Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

An Analysis of Causal Chains and Divine Identity (a Christian-Kripkean framework)

Naming Isn’t Enough.

Why “God” Is Not Just a Label

Saul Kripke introduced the idea that names are not just “bundles” of descriptions but rigid designators. The idea that a name designates the same object in every possible world where that object exists, not by fitting a bundle of descriptions, but through an initial act of naming (what he calls a “baptism”) followed by a causal-historical chain.[^1]

When talking Bible, the name “God” (Capital G) must refer to a particular being whose identity is fixed by revelation. Just as the name “Aristotle” refers rigidly to a specific historical figure and not just any guy fitting certain philosopher (ish) descriptions, the term “God” refers not to a set of basic attributes (EX: “creator,” “merciful,” etc.) but to a specific being whose self-disclosure (through scripture) grounds the reference.

“The description used is not synonymous with the name it introduces but rather fixes its reference.”[^2]

Therefore, simply calling a deity “God” or even “God of Abraham” (more on this later) does not make a shared reference unless that term is tied to the same revelation.

Why Revelation Matters

God is not a spatiotemporal thing that can be pointed to or identified empirically. So, reference to God cannot come from perceptual ostension but must be fixed through divine revelation (self-revelation). Theologically (or in Bible language), God’s disclosure of self to Abraham, to Moses, and ultimately in/through Christ makes the referential grounding for the name “God”.

Without revelation, human reference to God is just arbitrary and or speculative. The “initial baptism” is fixed and grounded by revelation, supporting Kipke’s contention that even if later speakers don’t know all the properties of that referent, it still holds because it was fixed by that original act of naming. [^3]

In Christianity, we hold that the name of God is tied to the Trinity, which was fully revealed in Christ, and preserved through apostolic teaching and succession. A system that rejects that revelation (initial baptism) breaks the causal chain and makes a new referent.

Mutually Exclusivity and Causal Replacements

Both Islam and Christianity make contradicting claims not only about the essential nature of God but also the history and tradition that make up the Causal Chain. These contradictions are about the essential properties of God, not just accidental features. Essential properties are those that a being cannot lack and still be that same being. If two referents have incompatible essential properties, then they can not be the same being. But it is often argued that since both Christians and Muslims claim that their theological descent from Abraham and both worship the “God of Abraham,” then they must be referring to the same being.

But historical or generic genealogical claims do not fix reference; consider this analogy:

Person A: “Aristotle was born in Macedonia and taught Substance Theory.”

Person B: “Aristotle was born in Athens and taught the Theory of Forms.”

Both individuals use the name “Aristotle”, describe an ancient Greek philosopher, and both use generally correct descriptors like “human”(his nature) and “teacher”(His role). But only one of them is actually referring to the historical individual named Aristotle. The difference is not in the label or nature, but in the individuating acts that Aristotle actually did, taught, and revealed during his life. These historical features, his teachings, relationships, and actions are what individualize him, what makes Aristotle that Aristotle, and the content carried along the causal historical chain of reference. Person B, even though they are using the correct name and some similar/overlapping traits, has just attached the label or name “Aristotle” to a different individual.

Likewise, Muslims and Christians may both use the term “God” or even “The God of Abraham,” and affirm similar and overlapping attributes like Creator or “One true God”. However, in Christianity, God’s self-revelation in Abraham, Moses, and finally Jesus Christ—whose teachings, life to death, and eventual resurrection—are the final acts that individuate the divine referent. The historical Judeo-Christian chain is rejected by Islam, which substitutes a new framework derived from a different revelation. Therefore, despite the shared labels and name, Islam introduces a new baptism, a new causal chain, and therefore a different referent. It is not simply a misdescription of the same God, but a theological redescription of a different one.

In naming, as in theology, the name would only stay the same if the referent remains anchored to the same individual by their historical actions and the preserved and consistent chain of reference. Break that chain, or change those individuating acts, and you’ve changed the referent.

Islam actively attempts to correct and replace the Judeo-Christian causal chain of reference. claiming that the Christian understanding of God exists as a result of early and later corruption and distortion of earlier “pure” monotheism. Islam initiates a new revelation with a new history going as far back as Adam, and thereby creating a new referent (A new baptism began in that cave). This is not just some kind of ignorance or innocent confusion about the same God; it is a deliberate replacement of the traditional Causal Chain and therefore the Trinitarian referent with a unitarian one.

Scriptural backing

In Exodus 32, Theological misreferencing can be found,

“...‘Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’” (Exodus 32:1)

Then Aaron crafts a golden calf, made from the gold that the people gave and the people then declared,

“‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’” (v. 4)

And this part is important,

“‘Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.’” (v. 5, NKJV)

In the above, we can see that they did not intend to reject and replace YHWH. Instead, it was an attempt to direct his name onto a false image. The calf was intended to represent YHWH. The very same one who had delivered them from Egypt, but in a form God had explicitly forbidden. The people used the correct name, attributed actions correctly, but attached it to creation, thus violating the second commandment (Exodus 20:4–5) and severing the theological and historical chain of God’s self-disclosure. Despite using the correct Name and predicates, the Israelites engaged in idolatry (worship towards anyone other than the one true God). The name “YHWH” remained, but the referent had still changed. God Himself calls this act a corruption and worship of another:

“‘They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!’” (Exodus 32:8)

This whole paper is echoed in the above verse. Naming, by itself, does not ensure that the historical chain and therefore, the reference, continues. Even if the same name or word is used, the referent changes when the self-revealed identity of God is replaced with new ideas or revelation.

[^1]: Naming and Necessity (Harvard University Press), p. 96

[^2]: Ibid. p. 97

[^3]: Ibid. p. 94

[^4]: Ibid. p. 115–116