Reviewing the Ally/Craig Debate then Calls

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon.

I would like to play major portions today of a debate I was listening to while writing.

I was going to do this a number of weeks ago and then stuff happened and I got busy. But I think we need to listen to what is said in this debate.

It was a debate between Shabir Ali and William Lane Craig.

And that brings us to a recognition of the fact that theology matters.

And I've said that many, many times. It seems to be a theme of mine, in essence, as well it should be,

I think. Theology matters. When you engage in apologetics, your apologetic methodology must be consistent with your theology.

In fact, it should be the natural outgrowth of it. It should come from it. You should have a very consistent systematic theology that gives rise to your apologetic methodology.

If you're giving a defense of something, obviously that defense should arise from what it is you're defending.

Unfortunately, many people develop an apologetic methodology based upon pragmatism, what they think works, even if it is not actually representational of their theology.

In fact, many apologists don't have much of a theology, which is not really a good thing at all. And so what we hear in my apologetics classes,

I contrast Greg Bonson's debate with Gordon Stein, with William Lane Craig's debate against Frank Zindler.

Now, I'm sure there are other debates that I could utilize. It just happens to be the videotape that I have from Willow Creek. It's got pretty high production values on it.

But I contrast the certainty of the presentation made by Bonson with William Lane Craig's.

The greater probability is that the greater portion of the data points to the greater probability of the truthfulness of the existence of a

God type of an argumentation. And that's because the underlying theologies of the two systems are very, very different from one another between Bonson and William Lane Craig.

And so as a result, this debate between Shabir Ali and William Lane Craig, there are times when unfortunately

I have to agree with Shabir Ali because of the fundamental and foundational theological issues that exist with William Lane Craig as a full blown

Arminian and a Moulinist, a proponent of middle knowledge. And so to give you some background, let me at least back up so you can hear some of the character of Craig's arguments before we get into Shabir Ali's responses, so that you have some context to hear in this debate.

And this is related to the objection I raised in our debate over the doctrine of salvation.

I argued there that the Islamic doctrine of salvation compromises God's justice because he just overlooks certain people's sins without punishment.

And our present discussion reinforces this. Why think that punishment is incompatible with love?

Well, Shabir's answer is because if he loved them, then he'd just forgive them.

Since he doesn't forgive them, he must not love them. But I want to know, why do you think that God can just forgive sin without payment?

And I think the answer is because on the Islamic conception of God, God's omnipotence trumps his justice.

You see, God can do anything he wants. So if he wanted to forgive everybody, he'd just do it.

Since he doesn't do it, he must not want to. Why doesn't he want to save everyone?

The answer is because he doesn't love everyone. But you see, on the Christian view,

God's omnipotence does not imply the ability to act contrary to his own nature.

Part of God's nature is holiness and absolute justice, and to overlook sin would be to contradict his own holy nature.

Now let me just stop right there. I fully agree with that statement. A very important element of dealing with Islamic theology,

Islamic teaching, God's holiness demands punishment of sin. It cannot simply be overlooked. It cannot simply be dismissed with the wink of the eye.

But you are already hearing some things relevant to discussions that have gone on recently in the blogosphere, especially it sounds like, and Wendland Craig will say this later, that he is promoting an undifferentiated omnibenevolence on the part of God.

In fact, it's part and parcel of his argument for the existence of the Christian God over against the Islamic God, is that God will equally love, in the same way, those who are in hell and those who are in heaven.

No difference, you can't have any concept such as redemptive love or common grace, no.

Equal love, which of course I think would then introduce all sorts of problems of God's unhappiness throughout eternity, and why he created this way and so on and so forth, but that's what you're going to run into.

But at this point, what's being said about justice does need to be heard. So his omnipotence doesn't trump his justice.

God must act in conformity with both his perfect justice and his perfect love.

And hence God does love even those whom he punishes. So the real question

I think should appear tonight is whose concept of omnipotence is correct? And I want to submit that omnipotence does not imply the ability to act contrary to God's own nature.

Just ask yourself the question, could God commit? Sure. Could he create an idol and fall down and worship it?

Surely not. Because Shabir himself said God can't break his own promises. So that God's own nature provides the boundaries of his omnipotence.

In short, an acceptable account of omnipotence shows that love and punishment are not incompatible.

And since the God of the Quran does not love sinners, he is therefore not all loving, and therefore he is not the perfect being.

I think that argument is incontestable. But Shabir then tries a second strategy, what my teenage son would call a yo mama defense.

That is to say, rather than defend your own view, you just cast aspersions on the other view and say well it's just as bad as mine.

He says, in the Bible it says God hates evil doers. But notice those statements are found primarily in the poetic books like the

Psalms. And everybody knows it is an interpretive principle of literature that you cannot use poetic books as a basis for doctrine.

Poetry must always be interpreted in light of the didactic or the teaching portions of scripture.

It is of the nature of poetry to use hyperbole, metaphor, personification. And when you look at the didactic portions of scripture, what you find is scores of passages that God loves unbelievers.

He loves sinners and that is why he sent his son. The Bible says that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

That whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. And it is in light of those passages that we understand the

Psalms. To mean that yes, God detests the evil that these people do. He detests their behavior.

He hates their sin. But he loves them as persons. They are his creatures whom he created to know him.

And he loves them as such. So the issue is not what is our default situation. I'm not sure.

I think I may have just cut off the last few seconds of his presentation. When I recorded this,

I had all sorts of problems. I had to reverse things and do all sorts of stuff. There you have the assertion that the texts that say that God hates sinners.

Like Psalm 55. That those texts are in the poetic portions and therefore they cannot be used for doctrine.

Tell the early church that and how many times they quoted from the Psalter to establish resurrection and prophecy.

Anyway, the irony here is going to be that, and it's a little bit uncomfortable. We're going to end up having to agree with Shabir Ali a few times here.

Because what you're going to hear later on, and we're going to get to it. What you're going to hear later on is going to explain all of this.

When we hear Dr. Craig address the issue of original sin, it's quite interesting.

Thank you Dr. Craig. Mr. Shabir Ali with his 11 minute rebuttal. We believe that God, or the

Qur 'an says that God is not loving. Or that God does not love everyone.

God is in fact Gafoorul Wadood. Mawwala Hoorul Wadood in Surah Al -Murood. And that just simply says that God is forgiving and He is full of loving kindness.

As one translator put it. Moreover, the Qur 'an says, Surely God is tender and loving towards all humankind.

That is in the Qur 'an in Surah Al -Baqarah. So these general statements are there. And that God's love has been shown already in the

Muslim doctrine. By the very fact that He has already created everyone in a default situation.

Where they are automatically saved. It is people who will turn away from that saved position.

I think again that Dr. Craig's difficulty with this is that he thinks that people are automatically created depraved.

And somebody needs to save them. So looking at it from that angle, Dr. Craig has a different interpretation of what's happening here.

But now when we look at these passages in the Bible. We see that in fact the Bible maintains a similar

Muslim position regarding God and how He treats evil doers. The idea that God is love.

Or that statement itself of God is love. Is in 1st John. That's one of the letters of John that was disputed in Christian church until it was finally accepted.

Notice that it comes towards the end of the Bible. And I would see that emphasis in this letter of John.

As a later emphasis that came out of the understanding of Jesus' pathos.

Of His passion. Of what He bore in suffering. And that was interpreted as a suffering out of His love for humankind.

I'm not denying that. But I'm saying that later. But when we go back to what the

Bible itself says. We see that the Bible maintains. Like in the

Psalms for example. I quote it from Deuteronomy.

And I'm going to quote Deuteronomy again. Zechariah. Revelation. Malachi.

And Romans. In Romans in the New Testament. Paul maintains that God loved

Jacob. But He hated Esau. God hated

Esau. According to the Bible. So I think it would be unbiblical to try and maintain.

For the purpose of this dialogue. That God does not hate evil doers.

Dr. Craig thinks well God hates the sin. But notice that these verses are not saying only that God hates the sinner.

But God hates the sinner. And you recall that in fact what will happen in the end.

Is not that God will put the sin into hell. Now let me stop just there for a moment.

You got to give him credit. Yep. God's going to put the sin into.

And you heard people chuckling. When you try to make these distinctions.

That this ain't there. You're setting yourself up to get your head handed to you on a platter.

And that's what happened there. Now I think we're going to get into this a little bit more later on.

I think there's everything proper and good. About discussing within the

Christian faith. The concept of God's love expressed between the father, the son, the spirit.

And how Unitarianism cannot address that. But I don't see that as the world's strongest apologetic argument.

Obviously it requires time to establish the biblical foundations. The doctrine of Trinity to begin with.

And I've honestly never been in a debate where I had enough time. To develop something that large anyway.

Let alone to then develop something like this alongside it. So while I think that there is validity in the discussion within the

Christian faith. It's difficult for me to see that it's the best way to approach this particular subject. In regards to making a criticism of Unitarianism.

I think there are better arguments that can be mustered against Unitarianism. But obviously

I'm one of those sticks in the mud. That actually thinks arguing from scripture would be the best way to handle these particular things.

Now what about the Christian understanding of God? Dr. Craig says that God is the greatest conceivable being.

I think I can agree with that. But notice that actually proves that the

Muslim belief is the correct one. Because for God to be the greatest conceivable being.

And for Jesus to declare that the Father is greater than he is. Would indicate to me that Jesus is not

God. Now let me stop right there. Isn't it interesting, I think back again to the

Bonson -Stein debate. And one of the things I think that was wise about what Greg Bonson did. He said I am defending specifically

Christian theism. I'm not defending any other form of theism. I'm not defending some basic definition.

Remember he and Stein went back and forth on that. Because Stein wanted a more basic definition of.

Well sort of like a being is creator of all things. And no greater can be conceived and things like that. And Bonson said no.

I am going to defend the God who has revealed himself in scripture. Here again is the difference between the two presentations.

Now Shabir Ali is in error here. Because he is ignoring the biblical understanding of who

Jesus Christ is. He is speaking in John chapter 14 verse 28 of his position.

As one who has entered into human flesh. And the greater there is not greater as in being.

But in current position he has humbled himself. And so that's the context and the reference that is being used there.

So it's an inappropriate application and an inappropriate argument. Against the position that Craig has taken.

But the fact remains that to define God is simply the greatest being which can be imagined.

It's not how the Bible defines God. And so when you use less biblical argumentation.

Then the Bible actually allows you to use. You're going to end up in these sort of dead ends. That you really can't get out of.

And Jesus is said to have said that in the gospel of John. In chapter 14 verse number 28.

Father is greater than I. But Dr. Craig maintains that God is love.

And that would mean that God's love had to be eternal with God. And he thinks the

Muslim God could not have love. Because who was there to love before he created anyone. The analysis leads to the same conclusion.

In the Muslim view if God is to love. And in the

Christian view for God to love. God has to love himself. Whether he's loving another person within the same

God. Loving God. I don't see that this actually has solved anything.

But as Dr. Craig has pointed out. This is a Christian apology. What about the triangle?

Let me just mention. I've read Shabir Ali's material against the deity of Christ.

And things like that. And I'm really hoping that Shabir has progressed. Far beyond what he has put into print anyway.

Those books look like they were fairly old. Because they really do not show an understanding of the doctrine at all.

Then again I wonder if Shabir or any other believing

Muslim. Can honestly come to understand the doctrine at all. The reason being the

Quran misrepresents it. It misidentifies the doctrine of the trinity. As long as you accept the

Quran as the final authority. Then you're always going to be arguing against a straw man. A version of the trinity that simply doesn't exist.

If Dr. Craig maintains that Jesus is God. Means simply that God here is an adjective or an attribute.

So it's like saying that Jesus is red. Well then in order to maintain the trinity doctrine here.

We have to now redefine God. From God being a person. To now God being an attribute.

So it looks like in this case what we're doing. Is that we're cutting the foot to fit the shoe. You see we cannot start by assuming that the trinity is true.

And then change everything around to fit the trinity. We have to look at the Bible carefully. And find out does it actually teach the trinity doctrine.

And then if it does teach that. Well then we will have to make other adjustments. We have to change our faith to fit the

Bible. So I think it is mistaken. I want to turn that into a sound clip.

That I can put on an mp3 player. And put in front of the microphone. Every time Shabir Ali and I debate.

We cannot change the Bible to fit our faith. We must change our faith to fit the Bible. But that's exactly what he refuses to do.

Since his faith forced upon him by Islam. Is different than that of the apostles and prophets themselves.

Then he has to change the Bible. Constantly change the Bible. Adopting the most destructive criticism. Of the

Jesus seminar and people like that. To alter the fundamental message of the Christian scriptures.

So as to fit the Islamic faith that comes later. Which comes from a man who didn't know the Bible to begin with.

The circularity and error of that action is glaring. But it's there.

To think of Jesus as God. True, the debate is not about whether or not

Jesus is God. It is a question of who exactly is God. But if Dr. Craig maintains that God is a trinity.

Then he is maintaining that Jesus is part of that trinity. And naturally we have to find out whether or not

Jesus is really part of that trinity. He thinks I introduced a red herring by talking about.

But it is not a red herring. Because each one of these persons really is

God. And what I have found. Referring to materials from scholars that Dr. Craig respects.

Is that the idea that Jesus is God. Is an idea that develops and evolves over time. Now note, there is one of the major differences.

Shabir Ali would never be able to say who Dr. White respects. Because I wouldn't be respecting any scholar.

Who would take that evolutionary approach. And ignore the mountain of evidence.

Not only within the Christian scriptures themselves. But likewise within the writings of the early church. And again, if Shabir Ali were consistent with himself.

The way he attempts to establish the validity of the companions of the prophet.

And their ability to hear perfectly the Quran. And record it in an exact fashion. If he were to be consistent and use the same standards.

Then we clearly have evidence of the deity of Christ. Within the time period and lifetime of those people. Who ministered with Jesus Christ.

They heard him preaching. They heard him teaching. And yet no evidence whatsoever. They bring any objection to this.

Instead their writings clearly present the doctrine of the deity of Christ. The earliest of the Christian writings outside the

New Testament. Likewise do the same thing. And that's right there on the surface.

So again, inconsistent utilization of materials. Is the only way that Shabir can argue at this point.

It is not the primal original faith of Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is a point

I made in my first speech. Showing the development from Judaism to Christianity and into Islam.

And I have indicated that Christianity by adopting this different belief. Has actually gone in a sense off that path of flow from Judaism to Islam.

In our concept of God. I want to look now at the question of God loving people in such a way.

As to guarantee their salvation. But it is free to choose a different path.

Now Dr. Kreisler agrees that God will punish people. But he thinks that God loves also.

But my question specifically was this. Does God love those people in the same way that he loves the ones who are close to him?

Now that is a good question. I mean let's face it. He is asking a very good question. Does he... But notice something.

There is an error on Shabir's part here as well. And this is where theology matters.

Does he love all in an undifferentiated way? I don't know how people can read the

Old Testament. Or how people can do this. And come to that conclusion. But does he love all in an undifferentiated way?

But then did you hear what was just said? Those who are the closest to him. How do you get closest to him?

See the biblical answer is that God is the one who brings you. He is the one who draws a person to Christ.

It is all done of grace. Not of what I do. It is not I that get myself closer to God by what

I do. That is where the difference would be found. And my answer to that is that God loves everyone in some basic way.

But those who come close to him. He loves even more. See those who come close to him.

By what action? By their action? By their activity? Or by the grace of God through the power of the

Holy Spirit? And those who turn away from him deserve the condemnation that God speaks about when he says that he hates evil doers.

But Dr. Craig thinks that God must punish the evil doers. And I maintain that God does not have to punish evil doers.

He may if he wants. Or he may forgive them if he wants. Is forgiveness contrary to justice?

No, I don't think so. If any one of you were to have a speeding ticket. And you went to court.

You pleaded your case. You explained your circumstances. Now listen to this very carefully. Because of the fact that here you have a tremendous insight into the mindset of the

Muslim who is thinking about justice, holiness, and the punishment of sin. A tremendous insight.

What does he liken it to? A traffic ticket. And how a judge might accept your excuse that you were rushing your wife to the emergency room to give birth.

And that's why you were speeding. This is how God's justice is seen. And how, quite honestly, lightly it's taken.

The judge listened to you and said, yeah, I understand your circumstances. You were speeding because maybe you were driving your wife to the hospital and she was in her last moments of getting ready for delivery.

Somebody has told that lie before. Forgiveness is not contrary to justice.

It is within the scope of the judge's activity to be able to forgive. And by his forgiving, he is still ruling by a just decision.

Injustice, however, could occur if I rob you and if the judge lets me go free.

But, if that judge is God, and if God can compensate you in such a way that you are happy that you were robbed in the first place, then

God can forgive me and God would lose nothing. But in the Islamic conception, we are told that in order to get forgiveness from God, and in fact

Jesus seems to have thought the same thing because in the Gospels, first, you know, don't place your gift yet.

Go and make right the objectionable in any way.

And on the other hand, I see the Christian is a later idea.

If indeed that were the case, then Jesus would have died as a blasphemer. Now, you know, it just seems to me that here we have another one of those major, major, major stumbling blocks.

It doesn't matter how often you explain it. There is something in Islamic theology and the

Islamic worldview that just keeps people from hearing this. And you need to understand this because this is the primary reason that Muslims just cannot believe that we believe that Jesus was crucified upon a cross.

That would mean that he died as a blasphemer. God would never let a prophet or a Zul die as a blasphemer. Therefore, it couldn't have happened.

Despite all the historical evidence and the primacy of the Christian documents and everything else, the fact that people died that way historically and everything else, they just can't believe it and now you just heard it.

Well, he could not possibly have died as a blasphemer. When did the Jews and their understanding of who

Jesus was become the determining factor of the truth? Isn't it so odd given the antipathy that exists between Muslims and Jews that in this point the

Jewish interpretation is taken as being the infallible one? They were in error as to who

Jesus was. They rejected Jesus for who he was. And so what they thought in Jesus' death is irrelevant.

The point is, who was he? Was he who he claimed to be? And did God have a purpose in the crucifixion?

That's the real issue. And then there would be nobody to resurrect him from the dead because God would not resurrect a blasphemer from the dead.

It is only the Muslim conception that makes sense here in saying that Jesus was a righteous person from beginning to end.

He did not commit blasphemy and God rescued him from the plots of his enemies and raised him to himself.

Thank you. ...can be used in different ways.

It can be in either things or as concrete.

In this case you're saying it's a concrete thing.

It's made out of concrete. Or in another case you can use concrete as a noun. Similarly, when it is said

Jesus is God or the Father is God, these are not identity statements. These are statements of predication affirming that all three persons are divine.

So one God comprised of three persons. That is rationally unobjectionable.

Now, Shabir again tries to divert this into a debate over the deity of Christ. And I want to resist this because that's not the issue tonight.

He did not refute the authenticity of Jesus' claims at the trial in which he blasphemed by robbing

God of incommensurateness and unity. He, in effect, committed sure. But what

Shabir says is, well, then he died as a blasphemer. Not at all. His claims are blasphemous only if they are untrue.

But if they are true, he is not a blasphemer. And as Muslims, those of you who are

Muslims tonight, you must believe what Jesus of Nazareth said. Because he was a prophet sent by God.

And so you must believe him when he said that he is the son of man who will succumb in the clouds of power sitting at the right hand of God.

Oh, one other example of using a word as either a noun or an adjective. Say X is leather.

That can be either an adjective or a noun. It doesn't mean that you turn leather from cowhide into an adjective.

So, again, I don't think we've seen any reputation of my argument that the doctrine of three persons and one being is incoherent.

Now, what about my plausibility argument for the Trinity based upon God's nature of self -giving love?

Here, Shabir's response is frankly very weak. He says, on your view, God also loves himself.

But it's totally different because God is composed of three persons. It is not one person self -absorbed in self -love as it is in Islam.

Rather, it is a triad of persons. Each person loving the other. The father loving the son.

The son loving the spirit. The spirit loving the father. And so it's completely different. And thus

God can be a community of loving persons as one being.

And that is a more plausible doctrine of God than a Unitarian concept which has this self -absorbed deity who doesn't give himself away in love and therefore cannot be morally perfect.

So I think we've got not only a rationally unobjectionable doctrine, we've got a doctrine that is quite plausible as well.

Now, let's contrast the Islamic conception of God as a being whose love is conditional, partial, and selective.

Here, Shabir quotes general statements in the Quran that God is full of love and kindness. But the question is, what does that mean?

What does it cash out to? What that cashes out to is that if you do works of righteousness and if you believe the right thing, then

God will assign love to you. Otherwise, he will not love you. And that is crucial to Shabir's answer to the question, why does

God punish people if he loves them? The answer

Shabir gives is, he does not love them. Otherwise, I ask Shabir Ali, why doesn't

God then just forgive everyone if he's so full of love and kindness? Why doesn't everybody go to heaven if that's within God's power?

The real issue I believe tonight between us is these different concepts of omnipotence. The Muslim concept of God, God's omnipotence trumps his own nature so that he can act contrary to his justice.

But on the Christian view, his own nature provides the boundary channels for his omnipotence.

And therefore, God both punishes and loves at the same time like any loving parent does, who finds himself obligated to punish his children.

Now, just yesterday, and the response

I got back from Paul Owen was anything just a little bit short of absolutely filled with hysterics, but I pointed out that this utilization of the term

God's children in this way is not biblical. It is inappropriate and untrue.

And what do I mean by that? Well, it should be straightforward, isn't it? How is anyone truly a son or daughter of God except by faith in Christ Jesus?

We're adopted into the family of God. And so here you have, Craig, it sounds like identifying individuals who will be under his punishment for eternity as his sons and daughters, as his children.

And not differentiating, as he must differentiate, between that and what sonship, adoption in the family of God means, and then you just attach the love of God to that.

Well, like I said, theology matters. Does he love those whom he punishes in the same way that he loves those who are saved?

Yes, absolutely. Did you catch that? Did you catch it? Does he love those whom he is punishing in the same way, did

I use the term exact, same way as those who are saved? Yes.

So you have God with undifferentiated love. Even though we differentiate in our love, there can be no differentiation in God's love.

Even in eternity, which I cannot possibly see how that does not lead to the idea that God is going to be eternally dissatisfied.

God created a situation where he would eternally be loving those that he's punishing. That's what we're being told.

I just, I don't know, I shrug and go, don't think so. God loves the lost, and that's why he sent his son to die for them.

Notice that those are two separate statements. God loves the lost. See, people hear you saying

God has a specific love. I mean, even the Apostle Paul said, he endures all things the sake of whom?

He endures all things the sake of the elect. Now, did he know who the elect were? No. But he knew what the purposes of even his suffering in evangelism and in the missionary enterprise, he knew what those purposes were.

Now, God does know. And so, yes, God loves sinners, because every single one of the elect is a sinner in a redemptive fashion.

And since he doesn't wipe every sinner off the face of the planet the instant that they're born, because they're born in sin, then he shows common grace and love for them as well, and long -suffering and patience.

But if you don't allow God to have at least as great an ability to differentiate in his love as man has, if not a greater one, more holy one, one informed by perfect knowledge and perfect grace and mercy and holiness, if you don't allow that, then the result is really indefensible.

Every single human being is a person for whom Christ gave his life and is therefore beloved of God.

On the Islamic view, however, God does not love. Shabir thinks that I'm presupposing that people are born to pray.

The Quran agrees that all persons are sinful. It says that if God punished men for their sins, not one creature would be left alive.

Now, did you catch that? I bet you some of you fell asleep there. I know the folks in the control room didn't catch that, so maybe you didn't either.

But let me repeat that, if I could, for just a moment, because I think you need to hear what we just heard.

Shabir thinks that I'm presupposing that people are born to pray. Not at all. I'm willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin.

The Quran agrees that all persons are sinful. It says... Did you catch that? Shabir thinks that I believe that all men are born depraved.

Not at all. I'm willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin. Excuse me?

What? That's what I heard. When I first heard this a couple weeks ago,

I was riding, it was extremely cold. I was just, oh, it was miserable. And this is in the low 40s, and when you're riding a bike, you've got a 15 -mile -an -hour wind going by you, and so it feels like it's in the 30s somewhere.

It's just horrible. And I heard that, and I was like, no, I must have misheard that.

But Shabir heard it that way too, as we will hear when we get to that point. But I am willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin.

I think that's what I heard him say. Shabir thinks that I'm presupposing that people are born depraved. Not at all.

I'm willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin. Yep, I think that's what he said.

I think he said, I'm not even going to go there, which is pretty consistent if you're going to be a full -blown

Arminian. You're not really going to believe in total depravity because what's your ultimate philosophical pre -commitment?

Libertarian free will. And if you're totally depraved, well, libertarian free will doesn't work very well, so we are willing to put it aside.

And I just scratch my head and go, whoa, okay, well. And interestingly enough and sadly enough,

Shabir Ali is going to nail him on it. He's going to nail him on it as well he should have. To be perfectly honest with you, if you're going to be willing to waffle like that, then expect to get nailed because these folks know which ends up and they're going to catch the inconsistency.

We'll continue with that, but we're going to take a couple phone calls real quick, make sure to get everybody in this afternoon.

And so we're going to start off with Nasser. Hi, Nasser. Hi, how are you doing?

Doing good. Hey, thanks for taking my call. I really appreciate it. I wanted to compliment you on exposing the double standard that Shabir Ali uses when he evaluates the

Bible, but yet he refuses to apply when he's looking at the Koran. Oh, yeah. Well, it sounds like you've listened to probably even more of Shabir than I have and the constant drumbeat of all of his presentations whenever he addresses the

Bible and whenever he addresses the Koran. See, I took the time before our debate, I took the time to go and listen to stuff where he isn't talking about Christianity.

He's just talking to Muslims about Muslim issues, and I listened very carefully to the standards he used as to what scholarship he would accept and what forms the background of his own presentations.

And when he's talking about the Hadith literature, when he's talking about the time frames between Muhammad speaking and the companions and their recording of the elements of the

Koran, the formulation of the Koran, the Hadith literature, all that stuff he uses the most conservative types of scholarship possible where memories can provide excellent recitation of these things, all that stuff.

Then when he turns around to the Bible and the New Testament especially, you've got shorter time frames, you've got a larger number of witnesses, you have a more urbane society in the sense of it's not out in the desert someplace, and all that stuff just gets wiped away, and within just a matter of years, all the memories of Jesus and his original followers, they all get wiped out.

They don't have anything to say, but he doesn't apply the same standards. It's so glaring and so obvious that it has to be pointed out, and I don't think there will ever be a debate that Shabir and I do that that's not going to have to come up because he's constantly following that kind of a perspective.

I feel that he failed to even present any of the cases or evidences for the Koran or Islam as you had cornered him in that position.

But one thing I've got to bring up to you is the only person that I know who actively presents a case for Islam and the

Koran is Nadir Ahmed, and what I've heard is that he has challenged you to a debate, and you had declined or you were running away from that.

Well, Nadir Ahmed seems to me to be very much like the Peter Ruckman of Islamic apologists, and I listened to his encounter with Sam Shamoon, and it was quite honestly laughable, and the idea of him actually presenting anything scholarly

I think is a long stretch at that point. I've gotten no indication whatsoever.

In fact, I addressed a little bit of his debate with Sam on the dividing line last year and pointed out that he didn't even understand what the doctrine of the trinity was.

He certainly didn't have any knowledge of Greek or anything like that. And one of the things that has really bothered me about this gentleman is his followers.

His followers tend to write nasty, demeaning, threatening emails.

They say you're a chicken, you're running away, and all the rest of this stuff. The fact of the matter is

I've never seen the man produce anything that is even partially scholarly in its content.

I see no evidence that the man has any type of training, has not taught.

I don't think he can deal with Hebrew or Greek in any fashion whatsoever. And so to even deign the kind of bullying that has come from his followers with a response

I think is truly a waste of time. At least Shabir Ali, you must give him tremendous credit.

He does not behave the way that Nadir does in debate, and I think that's an excellent thing to point out, because these debates need to be handled in a fashion that you do not inflame emotions, especially in our world today.

Instead, you bring enlightenment and understanding, and I don't think Nadir knows how to do that. Thanks for your call today.

Let's go ahead and talk with Mike. Hi, Mike. How are you doing? I'm doing great, Dr. White.

How are you? Doing good. I hate really to get so totally way off subject, but I've done quite a bit of talking to Catholic priests and doing some more debating and whatnot with different Catholic people, and I was listening to your debate with Patrick Madrid on saints and images, and it was a great debate.

As a matter of fact, I was thinking, didn't my heart burn within me when I heard you open up the scriptures? Well, you know, the irony is they make that kind of debate available to their people too, and that's one of the reasons we make sure that we give them an unedited master too, because so often, just to tell you this story, and I've mentioned it before, but after the debate with Peter Stravinskis, and if you haven't seen or heard that one,

I think you'd find it to be very useful as well, we debated purgatory on Long Island, and afterwards,

Mike O 'Fallon was standing back next to our table, and he heard these Roman Catholic guys standing nearby, and in fact, he's sort of wondering if in fact, maybe they were doing this just for his benefit, but he listened to them, and they were going, oh, when

Father Stravinskis spoke, you could just feel the truth flowing out from him, but when that white guy got up, you could see the demon circling his head, and Mike goes, excuse me, but were you attending the same debate

I was, and of course, then they went on from there, but it is amazing how people can hear only what they want to hear in certain situations, and with the

Madrid debate, you would think that Roman Catholics especially would sit back and go, no, wait a minute, wait a minute, these things aren't relevant today, because those folks back then were the only ones who had a real problem with idolatry, and since we don't have a problem with idolatry, that's not relevant to us, hello,

I mean, their whole pro -life thing just went flying out the window, if you would be consistent, exegetically there, but they don't see it, they don't see it, so anyways, that wasn't your question, though.

No, actually, it goes right along with that, though, because as far as intention goes, and I was looking into Exodus 32,

I was writing a little something myself, and I was thinking about it, because the same word, and I'm not really up on the

Hebrew just yet, I've got a couple more years before I start that class. Well, get your Greek down first anyways, because to be honest with you, of the two, the

Greek's going to be significantly more useful to you in apologetics. Okay, good. Well, as far as the question goes, when they were building, or when they created this golden calf, the words that they used were

Elohim, and in the translations that I have, it says these are your gods that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and as far as I understand, they knew that it was

God that brought them up out of Egypt, and so I figured that they just wanted something to focus on, since that was their custom from living with the

Egyptians for so many years. Well, yeah, in fact, if you look at Exodus 32 .4, interestingly enough, the

ESV says these are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. The NASB has this is your god,

O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Now, Elohim itself can be translated as God or gods, and when it's used in conjunction with Yahweh, it's

Yahweh Elohim, Lord God, in English translations and things like that. But again, interestingly enough, the

Greek Septuagint reads, Hoi Theoi, the gods,

O Israel, that brought you up out of Egypt, and I would think that that would be the proper translation, because it's followed by hoitanes, which is plural.

So it's the gods who brought you up out of, and to bring up is also plural.

So I would have to fault even my own NASB at this point, because it is, even though he's pointing, see, the

NASB is actually being a little bit interpretive here, because you're looking at a single idol, and you only see one idol in view here, and so it's like, well, there's only one idol, so this must be just one god.

But I think you need to let the text say what it says, because sometimes a single idol would represent an entire pantheon or group of gods.

Right, and I was just coming to this conclusion because of the fact that they knew who brought them up out of Egypt.

Well, they knew who had been proclaimed to them. I mean, this is after the

Red Sea. Can you imagine? I mean, I think one of the things we need to see here is, remember what

Jesus said, actually, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, what does

Abraham say to the rich man there in Hades when he is under torment, when he asks, well, send

Lazarus to warn my brothers. If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, then they will not hear.

Here you have people who have seen miracle after miracle. They saw Passover. They saw the

Egyptians carrying their firstborn in their hands as they leave. They've walked through the corridors of the waters, piled up on both sides.

They see the Egyptian army destroyed, and what, about three or four or five weeks pass, they don't see

Moses, and so all of a sudden they're willing to worship gods again. I mean, these atheists run around going, well, you know, if God would just show up and do a miracle or something, we'd believe.

No, you wouldn't. These people had seen miracle after miracle after miracle, and they still, it didn't change their hearts, and that becomes really a standard for all of us to keep in mind.

Absolutely. Well, thank you very much, sir, for your answer. And you press on with your, because even notice there,

I went to the Greek. I mean, because Elohim in Hebrew can be translated the way, but remember, it's the

Greek septuagint that is quoted in the New Testament. And so if you have Greek, you have access to the

New Testament, and you have access to the translation of the Old Testament that was used in the early church. Right.

And so that's a good thing to make sure you've got down real well. Okay. I'm in my second semester, and I'm pushing hard.

Press on. Using mounts or using a different grammar? We're using the BJU. Oh, okay.

And it's been really good to me, and my Greek teacher is great.

Well, as long as he is able to instill in you a love for the language rather than a hatred of the language, that's the important part.

All right. Thanks for calling. Thank you. All right. God bless. God bless. All right. Let's continue on with what we've got here.

Let's listen again. This is right toward the end of Craig's statements, and listen to how Shabir is like, eh, when he gets up, because I can just imagine him writing very quickly at that point going,

What did he just say? Shabir thinks that I'm presupposing that people are born to pray. Not at all.

I'm willing to set aside any doctrine of original sin. The Quran agrees that all persons are sinful.

It says that if God punished men for their sins, not one creature would be left alive. So we all find ourselves under God's justice.

And the question is, if God is all loving and his omnipotence trumps his justice, why doesn't he just forgive everybody?

The only answer the Muslim can give is the one Shabir has given. He doesn't love unbelievers.

And that is what the Quran says over and over and over again. He says love is a later emphasis in the

New Testament. Not at all. I showed that it comes from Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount. Love your enemies just as God the

Father is perfect and loves his enemies. So the real issue is this question of omnipotence,

I believe. Now, what about Shabir Ali's yo mama defense, where he says, well, the Christian God is just the dead fat.

I don't think that the yo mama defense is going to work. Why? Because that doesn't show the Islamic conception of God to be defensible.

At most, it would show that both the Christian and the Islamic conception of God is defective.

That maybe it's the Buddhists who are right, and that both the Muslim and Christian concepts are defective.

So that kind of strategy doesn't work in tonight's debate. But what I argue is that there are multitudes of other passages in the

Scripture that do affirm God's love for sinners and unbelievers. And that for every passage you could name that says

God hates evil doers, there are ten that says that he loves them. So how do you understand this?

Well, the way you understand it is that God loves the person, but he hates their sin.

Now, Shabir says, but he doesn't punish their sin, he punishes sinners. Well, of course not, because sin doesn't exist in abstraction apart from sinners.

But God loves the sinners, even as he punishes them, because he is absolutely holy.

If sin doesn't exist in abstraction from sinners, then how can you say

God hates the sin, but not the sinners? So I don't think this strategy works.

I think at the end of the day, the Muslim concept of God is rationally deficient because God is not a morally perfect and all -loving being.

Well, I hope that Shabir can understand that he is talking to someone who is, when you're willing to put aside the doctrine of original sin, you're talking to someone who isn't really representing to you a fully biblical perspective.

You've got to deal with Romans 5. We're running out of time here, unfortunately, but in essence, what

Craig's response is later on is to say, well, if he didn't die for original sin, what

Jesus died for was actual sin. That's his terminology. He died for actual sin, sins that we actually commit.

So why do babies die? I mean, we're right back.

Here's a classic example of where you come up with your apologetics. You come up with your philosophy.

You come up with your apologetic arguments, and then when a sharp debater, and you'll notice, by the way, did you notice how that fellow schlummen for Nadir there sits on hold for 40 minutes, and he knows what he's willing to do?

He's willing to take out Shabir. He's willing to take out an Islamic apologist. Well, we've gotten emails doing that very thing.

They haven't just attacked us. They've attacked Shabir, too. Yeah, it's amazing. That must be an interesting realm in which to work.

Let me tell you something. But anyways, yeah, he went right after it at that particular point in time.

But the reason that this problem with William Lane Craig's apologetic in theology comes up is because Shabir Ali is sharp enough to point it out.

So in other words, you need to be consistent in your theology when you're debating someone like Shabir Ali, and that's certainly something that we attempt to do.

Now, Lord willing, I've got regular tickets. I'm supposed to be back by 9 o 'clock

Monday night. And so, Lord willing, we'll be here Tuesday morning, but you never know when a snowstorm or something's going to hit someplace and mess up your flight.

So hopefully, unless you hear something on the blog, we'll be here normal time, Tuesday, here on the dividing line.

See you then. God bless. The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org, that's A -O -M -I -N .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.