Reverend Tony Zekveld

      In this paper I would like to compare the two worldviews behind two credos: the Christian Credo and the Sikh Credo. As Christians our belief concerning the Being of God is summarized in the three ecumenical symbols of Christendom; namely, the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. These symbols are Trinitarian in essence. The Sikhs, as well, have a belief concerning the Being of God, and this is summarized in their creed called the Mool Mantar (also called the Mool Mantra). The Mool Mantar is what you might call the "Apostles’ Creed" of Sikhism.

      I choose this thesis for one reason. Among evangelical pastors and leaders ministering among Sikhs, I often hear about "the similarities between Christianity and Sikhism." One of those similarities is that we both believe in one God. We are told, "what they believe is good as far as it goes. We need only to build upon their foundation with the truths of the Scriptures." And the question I want to raise is: While the similarity may be formal (ie. God is one), is there any common agreement between Christianity and Sikhism regarding the Being of God? Since the Mool Mantar is considered among Sikhs to be a compact statement of the Divine, it is my purpose, in light of my thesis, to do a presuppositional critique of the Mool Mantar.

      The Mool Mantar (also called Mool Mantra) is a Punjabi phrase meaning "Root Formula." According to Sikh historians, the Mool Mantar was the first poetic utterance by Guru Nanak, their founding prophet, (A.D. 1469-1539) when he was commissioned to preach the worship of one God. Claiming to be blessed with a vision of the Almighty, he came with this message: "there is no Hindu, there is no Mussalman ... So whose path should I follow? I should follow God’s path. God is neither Hindu or Mussalman and the path which I follow is God’s." His was a vision for all to share in the same creed; whether Muslim, Hindu or non-Hindu. And his vision is "eternally enshrined" in the Mool Mantar, the first stanza of the Guru Granth Sabib Jee, the scripture of the Sikhs. This creed appears in one form or another 533 times in their 1430 page volume. Moreover, Sikh "scholars have stated that the entire Guru Granth Sahib is a further elucidation of the Mool Mantar."

      Concerning its prominence in Sikh thought and literature, Sutantar writes, “The founder and his successors interpreted and re-interpreted the Mool Mantar in their compositions and utterances as recorded in scripture …. Succinctly, it can be said that the mool mantar sums up the theistic concept of Guru Nanak and gives his intuitive insight into the metaphysical realm . . . It embodies his ideas about the nature of the Ultimate Reality and defines the relation of God to creation; i.e. humankind. To a person seeking union with the Supreme, the mool mantar serves as a beacon.”

          The Mool Mantar, therefore, possesses a unique prominence in the Sikh religion, and this leads us to our next question: what is the content of the Mool Mantar? The Mool Mantar is divided into a number of principal statements concerning the one God. It reads as follows:

                Ek Onkar There is one God

                Sat Nam Eternal Truth is His name

                Karta Purakh Creator of all things and the all-pervading spirit

                Nirbhau Fearless

                Nirvair Without enmity

                Akal Murat Timeless and formless

                Ajuni Beyond birth and death

                Saibhang Self-enlightened

                Gur Prasad By the grace of the Guru, he is known.

             In terms of an exposition of the Mool Mantar, Professor Harminder Singh states that while the Guru Granth Sahib is an elucidation of the Mool Mantar, the Mool Mantar is an elucidation of its first statement, "Ek Onkar"(1u) or "There is one God." This principle statement is called the "Bij Mantar" or the "Seed Formula" in Sikhism. He quotes their fifth guru, Guru Arjan, who says, "All can be enlightened with the Bij Mantra."

      The symbol or insignia representing Ek Onkar (1u) is central and core to the life of the Sikh. A rudimentary observation of Sikh neighborhoods reminds one of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 where the LORD commands his covenant people, regarding the summary of His law, to "bind them as a sign on your hand . . .as frontlets between your eyes. To write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gate" (vv. 8-9). Literally, one sees their insignia (1u) everywhere. Many wear it as a tattoo on the back of their hand or on their forearm. It is placed on the canopy above their scripture in their temples. It is also marked on packaged goods, placed on the rear windows of cars, dangles as an amulet from rear view mirrors in vehicles and enshrined on many book covers. This insignia stands for the one Primal Reality, the one God. In conversation with the Sikh, one will often hear again and again, "God is one."

      This one primal reality is known as the Sat Naam (the second principle of the Mool Mantar), translated, the "True Name" or "Eternal Truth is His Name." Other names are also given to "God" in the Granth Sahib. Because these other names evoke certain preconceived notions, Guru Nanak preferred the abstract term "Sat Naam" or the "True Name." Occasionally Nanak even addressed God as "Anami" (without a name). The rest of the Mool Mantar speaks about the "functions of this Deity." Cole and Sambhi provide a succinct explanation of these remaining statements of the Mool Mantar. The first function of this Deity is that He is the Creator. And this Creator is immanent in the universe ("Creator of all things and the all pervading spirit").

      The Granth Sahib states the simple fact that God created the universe. How and why He created no one knows. Furthermore, by the immanence of God, the Sikh means that the universe is "an emanation of God who willed its existence," like a spider which emits its own web from itself. Sikhs, therefore, do not have any difficulty with the scientific theories of evolution. In fact, Cole and Sambhi note that, "they find them congenial to the belief in an expanding universe derived from the mind of God." Their opposition is not to the scientific theories of evolution, per se, but to "a materialism which regards the universe as self-explanatory and self-existent."

      In the second place, God is also described as "fearless and without hatred." Cole and Sambhi correctly qualify this statement. This statement must be understood in the context of Hindu mythology. In Hindu mythology, the gods often feared each other and frequently battled each other in wars. They used deceitful schemes and trickery as they struggled for power. Guru Nanak, however, in reaction to the Hindu view of the gods, proclaimed that God is without fear and hatred. He has no rival or death to worry about. Moreover, he holds no grudge or hostility. All are equally his children. He has only love and forgiveness for His children. In the Granth Sahib, we read, “The Guru’s servants are pleasing to God who forgives them and they no longer fear death’s courier. God dispels the doubt of devotees, enjoying union with them. Free from fear, limitless and infinite, the Creator is pleased with truth (Adi Granth 1190).”

      This begs the question, of course, "If God is without fear and enmity," then why is it that the Sikh fears doing bad? How do they account for their own deep spiritual unrest? Moreover, how does one account for what we read in their own writings that God cut the head of the devil? Note these lines from the Padshahi in the Granth Sahib,

              He [God] has cut the head of the great demon.

              Isa is the Saviour of the universe.

              The rejoicing and the showers of flowers fell from the sky.

              And the angels came from the skies to congratulate.

              Praise ye the Lord.

              You are the Saviour of the poor.

              You are the Creator of heaven.

              Have mercy on me (Padshahi 20).

      Moreover, God is also described as, "timeless, formless and beyond birth." Because Sikhism is a reform movement within Hinduism, this statement from the Mool Mantar must also be understood from the Hindu context. Hindus teach the doctrine of the avatars, the descent of the gods to earth in human form. In response to the Hindu theory of the avatars, the Sikhs reject any kind of incarnation, including the unique incarnation of the Son of God Who came in the flesh. God, according to the Sikh, has not manifested Himself in a physical way, but He has manifested Himself only as Truth, as Word, as the Name. So strong is their rejection of the incarnation, that their fifth guru Arjan (1563-1606) writes, O burnt be that mouth, which says that the Lord enters into existences. He is not born, nor dies He. He comes and goes not. The Lord of Nanak is pervading everywhere.

       The God of the Sikhs is also considered "self-enlightening" or "self-revealing." This also is born, in part, as a reaction to the Hindu view of their gods. In Hinduism one god often enlightens another god. According to the Sikh, God is self-enlightened and He is also the enlightener.

      Thus, we arrive at the last principle of the Mool Mantra -- "By the grace of the Guru, He is known." There is some discussion about the identity of "the Guru." Is "the Guru" the human perceptor or is He God? Most Sikh scholars appear to say that the Guru here refers to the Being of God. This God of the Sikhs, says Cole and Sambhi, cannot be discovered by "philosophical study; austerities will not compel appearance and incantations, sacrifices or hymns of devotion cannot induce divine manifestation . . . The initiative is always God’s ...." (p.74). The concept of "grace" here must also be understood in the context of Hinduism. Because Sikhism is a particular kind of "guru cult," an adequate concept for their term of grace is "darshan" or "the guru’s glance."

      India is a land of villages, pilgrimage places and gurus. In many villages there is a guru to whom people turn for enlightenment and guidance. Often the devotees wait outside the home of the guru and wait for him to appear. And when he appears, "there need be no words, merely a benign look of acceptance that is enough to convey a blessing." This is what Sikhs have in mind when they speak of God’s grace. He is the supreme Guru and he is arbitrary. Some receive this glance; some do not. But the general tenor of thinking is that "Baba, (God) knows everything." Yet, grace in Sikhism is no grace at all because grace, by definition, is the unmerited, undeserving love of God. In the pursuit of grace, Sikhs also advocate techniques for the attainment of liberation. We have set forth, then, in a brief summary form the content and meaning of the Mool Mantar. We turn now to the question: what is the presupposed view of God in the Mool Mantar?

A. The Unity of God

      Sikhs believe and actively defend their teaching that God is one. On the surface, this may appear to be a very noble virtue to the Christian North American living in a secular culture. Sikhs believe in God. At least they are not atheists! Moreover, they believe in one God. One might even praise Guru Nanak for having moved in the right direction. After all, he broke from the polytheism of Hinduism. Harminder Singh writes that Nanak’s concept of God, "was based on unalloyed monotheism. His was the One and only One Supreme Being, an Indivisible Unity." The similarity to Deuteronomy 6:4 is striking: "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." Is there not at least some common agreement with the Christian faith?

      However, in raising this question, one must ask what view of God is presupposed behind their affirmation, "God is one" (Ek Onkar). Certainly, there are metaphysical assumptions in their affirmation: "Ek Onkar." What are those assumptions? Professor Harminder Singh reveals these assumptions in his article, "Ek Onkar(1u). Ek means "one" written as a numerical figure '1.' He writes, This "numerical figure ‘1’ before Onkar (in Punjabi translated as u) enhanced his (Nanak’s) firm conviction in the unity of God. It’s main importance and underlying significance lies in the fact that one is not represented by "one" in words, but by a numerical figure "1", thus completely eliminating any possibility of words being given a different meaning." When he says that this numerical figure ‘1’ completely eliminates "any possibility of words being given a different meaning," is he suggesting that there are no metaphysical assumptions behind this numerical figure?

      In the above statement, he seems to imply that the numerical figure is an objective, neutral referent which can be easily understood by all. With respect to the ‘why’ of the numerical "1," Yuktanand Singh, likewise, implies the same when he writes, "Nanak did not want to pollute the unity in reality by adding any man-made words. If he did, it would not be 1 anymore." However, the metaphysical assumptions of the numerical figure ‘1’ are clearly evident in the symbol adjacent to it: `u` or "Onkar." The root of "Onkar," according to Professor Harminder Singh, "is traceable to the Hindu sacred syllable Om or Aum." ‘Om’ is a Sanskrit symbol of the "Absolute Transcendent Reality, Brahma . . . or the Supreme Being which is the unity of all existence."

      According to the polytheistic tradition of Hinduism, the symbol "Om" or "A U M", "also represented the Hindu Trinity, each letter standing for one of the deities, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva." According to the Sikh religious tradition, the Hindu Trinity was flatly rejected by their guru Nanak and he reiterates throughout his writings that God is One. He is the Only One Supreme Being." Harminder Singh writes that "it was Guru Nanak’s own inspired vision that transformed A U M into Ek Onkar representing the Supreme Being, the Sole Absolute Eternal Reality."

      Sikhism, however, is not so much a monotheistic religion, but a monistic religion. "So firmly is the oneness of God affirmed that it is arguably monistic. Ultimate reality is a unity; God is one without a second." Sikhs deny the Christian confession that God is distinct from His creation; that creation is "outside of Him." The Sikh presupposes that everything exists within God. The remaining statements about God in the Mool Mantar, therefore, are coloured by metaphysical assumptions of God rooted in Hinduism. Let us consider a few examples. We consider, for example, their third statement Karta Purakh ("Creator of all things and the all pervading Spirit").

      Cole uses the analogy of a spider to illustrate the Sikh concept of God. Just as a "spider emits the thread from itself and draws it back into itself," so "the universe was created by God and will be reabsorbed into God." Arjan Dev, the fifth guru of the Sikhs, writes, "the entire universe is the manifestation of one God." Guru Gobhind Singh, their tenth guru states, "When the Creator projected himself all creatures of the earth assumed various shapes. But when you draw creation into yourself, O Lord, all embodied beings are absorbed in you." Or we can make mention of their sixth statement, Akal Murat ("He is immortal and formless)." On the surface, we do not argue against God being immortal and formless."

      Yet, concerning this statement, Yuktanand Singh writes, "the universe in Him is constantly in motion when He is perfectly still . . . He is the Creator of all motion inside the stillness." Must we conclude, then, that the creation inside Him is essentially immortal? Or how about, "He is self-enlightened" (their eighth statement)? Yuktanand Singh implies that because He is self-enlightened, there is no one else out there because "there is no such thing as ‘outside Him.’" We could illustrate how their metaphysical understanding of God comes to bear on the remaining statements about God in the Mool Mantar but the point has been established that what they mean by "God is one" is fundamentally different from that of the Christian credo, "God is one." The Christian credo presupposes a Creator-Creature distinction while the Sikh credo does not. The Sikh view of God is essentially Hindu.

B. The Knowability of God

      This naturally raises the question: Who, then, is this numerical figure 1? Who is "Ek Onkar"? Sikhs will say that this one God is not only incomprehensible but also unknowable. One cannot know Him.

      A sampling of references from their Guru Granth Sahib makes this abundantly clear. Amar Das, their third guru, for example, addresses God in this way: "O unfathomable, unknowable, invisible and infinite Lord, no one knows thy bounds." (emphasis mine). With respect to meditating on the name, Arjan, their fifth guru, writes, "I know not how to meditate on God. I only repeat God, God, Guru, Guru . . . What do I know what He is like?" Their guru Nanak addresses God in this way, "Thou art the true Creator and the unknowable Maker" . . . "He who created continents, spheres, and the universe, that Lord cannot be known." Not only is "Ek Onkar" unknowable, He is also described as inaccessible. Their guru Arjan affirms His inaccessibility:

"O, my inaccessible, and incomprehensible Lord, the life of the world, thou art my mainstay" (emphasis mine). T. Sher Singh, a columnist for The Toronto Star, echoes their Guru Granth Sahib: We have hundreds of names for God in the Granth Sahib [Sikh, Hindu, and Muslim names]. All these names give us just a minuscule idea of who God is. Now add all the understandings of God from all the other religions. There, then, is a greater degree of knowledge - - maybe two percent?"

      In the Sikh religion, names and attributes of the "Ek Onkar" are mere human descriptions of him but they are not who He is in Himself. These are not essential properties of Ek Onkar Himself. We might say that they have an "octopus" view of God. There is His essence, which is unknowable and, then, there are his attributes or names, which, like arms, are attached to Him.

      One of the names Nanak uses for Ek Onkar is"Sat Naam" which means, "The True Name" or "His Name is Truth" (the second statement in the Mool Mantar). But Nanak also says in his writings that Ek Onkar can just as well be known as one, "without a name." Sikh scholars are agreed that the use of "Naam" or "Name" for Ek Onkar is a summary expression for who God is. You may call Him by any name, but Naam covers them all. In other words, whoever He is, one thing is sure, He is the Naam.

      While adherents of the various religions may address the "one God" with different names, Naam is what unites all and without meditating on the Sat Naam there is no salvation. For example, their guru Amar Das, writes, "Without the name, no one obtains emancipation." Likewise, their guru Nanak, also says, "Without the Lord’s Name, no one obtains salvation and all are drowned." "Naam" is the inscription on their altar to the unknown God. In regards to this name, Yuktanand Singh comments,

      In reality, He is the Naam. His real Name (Naam) is He Himself. This is the ultimate Truth. A Sikh’s destination is His Name. A Sikh has no reason to argue about which other name is correct. He uses the Hindu names of Ram, Gobind, Shiva as well as Muslim Allah and Christian God, etc., interchangeably and without hesitation because all these names are equally provisional. Hence, there is no revealed Name in Sikhism. One can only conclude, therefore, that in Sikhism all names are "equally provisional" since all names are human attempts of describing the "Naam," whoever He may be.

      This leads us to another important consideration. That is, in Sikhism, all the religions are also equally provisional. This follows from their premise; namely, their view of God. Yuktanand Singh comments that all religions, "become merely skeletal when the seeker reaches this fact: the only proper Dharma is whatever God approves for each individual. In the Sikh Panth, Gurbani is the only written Word that can communicate true Dharma of the spirit." In light of this conclusion, the Sikh boasts that his religion is the recipe for the sustaining of a truly multicultural society.

      In light of what Yuktanand writes, a Sikh may well agree with the Christian who proclaims that Jesus is the only way. The Sikh may even encourage the Christian to remain true to his path because, after all, this is what "God approves" for the Christian. Only do not say that "Jesus is the only way for all men." To challenge the Sikh with the claims of Christ in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me," challenges the very core of his world view. What follows from the world view of the Sikh is that a Sikh is born a Sikh and this by the will of God. Who are we to go against His will? Therefore, the response of the Sikh to the claims of Christ is that he must remain true to his path. This is what God approves for him, as for the Muslim, the Hindu, the Bhuddist and the Christian.

      It follows, therefore, from the Sikh’s view of the unity of God and also His "unknowability" that all the religions are different, yet valid, roads on the mountain which lead to the summit --- Ek Onkar, the numerical figure 1. The circular argument in their world view looks like this: their metaphysical assumption regarding God reinforces their view that all religions are essentially one. At the same time, the observational evidence that all religions are essentially one reinforces their metaphysic about God.

      Consequently, the task of the Christian apologist, in dependence upon God’s Word and Spirit, is to do an internal critique of the Sikh worldview and look for contradictions as well as point out the arbitrary nature of their worldview. By so doing we demonstrate the reasonableness of the Christian worldview. The best place to begin with an internal critique is with the Sikh’s view of God. To this we now turn.

      We must bring to the Sikh, with all clarity, sincerity and love, the Biblical God. Because one’s view of God determines and shapes one’s view of man, sin and salvation, we must in our apologetical strategy aim to dismantle their view of God as defined in the Mool Mantar. By dismantling their view of God, one also dismantles their worldview. This is precisely what the apostle Paul did in Acts 17:22-34: He proclaimed to the Athenians the God of the Bible, the God who made them, the God whom they claimed they did not know. We read in Acts 17:22-23,

"Paul stood in the midst of the Aeropagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you."

There is little difference between ancient Athens and modern day Sikhism!

A. An Internal Critique of the Sikh Credo

      In light of the above, the Christian apologist must conclude that if God is essentially unknowable then the Sikh cannot say anything about Him. The Sikh cannot attribute "Ek Onkar" or "Naam" to Him. Yet the Mool Mantar is a demonstration of the very opposite. It says many things about God. How can the Sikh even have a Mool Mantar or a scripture? These consist of words and words presuppose knowledge! There are many metaphysical assumptions about God in the Mool Mantar and, consequently, about man and the world. Even though Nanak, in using the symbol 1u (Ek Onkar), and though not wanting "to pollute the unity in reality by adding any man-made words," in fact, does pollute the symbol with his own metaphysical assumptions, even if unspoken.

      Moreover, the numerical figure 1 as "an objective referent which can be easily understood by all," is, in fact, understood by no one and remains in the abstract unless explained by words. And the presuppositions behind this symbol, ‘1u’ are manifest in their scripture, the Granth Sahib. It becomes evident that the generic and abstract "God is one," "He is the Creator," "True Name," "Timeless and Formless," or "Self- enlightened," far from unifying all religions under one creed, has its own set of distinct presuppositions. Moreover, the statements, "He is fearless and without enmity" and " He is beyond birth and death" betray the Sikhs’ own presuppositions, which are essentially Hindu.

      Sikhs have many things to say about this one God that they do not know. This God, however, is hardly generic, abstract, presupposition-less enough to unify all religions and encompass all religious traditions! Though the Sikh may not say it, he presupposes that all should unify under Nanak’s God--- the God they don’t know. . . yet they define and talk about Him!! The appearance of humility, therefore, in their religion suddenly vanishes. The arrogance and the intolerance they accuse Christians of regarding the certainty of Who they know, also applies to the Sikhs! How then do we read guru Arjan’s statement, "O burnt be that mouth, which says that the Lord enters into existences. He is not born, nor dies He. He comes and goes out?" Is this tolerance? Moreover, how can such a pronouncement be uttered in light of the confession that God cannot be known? They claim to be humble but are equally dogmatic in their own assertions.

      Moreover, there is truth in the statement that God is "unknowable," in reference to their god. This is because such a god does not exist. When the Sikh recites the Naam in his prayers, to whom is he praying? Who is the generic Naam, anyway? If I address someone, "Oi, Oi," this means nothing. Such a person does not exist. The apostle Paul also made this clear in his address at the Areopagus in Acts 17 when he proclaims to them the true and living God, the God they did

      Yet, the very fact that the Sikhs, like the Athenians, say something about God and use words to describe Him, affirms that all men are in relationship to the Creator, the God of the Bible. This is our point of contact with Sikhs. They know, in their heart of hearts, the true and living God, the God of the Bible as their Creator (Romans 1:18-25). They know Him by virtue of His witness in the creation, His power and His majesty. What may be known about God is clear to them (v.19). They know Him by virtue of the fact that they are created in God’s image, the moral law is written on their hearts and they know they are accountable to Him. The problem, however, is that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

      The Bible says that man takes the truth and twists it to his own way of thinking. Even though the Sikh, for example, says that God is "unknowable," the very fact that he talks about Him and abides by many of the same morals as the Christian proves the truth of Romans 1. Moreover, the very fact that he talks about God unintelligibly also proves the truth of Romans 1; namely, he is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Indeed, the existence of the Sikh religion presupposes the truth in order to falsify it.

      Secondly, in saying that "God is one without a second" or that "everything exists within God," the Sikhs claim that there is no fundamental distinction between Creator and His creation/creatures. But this is merely a claim. Certainly, in their heart of hearts they do not presuppose it. Rather, the

      Sikhs presuppose precisely the opposite. They presuppose a Creator-creature distinction. How else can they speak of an "I -- You" relationship? How else can they speak of prayer which presupposes a relationship with a personal God, one who is distinct from His creatures? Again, this affirms that all men are in relationship to their Creator -- whether in curse or in blessing.

      Though man may try to hide the fact that this Creator-creature distinction exists, he presupposes in his heart of hearts the reality that God has a second, that there is an "outside of Him." Even their scripture, the Granth Sahib, cannot hide this reality which is why their sacred writings, in many ways, are so unintelligible and confusing. The god in the granth encompasses all, all exist within Him and yet the Granth speaks of a detachment or the separateness of God from His creation.

      Consider, for example, these words of Nanak. He writes, "God lives in everything, he dwells in every heart, yet he is not blended with anything. He is a separate entity." In another place in the Granth, guru Arjan writes, "The Creator pervades all and yet detached from all is the Creator." There is an irreconcilable contradiction here which, again, proves the truth of Romans 1. What they know deep down and what they profess are two different things. We call this self-deception. And this is what we wish to point out to the Sikhs. We detect their self-deception in this very contradiction, even within their own sacred writ!

B. The Christian Credo Vindicated

      As we aim to dismantle the Sikh view of God and thus their entire world view in accordance with the directive of Scripture (2 Corinthians 10:4-6), we desire and pray that God by His Spirit would transform the Sikh and recreate a new view of God, a new world view in line with the three ecumenical symbols of Christendom. These symbols faithfully summarize and echo the God of the Bible, the Triune God -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The continued philosophical and religious arguments over the relationship between the one and the many is perfectly solved in the Trinity: one God, yet, three Persons. The Triune God must be our beginning point if we are to make sense out of how the one and many relate. Because of the Sikh’s view of God, they are unable to bring into harmony the one and the many. Hence, the confusion in their sacred writ!

      Furthermore, we can also account for why we are able to relate to God. Man is created in His image and from all eternity, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have been in relationship to each other. As we critique the view of God in the Sikh religion, we must keep in mind, first of all, that the names for God in the Scripture -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are not humanly concocted descriptions or fruits of man’s imagination. In the thinking of the Sikhs, however, all the names of God are "equally provisional" as are all the religions in this world. This is grounded in their view that God is essentially "unknowable." However, this is not the presupposition of the Christian.

      In accordance with divine writ, we confess that all the names of God in Scripture, are divinely revealed. These names come from God Himself. Moreover, by these names He makes Himself known to us. Though He does not make Himself known to us exhaustively and perfectly, He does so really and truly. Bavinck in his book, The Doctrine of God, remarks in clear terms:

      There is a very close connection between God and His name. According to Scripture also this connection is not an arbitrary one, but established by God Himself. Men do not give Him a name; He gives Himself a name. God’s name is, therefore, most of all God’s revelation of Himself whereby He actively and objectively makes Himself known. Furthermore the name of God is identical with His virtues or excellencies which He reveals outwardly. His name, really and truly, shines forth in the world and in the Word, inscripturated and incarnated.

      We do not know Him immediately, (God preserving the Creator-creature distinction) but we know Him mediately. His Name, embodying everything He is, is mediated on a creaturely level in the works of His creation and more clearly in the Scriptures. We see His Name, really and truly, from His works in creation; namely, His almighty power, glory and wisdom (Romans 1:20). Men see what they see in the creation because God has made it and His signature, His name, is everywhere indelibly printed on it. But without the spectacles of the Scripture, the natural man cannot interpret the Name of God rightly. So, we presuppose a true and real knowledge of God mediated to us on a creaturely level.

      In the second place, His attributes are who He is. An attribute is an essential character of God as He has revealed Himself in the Scripture. Unlike the presupposition of the Sikhs, His attributes belong to His essence. He IS just. He IS merciful. He IS righteous. He IS wise. He IS holy. God’s essence is His attributes. We cannot separate the two. His attributes belong inherently, intrinsically and permanently to His nature; they are not relative and accidental. If we separate His attributes and His essence, we fall prey to a form of agnosticism whereby God cannot be truly and really known. His attributes, then, become mere human descriptions.

      However, in confessing that our knowledge of God is true and real, we also confess that our knowledge of God is always derived and analogical. It is derived in the sense that knowledge is not original with us but with God. We must think our thoughts after Him, our Creator. It is analogical in the sense that the knowledge of God, though true and real, is given to us at a level we can understand because we are creatures. God accommodates Himself to us in ways that we understand. He "lisps" in ways that we can understand and know Him, to use the language of John Calvin. Hence, our knowledge of God, though true and real, is yet quantitatively and qualitatively different than God’s. His mind is on a different level than our minds. He participates on a divine level and we on a creaturely level. Yet the Holy Spirit really and truly is, for example, the Counselor and the Comforter for His Church. God truly and really is our Father and Christ, our Brother.

      Our knowledge of God, therefore, is derived from His Word. Our access to God is also mediated through the Word. This is the answer for the Sikh who confesses that God is unknown and God is inaccessible.

      Finally, in our apologetic to the Sikh, we are also aware that the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is a major stumbling block. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the Gospel answer to a distant, formal, generic view of God. The attributes of God; namely, His grace, mercy, justice, holiness was most manifestly seen in His Son, Jesus Christ. John 1:14 tells us, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." This is the language of God’s ultimate expression of accommodation, the language of God coming down to us in a Person and making Himself known to us --- the kind of language which is so foreign to the Sikh world view. Their denial of the incarnation is the very reason why they do not know this one, true and living God.

      However, we point out the glorious truth from John 1:18 that, "No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared ("exegeted") Him." He has made this one God known to us! Moreover, we must point out that the Sat Naam (or True Name) is no less than Jesus Christ. He is the embodiment of the revelation of God! Of Him, the Scriptures say, "nor is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Likewise, Philippians 2:9 says that "He is the Name which is above every name." The Lord Jesus Christ is the True Name, the only Name Who has revealed the Father to us. He is the Sat Naam!

      In this paper, I have attempted to compare the two credos: the Christian credo and the Sikh credo. Sat Naam is the name of their "unknown God." He is the true Name but as to who this True Name is, the Sikh has no answer. But the Christian does. By seeking to dismantle the Sikh view of God, as I have attempted to do above, I have also tried to show that our aim is that they may see the Lord Jesus, the very revelation of God, the Sat Naam. May God use our defense of the Christian faith for His glory and we pray that the Sikhs may join in the ever expanding choir and sing the Christian credo with the church of the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To Him be the glory!

Bibliography