Is there one God with one name (the view of
Christianity, Islam and Judaism), or one God with many names (the view of
Sikhism), or many gods with many names, all springing from one eternal
essence called God (the view of Hinduism)?
Dealing with this question is first an issue of
semantics. Three people can say, "There is only one God!"
yet mean three different things by the same statement. The first two
concepts are inclusive; the third is exclusive. One religionist might be
suggesting, "There is only one God that people of all religions
worship. However, they use different names for him and they possess
different interpretations of his character and being" (the view of
Sikhism). Another might mean, "There is one underlying, impersonal
essence behind all personal gods that are worshipped. These gods are not
actually the same, but they spring from the same source" (the view of
philosophic Hinduism).
The final concept would be, "There is only one
God to the exclusion of all others, identified by the correct name or
names which are associated with the correct interpretation of his character
and being" (the view of Christianity, as well as other monotheistic
traditions). The first two viewpoints could be described as inclusive
(including all religions and all gods). The third view is exclusive
(excluding all other religions and all other gods).
Though I am deeply moved by the compassion and tolerance
that normally motivates those who choose an all-inclusive view, may I offer
the following observation? If God were to accept, and respond to, all of the
names assigned to him in various worldviews, he would be making a confusing
and contradictory statement about his own character.
For instance, if the name Zeus, he would automatically be indicating
divine approval of the pantheon of gods promoted in Greek mythology. If the
name Brahman (Hinduism) or SUGMAD (ECKANKAR) brought a response, it would be
an immediate disclosure that the Ultimate Source of all things is actually
an impersonal cosmic energy. If the name Krishna connected a worshipper with
God, he would simultaneously be acknowledging that he had 16,108 literal
wives while on earth.
If God responded to the name Ein Sof, he would be verifying the Kabbalist
claim that the Godhead has ten emanations. If he responded to the
entitlement Sat Nam (the Sikh designation for God, meaning "True
Name") he would be verifying Guru Nanak's claim that the God of the
Muslims and Hindus is actually the same God. If he responded to the name
Allah, God would automatically be characterizing himself as an omnipresent,
omnipotent Spirit who has no Son (a basic doctrine of Islam) and that
"there is no God but Allah" (a primary confession of faith in
Islam). However, if God responds to the name Jesus, he is showing approval
of Christianity's claims: that he is a triune being, comprised of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that he is a personal God, omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, perfect in all his ways and
accessible only through the redemptive work of the cross.
Just suppose that the Bible is right: that Jesus really
is the only "image of the invisible God" and that there really is
"no unrighteous-ness in him": no error in his judgments and no
flaw in his character. (Colossians 1:15, Psalm 92:15) If he responded
in prayer to the name Indra (an ancient Hindu god) he would automatically be
characterizing himself as a seducer of a sage's wife, who was cursed with
a thousand yonis on his body (symbols of the female sex organ) as a
result of his evil deed. I personally would not take on another man's
name, especially if the true possessor of that name was a person of criminal
or immoral behavior. Why should I expect God to be pleased with an
arrangement just as undesirable?
The problem is this—through the millennia, certain
persons, in an attempt to define the unseen spiritual realms, have
attributed to numerous deities a great number of humanly-created titles,
names, myths and legends. Most likely, many have possessed a genuine love
for God—yet, there is a vast difference between loving God and knowing
God. I can personally testify that I loved God intensely long before I
actually knew him. It was only after I met the Lord in a personal
relationship that I came to understand his true nature.
I admit that some names or titles given to God in various
religions do correctly define his character and attributes, such as the
ninety-nine names Muslims attribute to God (e.g., the Living, the Eternal,
the Supreme, the Tremendous, the Merciful, and the Compassionate).
Undeniably, these are all actual personality traits of the true God,
but not one is a personal name for him. Correct character titles for God can
be discovered in many religions, but names that identify his actual person
are another matter. So the essential thing is correctly distinguishing this
personal name of God.
With the exception of the one true God, I propose that
all other 'gods' are humanly manufactured. They are the product of man's
often sincere, yet erring attempt to interpret the realm of the
supernatural. Again, because the various characters assigned to these
deities are in many ways a misrepresentation of the true character of God,
he does not accept these names, nor does he respond to them. Furthermore, if
seeking persons use these wrongly assigned divine names, they automatically
associate them with the rest of the doctrinal base of the religion being
referenced. In so many cases, if God allowed this, it would be
counterproductive to the promotion of truth.1
Hindu Scripture strongly declares "nothing is more purifying than
the holy name of God." (Srimad Bhagavatam 6:1) If this is true—and
it is—then one of the chief pursuits of life should be a holy quest to
know the true name of God. The legendary founder of Taoism, Lao-Tzu, taught
that 'Ultimate Reality' is an impersonal, cosmic energy force. He
admitted, " I do not know its name; I call it Tao."
(Tao-te Ching 25, emphasis by author) How heartbreaking it is that a
person, longing to know 'Ultimate Reality,' is unaware of the correct
name to use, and so invents one! Yet how often this happens!2
Another very fitting example is Guru Nanak, founder of Sikhism. He was
evidently a very sincere and pure-hearted man. I have great respect for his
heart-warming prayers, his genuine love for God and his passionate devotion
to righteous principles. His life story is intriguing, especially the
supreme effort he made to unite Hindus and Muslims. Guru Nanak insisted that
repeating the wonder of the Creator's Name "is a stairway which leads
to the Maker, an ascent to the bliss of mystical union." Another
version of this same passage says, "the way to perfection, the stairs
leading to honor." (Japji 32) There is great truth in this
statement. Guru Nanak taught that the right designation for God is "Sat
Nam" meaning "True Name." Yet those words are only
descriptive of the very thing we all long to know. Yes, I agree with Guru
Nanak. God does have a "True Name" and worshipfully uttering that
name will usher us into his bliss-filled presence. But what actually is that
"True Name"? Certainly this is something Guru Nanak longed to
know, just as any seeker after "True Light," and something I
believe he would have readily received had he been exposed to the correct
revelation.
I believe with all my heart that I now have the answer.
At certain pivotal, historic moments, God revealed different facets of his
"True Name" to certain key biblical figures who then recorded this
insight for others. Just as a human name is usually made up of several
names, and sometimes a title, so God's true name is a combination of all
the names and titles that he has assigned to himself. God responds to those
names and titles revealed in the Bible, because the character and doctrine
attached to those names and titles correctly represent who he is, how he
acts toward men and the doctrinal base that is truly inspired.
In the Old Testament God assigned to himself various
names that were then transferred to us in the Hebrew language, such as:
Elohim ("God"), El Shaddai ("the Almighty God"), Yahweh-Rapha
("the Lord our Healer"), Yahweh-M'Kaddesh ("the God who
Sanctifies"), and so on. Later on, when the incarnation took place, God
sent an angel to Mary announcing what the name of the Son of God should be.
Gabriel rejoiced to proclaim, "You shall call His name JESUS [ Heb.
YESHUA, meaning "the salvation of Jehovah"] for He will save His
people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21) This
heaven-conferred name perfectly describes what Jesus was born in this world
to accomplish (for he was 'God manifested in a human body, sent from
heaven to bring salvation to the world'). The promise given later
in the New Testament is very plain—"Whoever shall call on the name
of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21, See Luke 1:31, Deuteronomy
6:4, 1 Kings 18:24.) Notice this passage of Scripture does not say to
call upon 'a name for the Lord,' but "the name
of the Lord." (Of course, this includes the pronunciation and spelling
of the name JESUS in other languages as well.)
I personally used a number of humanly assigned names for
God unsuccessfully before I used the name of Jesus. I was sincerely
worshipping God from my heart of hearts, but I was not 'connecting' with
God. Only when I called on the "True Name" of the true Savior did
I experience true salvation and the true Spirit of God. I understand the
logic of those who claim we are all worshipping the same God, because
sometimes, in a very broad sense, this may be the case. Of course, some
religions are atheistic and not even concerned with adoring the Almighty.
Still others promote devotion to lesser deities who occupy subordinate roles
in some huge pantheon of gods. However, some worshippers actually are
expressing heart-felt devotion to the Supreme Creator of heaven and earth,
whoever they conceive him to be. In such cases, there is definitely a
similarity of intent—a desire to love the Everlasting Father and contact
Him in prayer—but not necessarily the fulfillment of this desire.
There are many ways this 'connection' between God and
man has been conceptualized; but there is only one way it can be actualized.
The Bible states clearly that Jesus' name is "above every name"
and that there is "no other name under heaven given among men by which
we must be saved." (Philippians 2:9, Acts 4:12) It is the
highest and most recent revelation of the divine name—a name that God
honors, because it identifies his true character and the revelation of his
present mode of working in this world. This is an essentially important
point.
1 Admittedly there are some unique cultural groups in
which a belief exists in a personal, perfect, omnipresent Supreme Deity who
transcends the physical creation. When this Supreme Being (Lord of heaven)
is not represented by false idols or images and when his character is not
marred by false doctrine, fabricated legends or wrongly applied personality
traits, there are rare situations in which the names applied to him may be
regarded as legitimate. Sometimes, these names are not only suitable ways of
describing the Creator. They are even adaptable in explaining the full
revelation of God to those particular people groups. However, such names are
not sufficient to bring the users into real salvation experience and/or
personal fellowship with God. (See Eternity in their Hearts by Don
Richardson.)
2 The word Tao means "the
Way." Actually, this is a correct title of the true God, who in his
incarnate state declared, "I am THE WAY, the truth and the life." (John
14:6) However, "the Way" in Taoism differs significantly from
"the Way" as outlined in Christianity.
|