A Brief Rejoinder to David Wood, Vocab Malone, John McCray Regarding Islamicize Me Series

Responding to the “Islamicize Me” Video and the Missing Exegesis

Want to take a few minutes to respond to the what was it two hours and 40 minute long YouTube extravaganza yesterday on islamicized me that David would vocabulone and John McRae did. I Had written a Facebook note that evidently was ignored or was not seen.

Wherein I had attempted to say well, this is what needs to be addressed here. Here are the texts here are the issues. That was not addressed. Second Timothy 2 was not addressed. The only texts that were addressed briefly were first Peter 3 and Ephesians 5.

However, I wish I had something meaningful to respond to.

But.

The sad fact the matter is I I had to open the windows to let all the smoke from the burning straw men escape from the room. John says he doesn't know who I am doesn't follow me. So obviously not reformed so I wouldn't expect him to and so his misunderstanding of my position is Understandable on that level, but what I was absolutely stunned about Was that David would who in this very video?

Said that I can run circles around him in in New Testament in text for criticism this type of stuff. Went into this video and admitted twice That he had never listened to what I said about Islamicized me.

He didn't either listen to the violin watch the violin just Didn't do it and yet thinks that he's going to be able to provide a meaningful exegetically based refutation of The exegesis I offered of these texts and and do so accurately.

How does that work. He shows more respect for Shabir Ali than me.

In.

The way he approached us. He didn't even listen. And so it's not overly shocking that he Completely avoids what I actually said because how could he know he didn't listen. Vocab. I don't know where vocab is these days because vocab knows better.

He knows better. He knows what I was saying. He did attempt a couple times try to do a little something with texts.

But.

There just wasn't anything to respond to there were there were two major elements to the video it wandered all over the place. I mean it was a mishmash of things but There were two major elements. The first John brought up and he basically presented What he He represented to be one of my arguments.

He presented this argument. I just couldn't understand it just didn't make any sense. Well, it's because it wasn't my argument. Obviously and the problem is vocab would know that because vocab would know what this argument is.

The way it ended up getting twisted and for over 20 minutes This straw man was was yeah, here's here's my here's my straw man. Yeah, there's. This guy was lit up big time. I mean I had to do a lot of work to get him back.

Here is here is what it was twisted into. James White says That we shouldn't mock Muhammad because the Muslims might mock the Bible or the Old Testament. Of course, I never said anything even Remotely similar to that what I know he what he was talking about because he brought it up later on gave one of the examples.

Consistency, Equal Scales, and the Use of Mockery

What I was talking about is something that both David and vocab should know really really well. At least vocab should I got the feeling to be honest with you? In listening to what David said that David Doesn't watch any of my debates.

I Don't watch all of his but I watch most of his and I don't believe I Got no no feeling whatsoever that he's actually read this. Because I get the feeling from the way the way David spoke. The idea is when it comes to Islam he doesn't have anything he can learn from me and You know because he did criticize well, you know his stuff on the Trinity the deity of Christ New Testament, that's great stuff great stuff.

Islam not so much didn't give specifics. I can tell what the specifics are. I don't use their form of argumentation and never have and When you don't buy into the central types of argumentation, well, then you're you just don't know what you're talking about.

Well, maybe I have a fundamental difference as to how I approach the subject which will come out as we talk about this.

But I.

Don't think I don't think he's looked at this and and that that came out and I'll mention it in in just a moment, but Don't mock Muhammad because they might mock the Bible. Vocab knows exactly what this is about.

David should know. But didn't show any evidence of it because for 20 minutes they went on just just beaten on this thing. I mean, how could I be so silly? What it was, of course is. Consistency. Equal scales.

Unlike any of those gentlemen, I have stood in mosques around the world and Exhorted the Muslims in those audiences to use equal scales. Use the same standard of argumentation. Use the same standard or we can't get anywhere.

We can't discuss truth. If you will use one standard to attack the New Testament and another standard To defend the Quran as long as you're willing to use double standards. There can be no meaningful discussion of truth because you can't discuss truth without discussing consistency.

They are intimately related concepts. And so what I had said and what John didn't understand. What vocab had to have understood and David didn't listen to?

Was.

If.

We support utilization of a contextual mockery a Mockumentary as David describes it then we have no basis for complaint. When a Mockumentary and the Muslims do present something similar to that is Utilized against us because we've ceded the moral ground we've said we'll go ahead and We will not for example, I've yet to see in the series a Recognition of the Answers and contextualizations that have been offered by Muslim scholars Regarding the particular issues that are brought up some stronger than others.

But you're not doing that you're not representing those things you're going for the extreme immediately and ignoring any of Things you'd find Islamic awareness or other places like that where? These topics are addressed Addressed consistently.

I don't think so but if you don't even acknowledge those things then we're putting ourselves in a position they can do the same thing to us and We've ceded the ground there has to be Consistency. I have to in looking at the Quran Seek to allow it to speak for itself.

I Have to allow it to I have to allow I can't just assume The worst possible understanding and then read it in and so unfortunately That's what's going on here. And so what I was talking about was Even scales even scales we have to have Even scales in this conversation.

There has to be consistency. There's no other way to talk about truth. It had nothing to do with well if we mock Muhammad They might mock the Bible it had everything to do with the standards of truth with meaningful interaction but this is where this is where it became the one thing that did come out of this that is very important is that We do what we do for completely different reasons.

Gospel-Driven Apologetics Versus Anti-Islam Strategy

Act 17 the Islam asides me video series Has as its primary purpose getting people out of Islam. It is not a gospel Focused emphasis. Oh, they're gonna attack the they're gonna attack a gospel presentation at the end.

You know, it'd be nice if they'd become Christians, but this is the fundamental difference between us is That as everyone knows the gospel is the very matrix in which all of our ministry is done it is all meant toward the promotion of that and Getting people to leave one religious group to become irreligious or join another religious group.

That is is irrelevant to us. There's we see no apostolic example of the Apostles Seeking to get Anybody to just stop being what they are And then hope later on to present the gospel to them. I don't see any evidence of that in the New Testament In anything that they did.

So 20 minutes go by and vocab knows He knows me. He's he's listened. We've we've he sat in this chair. He knows my focus upon the issue of consistency. For 20 minutes goes on Beaten away on a straw man that has nothing to do with what my actual position is.

But it certainly gets the fanboy is happy it certainly gets the fans going. Oh, this is great, you know, and I guess they have some super chat thing where people can donate money. This is wonderful. And and this is this is great and it was from a truth perspective.

Completely off base. I believe our face is sad. It was then at the end of this 20 minutes. What's really amazing is Is what David did then and I I'm only I'm only looking at this because There's a whole discussion of of this in In the book David decides to you know, he was on a roll.

So so tell you what, let's let's roleplay and You guys play the the Muslims and you mock the Bible and I'll show you how easy it is deal with this now again. This is a straw man. It's not what my argument was.

My argument was about consistency of standards. My argument was epistemological biblically based based upon debates all around the world. Which evidently they don't watch and don't really care about because for some reason anyway.

So we're over here someplace. They're blasting away at at at the at this little guy over over there someplace and David's on a roll. So it's like, all right. Let me show you how it's done. You go ahead and mock me and The fundamental response that David offers in the mocking of the Old Testament and I'm gonna try to remember They they went to the Ezekiel passages, which I'll try to get to I'm trying to keep this short.

So I can get it posted but the way that that David responded. Like I said, I was riding my bike I I downloaded the whole thing. I listened I Caught it while driving. I Was coming back from Chandler and I caught 50 55 minutes of it in the car.

Amazing that you can live stream a live YouTube video Driving from cell site to cell site to cell flight never had an interruption. That's pretty impressive. Anyway, I so I caught that much live and then once it was done I download the video mp3 it and Took it on a very very very early morning ride this morning.

So the middle portion which is a primary argumentation portion I've heard twice and The whole thing I listened to all the way through at least at least once I mentioned that simply because I took the time to Listen to what David said.

David did not take the time to listen to what I said. I think that has a huge impact on Now if you're gonna ask someone to listen to you for over two hours on something, I don't know. I just have this strange Feeling that I should actually know what I'm referring to This sort of it.

I don't know sort of something it should you should do but what was fascinating is as he Responded to the role-playing Muslims. I Started chuckling to myself.

Um.

Because the fundamental essence of his response was the surah 5 into textuality argument. Which there is like half a chapter on mm-hmm, which I did not get from him. I think laid out much better than he did.

I Think it's one of the key issues in Dealing with Islam is the fact that the Quran has to deal with the existence of the Torah and the Injil. Obviously, it's particularly important to me because I can talk about what manuscripts we've found and the state of the text.

Even I've even had a one Muslim my mom tried to bring up tations diatessaron and stuff like that but dealt with this a lot though as David would say, you know on Islam not so much, you know, but. But he's giving he's showing off to the audience and how good he is at this.

I can rip off these these references to certify 44 to 47 and 1094 and stuff like that. Using an argument that I have in print I've published and I've used in debates around the world. Hmm found that really really really interesting that that would take place.

So the first thing was let's let's beat this straw man to death. About he's actually saying we shouldn't mock Muhammad because they might mock the Bible back. Never said anything about it. Mine was an epistemological issue.

It was using the same standards. It's how you define truth. But again I'm doing this to promote the gospel. They have bifurcated their purpose and.

And.

They're doing it to get people out of Islam and then if you can get them into Christianity, that's great. But it's a secondary issue. It's not the primary issue and when that becomes an add-on at the end it will change the fundamental mechanisms That you use because when you're presenting the gospel There are only certain proper methods of being able to do so that are prescribed for us in Scripture.

That's why showing Muta wives and slapping Muta wives and milk mustaches and chocolate and milk and cookies and and vomiting on the back of the woman and Camel urine and all the rest of this stuff. It's really hard to with the same mouth with the milk mustache.

Say.

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world and He was holy and we are called to be holy as he is holy and he is king of kings and Lord of lords. He's your maker your creator.

It's sort of hard to do that in the same way. There is a Consistency that is required in our presentation.

To.

Adorn the gospel of Jesus Christ. To be able to not say it without giggling in the process. There's sort of a it's sort of important to be able to do that. See and see that's where that's where we're the fun.

I guess that there this was one good thing that came out of it is Basically what they're saying is those all those passages you're talking about that has anything to do with us because we're not doing gospel work here.

We're doing political work. We're doing Some type of worldview work we we just think Islam is the worst thing that's ever come down the pike. I you know, are they gonna start doing some type of series in regards to secularism because the secularists make the Muslims look like Amateurs when it comes to see last century.

Did you see Stalin Mao big big stuff big stuff. But anyway. Obviously, I think much more dangerous stuff. But anyway. Their big thing is that's we just want to get people out of Islam and If later on we can tack on the Christian stuff cool, but this is the most important thing.

And the idea evidently also is hey, we're just shooting for the low-level people. We're not we're not shooting for the people already know this stuff. They that's already have read Bukhari or Muslim or something like that.

We're not the the dying people like that. We don't we don't care about them. We don't care about the Muslim scholars. We don't care about the well-read people. We're just shooting for the people who've never heard this stuff before.

Which I guess makes sense because so much of Muslim dawah is aimed at quote-unquote Christians. Who don't have a clue what they believe? Don't have a clue what they would. I've so. Evidently, the idea is we're gonna go low road because they go low road.

And.

I don't know how many times over the years. I've explained that for this ministry. You respond to the best the other side has to offer and then if you have to step down to where someone is. You've started up here and you're not to have to apologize for having started down here and then step up to where they are.

The idea here is lowball it from the start. Get to the potential jihadi guys and then tack on the gospel thing later on if you want to try to fit it in there. But you know, it'd be nice but there you go.

And so.

The first thing. Complete straw man had absolutely nothing to do with what I'd said. Then David starts to deal with. Attempt to deal with the biblical texts that were raised without ever having listened to the exegesis and application that I offered.

And as a result. Well, you could expect what the result was. The result was what doesn't have anything to do with what we're doing because you know.

Uh.

Ezekiel, you know is called to do some Weird stuff and and use a strong language and jesus uses strong language so we can use strong language. So evidently we're jesus and a specific prophet sent a specific time to the people of israel.

No, you're not. No, you're not. There are specific guidelines that are given to believers in the new testament. There are specific guidelines given to elders now, none of these gentlemen are elders anymore.

Vocab was once he's not anymore. But they're not elders. These are laymen and this is another issue. There seems to be a fundamental ecclesial ecclesiastical issue here ecclesiology. Very very different.

We view the apologetic task as under The authority of the church and in service to the church. What I listened to on that video was that you simply have Their stuff on their own what their elders think.

We're not going to bother them with that. I mean the whole thing where they were going after rich because rich was obviously his primary, you know, it's funny david just totally interpreted rich in the most Negative way possible.

It was like it's like he was a muslim or something. Not david or it was like he was treating rich like he's just trying to dig information. This is sick and blah blah blah just treat him just horrifically for asking a simple question.

Are you under the authority of elders? Do you have an ecclesiastical responsibility? Because how many times have we said the only way to remain balanced in apologetic ministry is to be a person of the church.

To be a person of the church when you're in the church. Constantly regularly exposed to the whole council of god. It helps you to keep balance and not be drawn off balance. By constantly responding to one particular perspective.

I mean look at david. He gets all these death threats and he i've mentioned on the divine line. He he seems to advertise it. He he does things to try to get that kind of attention. And so if the only people you ever deal with are jihadis.

Hmm makes sort of sense that you just figured that that's all there is. And therefore you're just going to aim your polemic directly at them. And that is that is a a major major problem. So we have we have different ecclesiologies.

We have different uh. The very milieu and matrix in which we operate is very very different. Trying to accomplish different things as a result.

First Peter 3, Ephesians 5, and Second Timothy 2 on Christian Speech

So.

Basically what they say is you know first peter 3 15. You know, uh gentleness and reverence. Hey, paul didn't always do that. Peter didn't always do that. So therefore we don't always have to do that.

So even though see here here's our perspective. Our perspective is the new testament is our ultimate authority. It lays out the parameters. And so when we are given specific commands, then we make application of those commands to particular situations.

And so they tried to turn it into. Oh, well peter. Peter broke that he didn't do this because he has harsh words to say. Harsh words. Are not the same thing as mutawives. And the little debbie scene.

Okay.

That's that's where you guys are really really. Uh playing the bait and switch thing. Most people can watch those videos. And recognize the difference when I. When I debated adnan rashid In a church in london, it was just like one tube stop away from where one of the seven seven bombings had taken place.

Um.

I had to make the choice. After adnan's very aggressive opening statement. How I was going to address the muslims in the room. And you go watch it I used strong words. No, no insulting words, but strong words and there's that that is.

Perfectly in line with the biblical parameters. There was reverence involved there. There was important important information being being presented. This has nothing to do.

With.

Paul striking Bar jesus, you know dealing with the bar jesus situation acts chapter 13 any of those types of things. This is these are general principles That are given to the christian people which should give us guidance in application to specific events.

The problem here is in the mind of david wood evidently. Since this is a political thing. That's not that's not relevant as he himself said. Hey, if someone came and asked about i'm not gonna talk about all this stuff.

I'm gonna i'm gonna be gentle and reverent in my response to him, you know, but it's that's something different. We're over here someplace and I say we're always Under the authority of the gospel. There's no other reason for you to be talking to muslims.

And i'll especially emphasize a the spiritual aspect of this as we get toward the end. So David didn't david does not even know what my presentation in first peer 315 is. Doesn't know. Um, he doesn't know Uh how I present the Utilization of isaiah 8 And other texts in that that section coming out of verse 14.

Doesn't know how I attach that with korean and hagiacite in verse 15 the identification of christ as yahweh.

The.

Treating him as holy in the heart. The incarnate one therefore changes our entire perspective it changes our priorities. And therefore as a result people see that they ask us a reason to hold us within us.

Therefore to do apologetics requires that you first have that focus upon the lordship of jesus christ. Um doesn't he doesn't he's never heard any of that. So he can't respond to it.

And.

Hence.

The gentleness and reverence. And keeping that good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered. Those who revile your good behavior in christ we put the shame that hmm your good behavior in christ.

Evidently, I guess their idea is. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're doing and mocking muhammad because we're not actually doing apologetics right now. We're just anti-muslims Who happen to be christians, but we're not acting as christians here.

So this isn't actually apologetics. I thought it was act 17 apologetics ministry, and this is prophet paul. Again, this is the only place in new tesla where you have apologetics.

So.

How.

You get to turn the apologetic label on and off just like a switch. You know for me it's everything it's it's all encompassing. I'm i'm confused so anyway. There wasn't so it was just like well. This can't this can't actually be in all situations because this person did that and ezekiel did that.

And you know Ezekiel was called to do some really weird stuff. He really was because he was called to a specific situation. With the people of israel the covenant people of israel not muslims not anybody else.

Muslims didn't exist obviously. But there wasn't any of that apologetic type situation. He's dealing with the the broken covenantal people in the position in the situation of the exile. And and he is told to do some strange things by god.

Not a single one of the new testament writers use him as an example of how weird to behave but all of a sudden. If you want to become a hothead and mock and deride, well, let's just go find ezekiel. He'll be our example.

Okay.

Um, so see the difference. From my perspective you have to have positive you're drawing Your methodology from the exegesis of scripture rather than developing methodology based upon pragmatism. Hey, it works.

Look at all these I can give you all these people you can tell they've they've left this long. It works. So therefore I will I will fit into scripture. I've been pretty consistent on criticizing this methodology for a long long time for a long long time, um in like in like manner ephesians 5 was dismissed very.

Easily.

Uh, there must be no filthiness and silly talk, of course jesting which are not fitting but rather giving of thanks. Since my what I had written Was ignored or didn't didn't even know about it. Didn't listen to me.

Uh, hence my discussion which vocab then jumped to but evidently it almost sounded like he hadn't listened either. I don't know. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead and I even discussed On the program what a lankete meant?

Um for his disgraceful even to speak the things which done by them in secret. It was just simply dismissed as this isn't relevant to our proper application of um mockery to muhammad and exposing his false teachings and so on and so forth.

And then 2nd timothy 2 not even touched. The lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome But be kind pras pantas to all.

Um.

Able to teach patient. With gentleness. Correcting as as children. The ones who are in opposition. If perhaps god may grant them repentance under the true knowledge of the truth. And again I think I think at this point they would say well see we're not we're not trying to get their repentance.

We're just we're just attacking islam so. You know all this stuff about uh, you know those who are in opposition. Yeah, but you know, there's a there's a Spiritual thing here and then there's. Then there's the you know more of the political thing.

Maybe that's that's sort of how uh, robert spencer can be involved because that's certainly the the issue there Is very very much a a political aspect. Rather than a a gospel aspect.

So.

None of these. I guess there's always a way, you know. There is nothing in the new testament that addresses christians. Seeking to destroy a world religion. Seeking to get people out of a world religion um outside of the context of there being believers.

Outside of the context of there being uh followers of christ. Outside of the context of the gospel being the very method and message I have for years. Made sure that the gospel is the main thing. Because it's the only way to change hearts.

And the only the only reason I do what I do Is to see hearts changed. I I think getting people to change religions or just abandon religion as a whole. What does that accomplish. Does you haven't changed the heart all you've done the vast majority of instances.

Once you get somebody to leave a religion the vast majority of instances, they don't end up someplace else. They're now they're religiously abused. And they're even harder to reach.

So.

The gospel is the core. It's the very matrix in which we work. It's the essence of what we're communicating.

And.

I have consistently for years In teaching people for example in dealing with mormonism. Who is god who is christ? What is salvation? All the other stuff about joseph smith and the rest of that type of stuff those are.

Those are side paths you want to get back to the key issue. I've met people. Whose whole thing is mormonism is evil. Mormonism is evil and they lose the gospel. We are convinced that the only power that can change a heart is the gospel.

And nothing else. You can change someone's opinions about muhammad By presenting All this stuff from the hadith that maybe some people don't know about. I know a lot of muslims that do know about it. Maybe I just deal with the With the better read muslims and you're just shooting at the folks down here that have no clue what they're talking about.

But i've met plenty of muslims that have read Major portions of the hadith and have some idea what this stuff is. And you might be able to offend them through the use of those original sources, but you will not change their hearts by putting a milk mustache on to mock muhammad.

You won't do it. That's not the christian gospel. It isn't and you guys know it. You know it. That's why you've had to make this bifurcation. Well, we're just doing this over here. We'll try to get that later on we'll tack that on at the end.

That's that's where our fundamental difference is. It's not a tack on it is the whole reason. For why we do what we do. It's the whole reason. The only thing that can change this world is to change hearts.

The only thing that's been given to the church to do that is the gospel Of jesus christ, which is made alive in people's hearts. Word and spirit. Word and spirit. Which leads me to the last consideration?

And that is I may have missed it. I may have missed it.

Um.

You know I was on the ride this morning. I was listening.

And uh.

It's still pitch black. It's like, uh four. Something in the morning I see a car alongside the road. Doors open. The guy slumped over in the front seat. I stop. A little worried. Guy could be dead for all I know.

And all of a sudden he comes to. So it scares me.

Um.

Can I help you? Are you injured? You know, you know, and so.

While that was happening.

I probably missed what was being spoken of there. But that would have been during the part that I had already listened to before. So I might have missed something. I might. You know things happen and so if it was there all I can tell you is if it was there it was.

Briefly in passing. And what am I talking about? You know what? I never heard even once. And given that this is a discussion of our methodology This was stunning as I considered it. You know what? I never ever heard.

The.

Spirit.

Of.

God.

Not once. I never heard it I never heard it never heard a discussion of the spirit of god.

The only.

Hope we.

Have In changing hearts and minds. The only hope we have in the gospel coming alive. The only hope we have In bringing people out of the state of spiritual death to spiritual life. The spirit of god never even mentioned.

Never even mentioned. Over two hours never even mentioned. And we're talking about The very methodology the very the very way in which we as christians are supposed to be behaving. That was very troubling.

That was very troubling.

The Missing Role of the Holy Spirit in Apologetic Method

Now.

Let me say one other thing that I forgot to Mention earlier and there may have been one thing I said I'd talk about later, but I didn't. Um. There was one video in the series That I was like That one's good.

That one's that one I think passes mustard. It was the one about adoption.

But.

The listeners to the dividing line. Now. I've addressed that one many times. I I lectured on this this issue. I did a lot of islamic lectures in south africa zambia.

Um.

The midlands in the uk glasgow. And belfast over the past few weeks. So around the world. I may not know much about islam. We've been told but somehow I managed to do these. Uh, These lectures despite all that.

Um.

And I often make reference.

To.

The aisha slash Zainab bint josh issue and the result of the zainab bint josh.

Issue.

In regards to adoption the beauty of adoption, but you see. While the video on adoption pulled at the heartstrings cute little kid. Cast out. Oh, yeah, you can you can get the emotions going there. Can't you?

But you see I don't want to just get emotions going if you don't join the emotion with truth. You haven't accomplished anything. And so when I talk about this I include the presentation of truth the beauty of adoption in the new testament.

Um the centrality of the fact this shows that that the author of the quran had no idea What christian theology was about and did not understand? What adoption meant and and and things along those lines?

These are things that so instead of just breaking down You are providing What needs to be embraced? That's my that's my big problem here is you can't break down false religion By merely alienating someone From that false religion as a christian.

I don't think that's proper. I don't see any basis of the apostles doing that. And so in this situation about adoption what tragic thing it is? And the quran shows so much embarrassment. About the zainab bin josh thing that the the solution.

Which is the destruction? Of the beautiful human reality of adoption. That's one of the strongest arguments against islam. So here you've got a video and it it touches the heart and it's it's telling the truth.

It would have been stronger if you deal with some of the some of the objections some of the contextualized answers. But at least it wasn't like the next one in the series because I think that was 18 and 19 was just So far beyond the pale.

It's just indefense indefensible. There's just no way around it. Um, so you have that but there have been there would be such a more powerful way. Uh to do that. Uh, but it all goes back to what you're what do you think you're doing?

What are you trying to accomplish? Do you derive your methodology From the positive teaching of scripture. And then make application. Or do you pragmatically go? Hey, look at my youtube. Look at my youtube statistics.