Bassam Zawadi and 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. And welcome to Dividing Line on a Tuesday morning, the only Dividing Line of the week, unless we can talk somebody else into it, unless we have a volunteer step forward and say,

I will host the Dividing Line on Thursday. But what's that?

Craig Wray. Where did that come from?

My goodness. I mean, how long has it been since we saw Craig Wray? It's been, I'll never forget when

I got my first Alpha Omega Watchdog Committee letter from Craig Wray.

It was the heading on the letter was made in magic marker. But yeah,

I remember that. But I really hadn't thought of old Craig since probably last

Easter pageant, I would say. When is Easter this year? I don't know either.

We're going to have to find out because maybe we'll have to show it back up out there. And the

King James Only guys didn't really show up last year, so maybe they got bored. They may be finding somebody else to bother these days.

Who knows? Anyway, that's not what I was going to be talking about today. Welcome to the Dividing Line. Not going to be here on Thursday.

That's how we got sidetracked. Maybe we can find Vicki Ann in channel says she'll do it.

Barry will do it. Something like that. We should get

Rosie to do it. I think Rosie would do a great job starting off.

I'm not sure what she'd do the rest of the hour, but we could get Rosie on there and something like that.

That would be good. Why does Jamin want to talk about stuff like that this early in the morning?

I have no earthly idea. It's like, come on. Can't we just talk about that in channel and leave it there?

Anyway, got stuff going on this week, next week and the week after in the United Kingdom. We'll try somehow at some point to do a

Dividing Line. It won't be easy because I'm moving from place to place, so a lot of traveling since I go from London up to Dublin and then

Dublin over to Glasgow and Glasgow back down to London. It's not going to be as easy to find a time to do something, but we'll try to do something.

Remember what happened last year when I was in London? In fact, I was in London in late

February last year. And remember what happened then?

That was when we posted the first post where I had corresponded with a certain

Ergon Kanner on the subject of his claims to have debated Shabir Ali. And that happened.

And I received the note from Mr. Khan when

I was between planes. I was in Philadelphia getting ready to board for Heathrow, and that's when

I got the email. And at the time, I couldn't download the file to listen to it.

I didn't have enough time. And so it was when I got to London, got checked into my hotel that I listened to the file, realized, yes, indeed, he had claimed that.

And that's when I wrote to Shabir Ali. Shabir Ali responded within 20 minutes, and that's when

I wrote to Ergon Kanner. And all the rest of it, as they say, is history.

And so, yeah, get Ergon to host the program. That would be interesting. Yeah, that would be very interesting.

We'd have Ergon and Shabir on at the same time. That would be, hi, nice to meet you, Dr. Kanner. Never met you before, but I hear you say you've met me.

We debated in Nebraska. Okay, whatever. So that's what started it all. But even then, even then, it was only over the next, it was pretty much in March that people started going, you know, you know, these dates don't match.

These things don't, this doesn't work right. There's some problems here. And well, we all know what happened from that point onward.

One of the tasks that will be mine over in the United Kingdom on the 12th of February, right toward the end of my time there, will be to debate

Bassam Zawadi on whether Islam misrepresents Christianity, especially in its sacred book called the

Quran. And we will be looking at that. I want to spend a few moments at the beginning of the program today listening to a few more statements from Bassam and responding to them.

Once again, I have used my Sonocent Audio Notetaker program, which

I'm going to have to keep watching it. It would be nice if this would show up in Mac sometime too, but it's a

Windows program. But hey, you know, I could probably install it using Wine or one of those other programs that runs those crazy window things.

But anyway, I wanted to address a couple of his statements in regards to the deity of Christ, not the entire thing.

But actually, I'm going to skip down to, I think it's this one right here.

Is this the one I'm looking? Well, see, that's just it. No, I think it's this one here. I'm going to try this one. I have all these pretty colors on my screen.

Let's try this one. I think this is the statement I'm looking for. We will find out.

Well, let's listen. You know, one thing that me and Saadi were concerned about regarding Christianity was that we were afraid that you guys might, because many

Muslims have misconceptions about what Christianity is. And we wanted to make sure that you guys don't have these misconceptions, because a lot of Muslims, they might think, okay,

Christians believe, all I have to do is sit back and believe Jesus died for me and I can go and party and do whatever

I want. Christians don't believe that. So you have to make sure that you don't have misconceptions about their faith, because if you talk to them and this is what you think of them, they're going to say, this guy doesn't know anything about my faith.

So the way I want to know. So there was another statement later on, and maybe

I'll run across it later on, where it said something similar. And that is, you know, I want to applaud

Bassam for seeking to encourage his listeners to have an accurate knowledge of what they're criticizing.

And we all, you know, when you end up disagreeing with someone about their faith, the first thing is to accuse somebody of just not understanding it or misrepresenting it.

And I fully understand that. I fully understand how it works. And look, on both sides of this particular divide, it is difficult to stand in front of an audience and say,

Muslims believe. Now, are you talking about a

Sunni? Are you talking about a Shiite? Are you talking about some of the smaller groups that the

Sunnis wouldn't even say are Muslims? I mean, I've listened to well -known Sunni scholars just ripping on the

Shiites, just accusing them of not really being Muslims at all. And of course, you hear that from the other direction as well, when you listen to the

Shiites, with much more passion normally from the Shiites. And then you've got the Druze, and you've got the

Ahmadi, and you've got all these groups. And look, it is hard on our side of the fence here to really figure out exactly where everybody stands.

And even amongst the Sunnis, you've got all these different groups with different emphases, and then you throw the Sufis in for the fun of it, and it can get rather complicated.

And let's be honest, from the other direction, can you imagine what it's like to be raised as a

Muslim without almost any knowledge of Christianity whatsoever, and looking over at what we've got?

I mean, you see the Pope, and you see Roman Catholicism, and Mormon missionaries go by, and they talk about Jesus, and the

Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your door, and they talk about Jesus. And once in a while, you stumble across TBN on cable.

And the result, look, folks, we sort of have to bend over backwards,

I think, to try, and this isn't naturally easy for us to do, but we have to try to recognize that a lot of folks, even folks who oppose us, and who oppose gospel preaching, we cannot be 100 % certain that they really have a clear understanding of what the truth is in the midst of all the babble that's out there.

And so, you know, we have to ask them for patience when we, you know,

I try to normally couch my presentations in language such as the vast majority of Sunni Muslims will say.

And I'll honestly tell folks, I don't really, I don't know Shi 'ism the way

I should. I've got a few books, haven't gotten through them yet. Maybe if I could get them on my Kindle or something,

I could get through them a little faster. But, you know, it is hard to get a beat on everything.

And so I try to say, well, the vast majority of most will say something like, rather just simply saying, well,

Muslims say this. Because you'll always run across an exception to the rule somewhere along the line. But at the same time, you know, when you look at their responses to us, we need to try to realize that, you know, for a lot of them, they look at Protestants as just stepchildren of the real

Christianity. And they see, remember what happened when Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, quoted from a medieval writer about the violence of Islam?

And you had violence all over the place. It's a sort of a self -fulfilling prophecy. These folks are violent.

Well, we are not! And then they get violent. And, you know, but they look at Rome as the very representative of Christianity.

Now, at the same time, a lot of them, once they start doing some reading, start going, you know, I don't see anything in the

New Testament about all this stuff that Rome teaches. But that's another issue. So, I do appreciate the statement that, you know, we need to accurately represent what the other side is saying as best you can.

Sometimes that is difficult to do. Let's continue. Let's back up a little bit in the lecture, actually. I want to address some of the statements that Bassam made about the deity of Christ, and then probably after the half -hour mark or something like that, we'll get to our calls, which are, interestingly, on a wide variety of subjects.

Did Jesus claim divinity? Now, let's look at some of Jesus' statements in the

Gospels. Matthew 24, 36. This is what

Jesus said. No one knows about that day or hour, meaning the Day of Judgment. Not even the angels in heaven, nor the

Son. He's referring to himself. Nor the Son, but only the Father. So, the only person, the only one who is omniscient, the only one who knows when the

Day of Judgment would come is the Father. He excluded himself. Now, what are they going to say?

They're going to say, well, you see, Jesus had two natures. So, when he became man, that also means he became limited.

So, that's why Jesus didn't know when the last day was. Yeah, but Jesus is God. How didn't he know when the last day was?

That's because he became a man. So, he let go of his attributes of being omniscient, being all -knowing.

But then he could argue back, well, if the Trinity is there, then you also have the

Holy Spirit. How come the Holy Spirit didn't know about the last day? The Holy Spirit didn't become a man.

So, how come only the Father knows of the last day? This one is the clearest verse.

Now, actually, I think that last statement is introducing the next one we're going to listen to.

Maybe. I could be wrong about that. We'll see here in a moment. But we've all heard this text raised over and over again in regards to, well,

Jesus can't be God because Jesus is not omniscient. And the psalm recognizes that most responses to this focus upon the fact that Jesus was incarnate, that there was some kind of self -limitation in regards to the incarnation, in regards to, for example, the veiling of his glory, the exercise of divine power, and things like that.

But what caught my attention as I was listening to this again was, you know, what I would like to ask is, again, concerning the consistency of my

Muslim friends and their use of Scripture. Whenever they cite texts that they think support their position, they never bother to address the textual issues or the textual backgrounds.

There is a textual variant in this text. Nothing was mentioned about that. But what's more is, does the psalm really believe that Jesus said this?

Did you notice a little something? This is where, and I probably heard this, I don't know how many times, before it struck me, the irony of a

Muslim citing this text. And the irony is, what is the name of the son here?

How does the son refer to himself as the son? And isn't that the very thing that Islam denies to Christ, that he's the son of God?

And that he uses this language of himself? Or does he use this language of himself, but doesn't mean son of God by it?

I mean, I had challenged the psalm in an email, and I decided not to pursue the email exchange, because they just get bigger and bigger and bigger, and they just eat all your time up.

But I had once again raised what strikes me as a tremendous inconsistency in Islamic thinking.

And that is, Muslims will accept the non -historical ascription of words to Jesus found in the

Quran. And from any historian's perspective, the words of the Quran, when relating to Jesus, are non -historical.

How can they be anything else? They don't claim that the Quran was written at the time of Christ. They don't claim that it's based upon documents that go back to the time of Christ.

The words of Jesus recorded in the Quran have to be taken as direct revelation, period, end of discussion.

There's no claim that, well, you know, Muhammad had access to these records that had been written long ago, and nobody else had them.

No, there's nothing like that. It's divine revelation. And so by divine revelation,

Jesus speaks in the Quran, and these words are not historical. They do not go back to the time of Jesus.

And yet they'll accept that because, well, this is the word of God. Now, if I respond to almost any criticism of what the

Bible says by saying, well, it's just the word of God, you have to believe what it says, then they're like, well, this scholar says this, and this scholar says that's uncertain, and we can cut

Paul up into pieces and John up into pieces, and we can put this verse against that verse, and we can follow all those scholars, but when it comes to our book, we won't apply that standard in any way, shape, or form.

And I just pointed out, I had gone back to one of the earliest papyri manuscripts, and I had pulled out a graphic of words from Jesus in John 8, 58, where he uses the egoimi phrase of himself.

And I said, here we have, in the earliest manuscripts we possess of the

New Testament, this claim of Jesus, which is so clearly a claim of deity.

And yet someone will believe what is written 600 years later that could never be ascribed to the historical

Jesus at all. And the basis upon which they reject the historicity and accuracy of the first is completely inconsistent with the basis upon which they accept the accuracy of the second.

If they were to apply the same type of quote -unquote scholarly standards that a critic of the

New Testament applies that leads him to end up questioning the validity of New Testament text, then the entirety of everything

Jesus says in the Quran would not even be put on the table for examination. It's not even in the historical realm from their perspective.

And that was the inconsistency that I saw there. And I think there's an inconsistency here too. Well, it says right here in Matthew 24, and how do you know these words are accurate?

In light of your criticisms of every other text where Jesus is called

God? Where is the consistency here? I think

I have been consistent in calling for consistency. And, you know,

I don't mind at all being challenged as to whether I am being consistent in the standards that I'm using. And I would expect

Bassam to challenge me on the 12th to be consistent in my exegesis of the

Quran, and I will seek to be so. But at the same time, I'm going to be challenging

Bassam. And what I really hope this debate is on the 12th, by the way, is not a high -speed, talking, throw -everything -but -the -kitchen -sink -out type of thing.

I want to engage with Bassam. I want to look at a limited number of texts in the

Quran, because there's only a limited number to look at in the first place, but even more so be focused upon the main issues, and basically ask the question,

If the Quran is going to condemn me to an eternity in hellfire for believing what the apostles of Jesus Christ taught, and that's what it does, then

I need to have some reason, I need to have some basis for, A, believing that the author of the

Quran knew what the disciples of Jesus taught, and B, understood what it is that Christianity is actually teaching.

I need to have that. I mean, if you're going to believe a document that comes along 600 years later with no historical connection at all to the events of Jesus' life, to the early church, anything like that, then there's a burden of proof that needs to come along.

You don't just start there. Since this book talks about the

Torah and the Injil, since it talks about Moses and it talks about Jesus, and specifically says they were given revelations in which was light and guidance, well, that means this last one needs to stand up to scrutiny.

This last revelation from the Islamic perspective needs to stand up to scrutiny. And the question is, does it?

Well, I don't think it does. Let's listen to the next objection.

Okay, yeah, that preceding statement was about this, so I'm going to back it up here. So here is the clearest denial of the deity of Christ from Bassam's perspective.

Jesus says this, Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, he's talking to the

Father, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Notice how Jesus is telling the Father, you are the only true God. And then he separates himself from the

Father. He's clearly telling the Father, you are the only true God. Now what does the Trinity teach?

The Trinity teaches, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is

God. It can't say, the Father is the only true God. If you're saying the

Father is the only true God, that means that the Son is not God, that the Holy Spirit is not God.

So you're going to see ridiculous responses to this. They're going to say, the

Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true

God. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What's the Holy Spirit like? They know that the

Son is Jesus and the Father is God. What's the Holy Spirit like? You see, they believe that each person in the

Godhead has a different role. The Father's main role is that he has the authority. He would send the

Son, God the Son, to die for the sins of the world. After that is done, if anyone believes in that, then

God, the Holy Spirit, will come and dwell inside of you, to support you. So each one has his role, you see.

So now we see in John 17, verse 3, that Jesus clearly states that the Father is the only true

God. Now, for quite some time, I've had a response to this up on YouTube, back from my debate with Hamza Abdel -Malik in 1999.

I do think that there is confusion on Bassam's part at this point. We're later on going to hear some statements that seem to indicate a continued confusion and a misunderstanding of the existence of divine persons, the relationship of the divine persons.

There is somewhat of a reference, I think, in the statement that was, in the response that was made to my own assertions on this particular subject.

But you'll notice that, as is almost always the case, when

Muslims address this, they only address verse 3. They do not read it in context.

Even though Bassam would say, he will argue, for example, that in, what is it, the

Markan passage, where the rich young ruler comes up to Jesus, he says, well, you've got to read the context.

Always read the context. That will refute their answers to that. But for some reason, when it comes to John 17, he doesn't read the rest of the context and doesn't deal with the fact that, for example, in verse 3,

Jesus, well, not only, again, he recognizes, who is he addressing here? Why would he use terminology such as father and son?

Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son, that the son may glorify you.

I thought God didn't have a son. I thought the Quran said, I thought that it was fundamental to Islamic theology that Jesus would not use such things.

He's a mere Rasul. He is not the son, in the way that he's using this.

The son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

So why not start with the beginning of the prayer, where Jesus is given the power, he has been given authority over, oh, wait a minute,

I thought Jesus was only sent to the Jews. Isn't that the Islamic perspective, that Jesus is only sent to the

Jews? He's just the Jewish Messiah. And yet Jesus says, since you have given him authority over all flesh.

And what prophet is given the authority and power to give eternal life to all whom you have given him?

What prophet is given the people of God? I mean, I think you can argue on the basis of John 17 too, that if you want to have eternal life, then you have to be given by the father to the son.

That's exactly what John 6 taught, chapters earlier. The themes continue. The themes of the centrality of Christ, the salvation of God's people, throughout all generations, not just the

Jewish people. So why not start there? That really would seem to be the direction to go.

But then you have the statement, this is eternal life. That they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Two parts in having eternal life. Knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ who has been sent by the only true

God. And of course, the Islamic idea as well, that since we assume

Unitarianism, and the father is the only true God, that means that Jesus can't be God. So to have eternal life, you have to know the only true

God and a creature. Well, I suppose if John 17 ended at verse 3,

I suppose you could, you know, try to make that argument. But it doesn't end there.

I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

What mere prophet shared in the very personal glory of God himself before his birth?

Well, again, it would seem that if Bassam follows his own stated methodology, he would need to deal with what comes before John 17, 3, and what comes after John 17, 3.

Especially when he says, this is the clearest one. Really? Jesus is called Son. He is given authority over all flesh.

He's the source of eternal life. You have to know him to have eternal life. And he preexisted with the

Father in a glorious state before his birth. Hmm. Is that really where you want to go?

I don't think so. John 20, 17. Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the

Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, I am returning to my Father and your

Father, to my gods and your gods. How can a god have a god? Now, there's the statement

I was saying. How can a god have a god? Well, if you're a Unitarian, that's not possible.

But if you are deriving your theology from the Scriptures, then you have to notice what?

That you have one god, Yahweh, and you have three distinct persons described with that one name of Yahweh, which is why

Christians believe in the Trinity. And that incarnate one, who came to earth, took on human flesh.

And that was my whole point, and why I keep asking people when they raise objections like this, if one of the divine persons became incarnate, would that one incarnate one be an atheist?

Would he not have communion with the Father with whom he's had communion for eternity?

Would he stop that communion? And what is communion with God called when you are in the flesh?

It's called prayer. So, again, just misunderstandings, a lack of understanding of what's being criticized, resulting in arguments that really are not arguments at all.

Why did Jesus say that he has a god? And, again, the responses that you're going to see to this, sometimes don't just leave you speechless.

You just don't know how to reply back to their response, because it's just so empty and shallow.

You just have nothing to reply back. Someone says to you, the Son is the only true God, the Father is the only true God. How are you going to reply back to this?

This makes no sense. The point is to show that, listen, the verses that are clear, the verses that I read under plain reading, show that Jesus is not

God. So, here you have the claim, well, I'm just giving the plain reading.

Why not deal with all the texts where the plain reading clearly indicates that Jesus is God, and then understand it all consistently?

I mean, we've heard nothing about the key texts, the presentation of Jesus as creator, as Yahweh, the use of God.

If you're going to quote John 2017, quote John 2028, where Thomas says, my Lord and my

God, and Jesus identifies that as a statement of faith. Could any Muslim prophet be called

Lord and God, and then say that's a statement of faith? Of course not. And so what's normally said, oh, well, those are corruptions.

Well, if John 2028 has been corrupted, how do you know John 2017 hasn't been corrupted? Consistency, consistency, consistency.

I was looking for it. Also, it says in the Gospel of Luke, and it came to pass in these days, that he, meaning Jesus, went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

How can God pray to God? Again, these all just demonstrate a misunderstanding of the

Psalms part of what the doctrine of the Trinity is, which is unfortunate. How can

God pray to God? Well, that was the Son communicating with the Father, a communication which, according to John 1, had been going on eternally between two divine persons, and continues in the incarnate state.

Since we have so many phone calls, I'm going to go ahead and stop there. I had a few more queued up, but I'm going to go ahead and stop there, and maybe continue on after we get back from London.

I don't know. Maybe we'll have more important things to talk about when we get back. I don't know. We will see.

But many people have been calling 877 -753 -3341. Where are we going?

There's so many here. I can't even tell. What? Well, I guess we'll get

Jamin out of the way first here. He called in first. Jamin, not going to continue the conversation from Channel last night, if that's what we're looking for, but if it's a different subject, we can go with it.

Well, no, I didn't expect to continue the conversation. I did have a question. This is something

I tried to get in last week, but I wasn't available. I was just reading through Raymond's Systematic Theology, and it's obviously a wonderful work.

But there was just a footnote that I wanted your thoughts on, and it was on page 937.

He says, So closely connected is the sign circumcision and the spiritual reality it signifies, the verities of the covenant of grace, that Stephen is willing to describe the

Abrahamic covenant by its sign. He states that God gave the covenant of circumcision,

Acts 7 -8. And I guess reading that first time, I felt like he kind of just turned the meaning of the text upside down.

Is he talking about Stephen in Acts 7? He gives the citation 7 -8.

Yeah, so you're talking to circumcised people who are clearly unregenerate, and yet the point is that the sign is so closely related to the reality.

It would seem that the reason for the statement is to bring further judgment upon men who were obviously so enamored with the sign that they didn't have the spiritual aspect of it themselves.

But I don't have Raymond in front of me to read the context or anything. So again, it all goes back to what is the fulfillment of that sign in the

New Covenant. I believe it's regeneration. Richard Braselis' article on Colossians 2 demonstrating that it's regeneration, that's the fulfillment of circumcision, not baptism,

I think is very, very useful. I may just ask Richard if I can just post that someplace.

I know it's in RBTR, but if it's available online someplace, I want to be able to track it down for folks.

I just think it's very straightforward. The superiority of the

New Covenant is found in the reality of the fact that those things that under the

Old Covenant, however you want to define that, were looking forward to greater fulfillment are found in the spiritual working of the

Spirit of God and bringing about regeneration for all of those who are in the New Covenant. And it's all going to keep devolving back to that.

We can chase rabbits all across the desert landscape out here in Phoenix if we want to. It all comes back to that particular issue, as far as I can see.

Okay, so, I mean, the covenant of circumcision in this text is not to be lumped together with the covenant of grace.

Well, which... Acts 7, 8. That's interesting.

My Logos won't sign anymore. That's great. Then I'll go to it in a different program here.

I've never seen that happen before, but when I live by technology, I die by technology, I suppose.

And it gave him the covenant of circumcision, so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him. So he's saying that since there is circumcision here, this means...

Yeah, he says Stephen is willing to describe the Abrahamic covenant by its sign. Well, okay.

So, when Paul discusses Abraham as the father of the faithful in Romans 4, why is it that Abraham is the only one that can be described as the father of the faithful and not

Isaac? Because Abraham had his faith and was justified before receiving the sign.

And Isaac and all the others would have received the sign prior to their justification. So, yeah, you can obviously utilize that terminology, but what does that mean?

Does that somehow mean that the sign is more important than the faith upon which the justification took place?

You know, I don't see how that works, but anyway. Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, thanks, man. Yeah, see you. Let's... Got lots of people here.

Let's go up to Aaron. Hi, Aaron. Hello, Aaron.

Yes, sir? I just had a quick question. I know you said there's a lot of varied topics, and I'm sure this is another topic that you weren't expecting to discuss, but I was talking with a

Seventh -day Adventist a couple days ago debating with him, and basically he asked me where I can find the evidence for the

Evangelical Church throughout history. And it really occurred to me how incredibly well,

I guess you'd call it revisionist history as far as you watch certain Catholic programs and even, you know, just what the

Seventh -day Adventist was telling me about certain people like the Albigensians and the Waldensians, and basically they smear them up and down the wall and say that, you know, they were non -Trinitarians and they had, you know, consolamentum, which was, you know, their own specific sacrament that they relied on.

But one thing I realized as I was looking through a book, well, it's huge, so it would take you forever to actually read the whole thing, but I read a couple of statements of faith in the

Martyr's Mirror and creeds from the Albigensians and the Waldensians, and I was shocked to see that they were utterly almost identical to a typical

Evangelical statement of faith from today. So I just didn't know if you had any comments or, you know, if you could help out and clarify for people how, you know, people are leaving, you know,

Catholics, for instance, you know, Catholic apologetics or apologists, rather, and, like I said, my

Seventh -Day Adventist friend on the phone, you know, it's there. Like, there is evidence there in the history.

I'm a little confused with the Seventh -Day Adventist part here. I understand Catholics and the Waldensians and Albigensians and so on and so forth.

Where are the Seventh -Day Adventists coming from? How did they get in here? Well, yeah, and that's what I thought at first, too, because they, for a lot of, you know, what they believe would appear on the surface to at least be, you know, uniform with Evangelical Christianity, but basically he was telling me, as far as the mixing of the covenants, you're probably familiar that they do, where basically you have to keep all the commandments and keep the

Sabbath holy, and they try to present you with evidence of that down through history, you know, with the first churches and such.

So they try to claim the Albigensians and Waldensians as well? Well, not necessarily them.

I mean, obviously, you know, about the non -Trinitarian Anabaptist sect and things like that, but basically he wasn't necessarily concentrating on what he can prove for his faith or for Seventh -Day

Adventism, but he was trying to disprove what Evangelical Christianity can, you know, claims as far as church history goes.

You know, by saying that there was no Evangelical Christians, there were not people who believed you were saved by grace alone through faith apart from works.

And if there were, they were very spotty, and I was shocked when I read, like I said, all those creeds, and I realized, wow, these guys believe almost identically to what we believe.

Yeah, well, the problem is, in all those situations, you're dealing with fragmentary information.

Almost everything that we know is mediated through other sources. You can, if you want, find what sound like extremely orthodox statements.

You can, if you want, find what seem to be extremely unorthodox statements. When people are not given an entire lifetime to live and they're constantly in persecution, and what we know about them has come to us through those who persecuted them, even when those people thought they were doing them a favor by seeking to bring them back to the true church, and so on and so forth.

I don't doubt for a moment that you can find sound orthodox

Evangelicals using that term as we would use it today in these groups, hiding in those mountains.

There had to have been a reason why the Inquisition was so interested in those places and was so interested in pursuing with such vigor and force the churches of the

Piedmont Valley, and there are a number of books on those subjects. You have to be careful. Sometimes some trail -of -blood

Baptist -type folks try to basically create a mirror apostolic claim to what

Rome does, as if you have to be able to trace this specific line of individuals by name, and it goes through this bishop, and then it goes over here, and then you've got this over there.

History is just not going to provide us with that kind of thing in light of the fragmentary nature of what history can provide to us.

What we have is a scriptural promise that Christ would build His church, and He has continued to do so, and He does so in such a way that there are always those who cling to biblical truth and continue to preach a biblical gospel.

We cannot expect to read back into previous ages of history all of our concerns and all of our issues in regards to Rome and things like that, because even the development and evolution of Roman Catholicism over the centuries involves different aspects of Roman Catholic belief taking preeminence at certain times.

And so if we have to point out how often the

Roman Catholics engage in anachronism and reading things back into history, then we have to be careful not to do the same thing ourselves and demand that people of the past necessarily answer all the questions the same way we do.

So I do think that there is value in looking at those groups and in seeing that there were true believers there, but I wouldn't limit it to just them in any way, and I would be hesitant to create the kind of apostolic claims that, well, see, here's where the line continues, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Instead, I think we need to be thankful for all of the faithful down through the ages, and I don't think that it's really up to us to necessarily have the ability to say, ah, this guy was in, that guy was out, this guy was in, that guy was out.

If I can't read hearts today, it's even harder to read hearts by historical documents that may or may not actually accurately reflect what the person believed, said, or anything else.

So with all of that said, and hopefully providing some level of balance, then we have to be careful how we approach those things.

But the problem is those groups, likewise, because we have so little firsthand knowledge of them, can be claimed by anybody.

And so any group that comes along and wants to say, ah, we've been here all along, it's sort of like when

Jehovah's Witnesses go back and try to claim the Aryans. Well, even the Aryans recognized the Holy Spirit was a person, and they certainly had no idea about 1914 or 144 ,000 or all the rest of this kind of stuff.

But when people start running around trying to find stuff in history to glom onto, it's easier to glom onto groups where there's not a whole lot of information, so you can sort of make up your own story as you go along, rather than groups we know a lot about.

So, yeah, they get claimed by a lot of folks. And it's tough, too, because I told them, I'll finish up quick because I had to get a lot of calls.

But basically, I mean, the testimony that God has given me,

I believe in terms of talking to Seventh -day Adventists and Church of Christ adherents, all these people, is that basically the three things that I look for in a lot of your teachings have also helped clarify a lot with me.

You know, as far as this goes, but I always watch out for three things, and if you're a caller and you talk to these people on a regular basis or you run into them and you don't quite know what to say,

I always look for the dual authority. It's the Scripture and someone else or some prophet, L. N. G. White, or the

Roman Magisterium. It's the One True Church Syndrome, where only their church and them alone, like you were just talking about, or you seem to be getting at, and basically the

Work Salvation. You're always going to find all three of those in some way, shape, or form. You know, at least all three of them, or one of them, rather.

Right. Oh, yeah. Yeah, and I think those are three things to look at very closely, and they are the marks of human religion, and the only reason you'd want to add an authority to Scripture is because you want to try to change its teaching concerning the sovereignty of grace, and that's what you see happening.

Yeah, interesting stuff. There's a lot of books I'd like to read on that that I have.

I just haven't gotten to them yet. There's just not enough hours in the day, so I do enjoy listening to others who have a little bit more time to delve into those things, trying to learn from them as well.

Yeah, appreciate it. Thank you. All right, thanks, Aaron. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341.

Let's talk with Dustin. No? Yeah, Dustin. Hi, Dustin.

Hi, Dr. White. How are you? I'm doing well, sir. Hope you are. Yes, sir. I have a couple of questions

I wanted to ask you about evangelizing Muslims. I do an outreach ministry each week where I go to one of the college campuses, and I just walk up to people, introduce myself, and start talking to them.

And anytime I see somebody with a kufi on or a hijab, I make a beeline to them. And one of the things

I've consistently found with nearly, well, actually every Muslim I've tried to talk to about the

Gospel is a lot of times two problems. They don't even know what their own religion teaches, and then secondly, they certainly don't know what

Christian theology teaches. I've got to evangelize three guys today on a community college campus, very, very nice young men.

But they're getting their Christian theology from videos of Zakir Naik on YouTube. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. That's where they're learning it.

And most of them don't even know what their own Koran teaches about, like the Trinity was

God, Mary, and Jesus. And I actually had to pull my Koran out today and show a guy from the

Koran that that's what the Koran teaches. He didn't even know what his Koran taught. So I've got people that are wearing the

Muslim garb, and they really don't even know what their own religion teaches. And they can quote the verses from the Koran in Arabic, and they don't even understand them.

It'd be like me learning Koine Greek, learning the alphabet, being able to read Titus 2 .13

in Greek but not knowing what it means. Any kind of help maybe you could offer in trying to talk to these folks?

Because they seem so brainwashed into, number one, the idea that I can't actually show them anything from their own

Koran. Therefore, they're not going to listen to anything I say. And then secondly, what do we do with these types of misrepresentations?

I mean, I take the time to actually open up my Bible and try to explain to these folks, you know, this is not what

Christians actually believe. We believe we're fiercely monotheistic. One God. I show them from Scripture.

We talk about that. But it's like they're so programmed into this strawman version of doctrine of what we believe.

It's very difficult to have a pretty productive conversation sometimes. Yeah, and if you're talking about folks that don't necessarily have a whole lot of interest in, you know, they're not really pursuing their own faith a whole lot, it is difficult to create a desire for them to not only more accurately know their own faith, but yours as well.

But yeah, people like Zakir Naik will be held responsible for the constant misrepresentations and the fact that this man has been challenged many times to debate, to debate myself, will not, and given the gross level of not really ignorance, but simple deception on his part, then he will have much to answer for before a holy

God. But trying to get their interest, well, generally the way that I would do that is to, if you're talking to a non -practicing

Muslim who says, however, he believes the Qur 'an to be the word of God, say, well, you know, I have accepted what the

Qur 'an says at Surah 5, verse 44 and following, where you have a protracted argument for the prophet of Muhammad, and it starts with the

Torah being given to Moses, and then the Gospel being given to Jesus. In both, there is light and guidance.

And in fact, the al -al -anjeel, the people of the Gospel, are told to judge by what is contained in the Gospel. And that's what

I've done. And would you like to see what the result of that is? And you're not appealing to the

Qur 'an as if it's actually the word of God. You're simply saying, well, I have been told, I'm the al -al -anjeel.

I'm people of the Gospel. And your book tells me to do this. And when I do this, here's the result.

I find your book talking about God having a consort or a wife, and that this is above him.

And it says, do not say three. There is only one God. Well, you know, when I say to you, do not say three.

There is only one team. How would you understand that? Well, I'm not supposed to say there are three teams or three whatever.

But the point is the Qur 'an thinks that what Christians are saying is that we're saying there are three gods and that there's only one

God. And the same question I'm going to be asking Bassam Zawadi on the 12th, and that is, if this is supposed to be the word of God, then shouldn't it be accurate in what it says?

Doesn't God know what the doctrine of the Trinity was? Didn't he know in 632? I mean, if the Qur 'an is eternal, then obviously

God has eternally known what the doctrine of the Trinity was going to be anyway, unless he does not know the future, which would make it sort of impossible for the

Qur 'an to talk about something that he doesn't know about in the future. But anyway, you know, those are the ways that I would try to, you know, and then, you know, if you're really talking to a non -practicing

Muslim that just sort of knows some Qur 'an but really isn't doing the prayers and things like that, and I'd ask, you know, what time was

Fajr prayer this morning? And if he looks at you with a sheepish look, you'll know you're looking at somebody who isn't taking their religion overly seriously in the first place.

And at that point, you can just, you know, bring God's law to bear, and, you know, in a simple type of gospel presentation, and see if there's some spiritual conviction going on there, and then deal with the misrepresentations as they come along.

But yeah, there isn't any way around dealing with the fact that we live in a day where there's a tremendous amount of misrepresentation of the

Christian faith on the part of people like Zakir Naik and Eusephestus and people like that. We seek to challenge them.

We seek to demonstrate that they are misrepresenting our faith, but, you know, you can't force them to engage you.

You simply can demonstrate where they're wrong. Right, yeah, you know, and I've tried different approaches in talking to them, and it seems like, and I try to be really gentle and listen patiently and take the time, but it seems like it always comes down to two things, the authority of the

Quran versus the authority of the New Testament. And because they've been, again, so influenced by guys like Zakir Naik through YouTube videos, you know,

I've encouraged them. I said, you know, I'll ask them a question and say, hey, have you ever read the New Testament? And I've never had a

Muslim ever say yes, I've read the New Testament. I haven't either. I've never met a, because, and then their response is, well, why should

I read it if it's corrupted? Right. And then my response to them is, well, the Quran says that the words of God cannot be changed or corrupted,

Surah 634, so on. Quran says the Bible's the word of God. Therefore, when the Quran's authority, assuming your position for the sake of argument, the

Bible couldn't have been changed or corrupted as Muslims claim. And then they say, well, the Quran's perfect, the

Bible's got these, and they don't say textual variants, but that's basically what they're getting at. And so what I did,

I don't know if you remember, back in 2008, you put the, some palimpsest manuscripts of the

Quran on the dividing line. Well, I took that, put that on my iPhone, and every time

I have this conversation, when they say the Quran has never been corrupted, basically it's been absolutely textually, it's got a pure textual transmission throughout history,

I just pull that open, and I look at it, and I find out every single time they will not look at it. They refuse to look at the evidence.

Well, I presented that evidence in the debate in New York, and the 800 Muslims that were there didn't have any choice but to look at that evidence.

But you're right, and the best you can do in that situation is to say, well, wait a minute, so you'll accept, without checking, the accusations that the

New Testament have been corrupted by people like Zakir Naik, who aren't even scholars in the field, and I show you evidence that there are textual issues with the

Quran, and you won't even consider it? That's not a person who loves Al -Haqq.

That's not a person who loves the truth. That is a person who loves a tradition. And if you really do believe that one of the 99 names of Allah is

Al -Haqq, then you're not living in consistency with that claim. Yeah, that's kind of the tact

I've tried to take. At that point, when they kind of shut down in that area, my point is to say, well, I thought you were opening the listening.

Because typically I'll try to ask them, do you believe God could communicate things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain?

Because they have no assurance of their salvation. And then I'll tell them, you know, once we get to this point about the textual reliability and their unwillingness to look at this

Palimpsest manuscript and these textual variants, I'll say, but you told me earlier that you did believe that God could reveal things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain.

If that's the case, if you believe in the necessity of seeking after truth, why is it you're not willing to look at these?

If this is the truth, then you have nothing to fear, my friend. And at that point, they start shucking and jiving.

And at that point, my only thing at that point, if they're still willing to talk to me, is just to lovingly bring, as you said, the law of God to bear on this person's heart.

Honestly, Dustin, you're doing it right as far as I can tell. And I pray the Lord will bless that.

I've got two more folks I've got to sneak in before the end of the program. But God bless you and your work out there. And I'm supposed to be heading toward North Carolina, I think, in September for an

Islam debate. So keep an eye on the blog. Bless you, brother. Thank you for your time. Thank you. God bless, brother.

All right. Let's talk with Bill. We're going to try to get both Bill and Rob in. So let's talk with Bill.

Hi, Bill. Hi, James. Dan Wallace, a student here again. How are you? Doing good.

I'm going to make it quick. And my question actually is added on to what the last gentleman was just talking about.

Muslims believe they have a completely pure text. Is that correct? Generally, yes.

I mean, there are a small number of Muslims that are aware of the fact that historically

Islamic scholars have said that the Quran was revealed in seven aruf. Now, what's an aruf?

Good question. It's different ways of citing the same thing. And do all seven aruf still exist today?

Does the Ithmanic revision as found in the 1924 Egyptian printing of the Quran represent all seven aruf?

Or is it only one aruf? Have any of the aruf disappeared? Those are all areas of disagreement amongst

Muslim scholars. But 99 percent of the Muslims you're going to be talking to have no earthly idea what even

I was just talking about. And so they do believe that the 1924 Egyptian printing of the

Quran, which they have in their hands, is exactly what Ithman produced. Okay. Is there a popular or scholarly level resource that you know off the top of your head that you can recommend that I pursue on that?

Because I'm kind of looking, you know, I work with sexual criticism, and I've got something where they talk about the corrupted

New Testament text. Right. And so I'm trying to kind of do kind of what you were talking about with the last gentleman with the palimpsest or something.

You have a... There are a bunch of things. There are a lot of things. The vast majority of them are exceptionally expensive.

The ministry just purchased a book for me that I'm going to be reading, Lord willing, on the flight to Philadelphia, on texts in the early commentaries of the

Quran that discuss corruption. And almost everything like that is published by Brill.

That book was $159, including shipping. So almost anything that you're going to get, and I could refer you...

I've got a Shiite compilation of variants in the Quran. That was a

Brill publication. It was $269 in cost. That's why, again, when

I thank the Lord's people for having helped us do these studies in Islam, there's a real practical level to that, because a lot of times

I've put these books up on the ministry resource list, and I didn't have time to do that this time, because I needed to get it before heading to the

UK. But they ain't cheap. And a lot of this material you'll find scattered abroad through various resources and various works.

One of the things I was going to be pursuing when I had a scholarship, that was what

I wanted to do my PhD in, was in Quranic textual criticism. Unfortunately, that scholarship organization experienced the same difficulties many people did during the economic turndown.

But be that as it may, I did collect a lot of that information in the process. And so it's there, it's not easy to get hold of.

There is a book that is not yet released, but it is in the publication process that someone has already, thankfully, purchased for me on Amazon by Keith Small.

That would be probably the first place to start, because his dissertation was in that specific subject of the textual criticism of the

Quran. And so the bibliographical information and stuff like that would be where you'd want to start. If you look up Keith Small, I forget the title of the book.

I'd have to look it up real quick, and I'm rushing here at the end. But if you look that up, that would be a good place to start. All right.

Well, thank you much. All right. Thanks, Bill. All right. Goodbye. Bye -bye. Real quickly here, let's talk with Rob. Hi, Rob. Hi, Dr.

White. Yes, sir. How are you? Doing good. Good. I'll squeeze it in real quick. It's a little bit off -topic.

I'm a 5 -point Calvinist, Reformed faith. But as I'm reading through Matthew chapter 18, starting in verse 22,

Jesus tells a parable about the king who brought in someone who owed him 10 ,000 talents, and he was forgiven his debt.

But then he went off and found someone who owed him a small amount and wouldn't forgive him. So how does that square with limited disownment, or is this parable not to be understood having to do with salvation?

Maybe you could explain to me how you're seeing a connection in the first place. The parable is about the attitude of forgiveness, the fact that those who are forgiven by God are forgiven of great things, and therefore if we do not have an attitude of forgiveness toward others, then we don't recognize the greatness of what we ourselves have been forgiven.

What does that have to do with the atonement? I'm confused. Sorry. The man who owed 10 ,000 talents, he was initially forgiven, but then because he neglected to forgive others, he basically had his forgiveness revoked.

Right. But the point being that the man didn't understand and did not appreciate the forgiveness that had been his, that was demonstrated in his behavior toward someone else,

I still don't see the point of the atonement. I mean, unless you're taking a parable and saying, oh, this is a real person who really existed and had really been atoned for and then got unatoned for, is that where you're going?

Correct. Yeah, that's just abusing parables. There's one point of the parable.

The parable is that the person who has been forgiven much will realize they've been forgiven much and that therefore to recognize what the parable is saying is that those who have been forgiven will be forgiving toward others because they recognize how much they have been forgiven.

It has nothing to do with a historical person or limited atonement or general atonement, any atonement at all.

The whole point is if you've been forgiven, then you will live as a person who has been forgiven, which means you will be one who will be forgiving to others.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thanks a lot. God bless. All right. That's it for a while.

Sorry. I wish I could tell you when we're going to be back on.

I know we'll be back on in February, Lord willing. I would say the 15th at the very, very least.

But I'm going to try to find a way. Maybe when I'm in Glasgow. It's just really hard to say right now when we're going to be able to schedule something.

But we will do the best we can. And don't forget the work of the ministry goes on even while the dividing line doesn't.

So keep us in your prayers and support us while we are doing this work over in the

UK. We'll see you when we get back. God bless. God bless. God bless.

God bless. God bless.

God bless.

God bless.

God bless. God bless. God bless.