also because of the high price He paid to redeem us to Himself: The price of His only Son’s shed blood on Calvary.

    Intimacy with Him came at a very high price. Let’s enter into His presence with dignity, with humility, and with praise for all that He has done, is doing, and shall continue to do on our behalf.

  11. Once again Genembridges misses the point.

    Once again, Anonymous, misses the point and is all assertion with no argument.

    It would also boost his credibility to do something other than post under “Anonymous.”

    The point of course is that Anonymous’ objection turns on the assumption that what is in the Law is intended to be absolute for all generations of the covenant community. God said this to them. And since Islam makes a similar statement, there isn’t a difference.

    But, of course, this is patently false, for it fails at several points of comparison.

    Islam’s holy book contains strings of sayings without narrative. The Bible gives a narrative so we can see the flow of thought. It also turns on the concept of progressive revelation, where the theology and the practices are fleshed out over time. We can trace this. That’s why both Jews and Christians have a discipline called biblical theology which is built upon exegetical theology.

    Does the Bible say that blasphemy is punishable by death? Yes. Does it therefore follow that this is a moral absolute that is unchangeable in its method of enforcement? No.

    For one thing, that’s a terribly wooden way of reading the Law, not to mention hermeutically naive, for even the Law recognizes that not everything in it is for every generation and without change, for the Law given @ Sinai is not the same as that at the Jordan. The latter is fitted for the people entering the land. The priesthood is given the duty of making decisions based on the moral norms and changing the methods of enforcement over time. They cannot add to the moral principles themselves, however.

    Where God enacts the death penalty for this in Scripture (you know the Pentateuch) the text is addressed to the covenant community. This does not mean that God’s people were to put pagans and infidels who are outside of membership in that community to death. That would be the rule of Islam.

    Rather, Holy War in the OT turns on the putting out of squatters to a land that had already been claimed. The Patriarchs played “plant the flag” in Genesis. The Hebrews are merely claiming what is theirs by right. This has the added effect of being the instrument of judgment upon the pagans, who were committing all manner of idolatry and immorality in that land. Stoning the blasphemer is for those who apostatize within the covenant community itself.

    Not everything in the Mosaic code is a moral absolute. Some Mosaic injunctions exemplify moral absolutes, but others are social conventions, and where they exemplify moral absolutes the instructions, like stoning, are concrete exemplars of an eternal principle

    In any society, to be a functioning society, certain rules must be put in place to regulate social interaction. Some of these rules are arbitrary, like stop signs and stop lights.

    And even as far as moral absolutes are concerned, we need to distinguish between the abstract norm and the concrete ways in which the norm is enforced. There can be more than one way to enforce the same norm.

    For example, the creation ordinances in Gen 1-2 are a set of moral norms, viz. labor, family, Sabbath-keeping, and the cultural mandate.

    But there’s more than one way to implement a creation ordinance.

    Marriage is a creation ordinance, but that doesn’t dictate one particular marriage ceremony.

    Same thing with the Decalogue. In the case of stoning, the Christian is still abiding by the unchanging principle / abstract norm, but he’s doing it by way of a different method.

    So, no, anonymous, these are not the same.

  12. Anonymous said

    My point is that generalizing about one religious group, or one ethnic group based on the behavior of some of it’s members (see post #4) often is a symptom of bigotry.

    You seem to be making the point that because your religion advocates brutality it is OK because…well, because it is your religion and the other guy must be wrong.

    That is why fundamentalism is the true danger to the world.

    Nice post though, Genembridges, and how are your posts less anonymous than mine?

  13. I want to say a big “thanks” to every one who listens to my Friday edition of Truth Talk Live every week! Don’t miss this Friday (September 7) when my guest will be Josh McDowell. Josh has been a leading apologist, evangelist, and defender of the faith for decades. He is one of the keynote speakers for this year’s National Apologetics Conference, coming to up Nov. 9-10 in Charlotte, NC. (Visit http://www.ses.edu for info). Josh McDowell is also on the advisory Board of SES, and shares our vision to evangelize and equip people everywhere to defend the faith. Blessings, TTL family, and thanks again for all of your support and encouragement – Alex McFarland (on the road in Colorado)

  14. Dan said

    Ps 83:18 – “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” (Authorized, or King James, Version of 1611)

    In the Hebrew language it is written הוהי. Called the Tetragrammaton, it can be represented in many modern languages as YHWH or JHVH. This is God’s name and it appears almost 7,000 times in the original Old Testament. Sadly almost ALL modern bible translations have COMPLETELY removed God’s name from His own holy word.

    How’s that for respecting God’s name?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: