Adnan Rashid

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. It's 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James White And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning a mega edition of the dividing line

Which just means that I don't stop talking for about an hour after the program is actually supposed to end

Which is how you do a mega version two hours Why because on Thursday, I will be sitting hopefully at least in an exit row on a cross -country flight to Boston and Where I can stop

I can retire the muscles that pronounce the letter R for a few days they'll pick me up in a car and I'm going to be getting together with Mike Abendroth Phil Johnson who's doing a red -eye and he actually comes in Friday morning, which we which should be fun we'll be able to pick on Phil for a while because he won't really be it'll be defenseless and Dr.

Carl Truman of Westminster Theological Seminary We are all getting together and we're going to do a no compromise radio video

Something I don't even know what we're doing. I know sort of what it's about. But anyway, it's gonna be it's gonna be interesting.

So Anyway, I continue my my yearly quest for my gold preferred flying status

Which hasn't been Difficult to obtain recently. I almost got platinum last year, but I figure platinum and above Those people live in airports and who who really wants to who really wants to do that?

I don't want to do that. I just reposted on the blog a It's actually a a list that Turretin fan was kind enough to put together a while back and It is the

Mormonism 101 series that I did on the blog in 2007 so it's been five years

Since this material was posted. Don't worry. Not much has changed in that period of time but in order

Including a discussion of the first vision The LDS scriptures view of God then second level statements, especially the

King Follett funeral discourse Second level statements more third level statements fourth level statements all this

Material that I derived from my book is the Mormon my brother

Which provided I think one of the fullest Discussions in that size of book anyways of the

LDS doctrine of God and I would recommend to you the re -reading of that material if you have not read it before if you're new to the program

You've come along just over the past five years or something like that. I would recommend that reading to you

What prompted the posting of that material in 2007? Isn't difficult to figure out for example, the first the first one here was in May May 12th of 2007 and It's pretty easy to figure out what prompted the posting and and that was the discussion in our culture of the subject of Mormonism What might have prompted that?

Well, it was prompted by the candidacy at that time for presidency of the

United States of one Mitt Romney And of course, we know that that He was not in fact

Selected as the nominee of his party in 2007 But he will be in 2012 that doesn't make any sense

Yeah, okay, so but he was running he was already running by them He was not chosen in 2008, but he will be in 2012 and obviously

Yesterday I was driving. I had some errands I had to run and I was listening to Michael Medved who is on the

One of the local radio stations here in the Phoenix area. There's a lot of talk stations around here and He was talking about an article that he posted that Al Mohler talked about this morning on the briefing as well, by the way and that was an article on the subject of a religious test there shall be no religious test for someone running for public office and He basically was talking about how he thinks it's just horrible

That there are many people conservatives in their worldview and in their politics who are very openly saying

I will never vote for Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney is a part of a cult and as I listened to the discussion and Michael Medved is an interesting fellow

Often has very insightful things to say and then other times you really see where the fact

He's not a Christian. He's Jewish how that flies in and you know There are times he will defend a real strong moral position and then someone calls in and he just it he gets wishy -washy, he's not he's not strong and Because it doesn't really have a full full or biblical worldview

But it wasn't Medved that I was most interested in I was listening to the callers and this one guy calls in and and I I'm really not overdoing the accent when

I say he sort of calls in says I ain't voting for no Mormon He's a part of a cult.

Have you read Ed Decker's book the God makers and And You know listening that Just really bothered me for many many many reasons

We right now for example, we've been sent a paper a position paper a statement

I don't know what the they're called anymore. There's there's so many of them. It's hard to keep track But of some some good

Christian brothers who want to make sure That the world knows that Mormonism is not

Christian well, I think we've really

Been pretty clear on this. That's subject from from the founding of this ministry, which was originally aimed at nothing more than dealing with Dealing with Mormonism and The first the first things that this ministry possessed was a paperback copy of the

Journal of Discourses and some photo photocopied tracks for Mormons I mean that was I was what we started with in 1983

Which means we need to start ramping up the 30 30 year celebration stuff for next year.

I mean we got to get Barry on that You know do something exciting. We're gonna ramp it up and you and I are both gonna get canes

I may be you buddy, but I'm not I ain't ready for that yet anyway We've been very clear on this subject.

I've written a book called is the Mormon my brother and another book called letters to a Mormon elder and We've been very very clear on the fact that the

In fact, I say something that I've I've never heard anyone else say I Have never heard anyone else say what

I have been saying for a couple years now during my seminars and that is that Given that what you believe about God is the most fundamental and definitional aspect of a religious faith that is if you believe that there is one creator

God or you are you you're a pagan and you believe in many gods and Whether you are a true monotheist believe

God is eternally God and is a creator of all things or whether you Deny that is the most fundamental aspect of a religious belief.

I just I cannot imagine anything more foundational than that very question and if that is

The determining factor of what is and what is not? Close to one another in the spectrum of religious beliefs

Then it follows inexorably that Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism is

Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism is I've been saying this for years and boy everybody just sort of stops and goes

Yeah Those those nice little guys in the on their 10 speeds. Well, it's probably 20 or 30 speeds now

That another indication of how old we're getting there used to be 10 speeds but Those nice little men that talk about Jesus that they're not closer to closer to Christianity than than Islam really?

Yeah because Mormonism is The most polytheistic religion

I have ever encountered I have met Mormons and I'm not talking about ignorant

Mormons I'm talking about highly placed Mormons who have attempted to argue because I've pointed out look if you haven't if you have if you're gonna become a god and Other worthy

Mormon men are become gods in the future. Then the number of gods is increasing So if you go backwards in time the number of gods

Decreases until you get back to the first God and what was the first God before he became a god? Well, according to the eternal law of progression.

He was a man and so who created the first man? well to avoid that obvious conundrum in LDS theology

I have had well -read sober minded intelligent

Mormons a Assert that there are an infinite number of gods an infinite number

Unlimited That's the way we can get around that because you can't exhaust infinity see so you can't get back to the first God Evidently, so if you're talking about the most polytheistic,

I mean infinite number of gods That's a lot of gods if that is the the

LDS perspective Then that is as far removed as you can get from monotheism and whatever else you say about Islam and you can you can argue that Islam is inconsistent in saying that the

Quran is eternal and uncreated and and therefore is is You can you can get in that stuff and you can talk about the inconsistency of bowing to a black stone and kissing it and all the rest that stuff but It affirms that there is one

God who created all things and so does Christianity Mormonism denies that in fact

Joseph Smith said You have imagined we have imagined supposed to God was God from all eternity

I'll refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see When he refuted that idea he separated his followers forever from the

Christian faith Okay So We have been very very plain and Very very outspoken

I often the object of the scorn and ridicule of a certain group of of scholars at Brigham Young University Who you know everyone so I'll pop up and spit at me and then go back and hide in Provo But we were there's nothing new here we've been saying this for a long long time

We cannot as a as a nonprofit ministry sit here and say

Here's who you should vote for We deal with the issues and we've dealt with the issues very very clearly.

There is no question in my mind That Mitt Romney is an Orthodox Mormon Don't question my mind his

Was it his grandfather? I think Was one of the was one of the general authorities.

I mean the Romney's are Mormonism defined I mean every one of those little

Those guys and the white shirts and dark ties and dark pants at the

Missionary Training Center in BYU He wants to grow up to be Mitt Romney. I mean, it's just I mean he just fits so perfectly into the into the

Mormon milieu Now not so much when he was governor in Massachusetts.

I'll have to admit Mitt get it admit but Okay, that's that's you know, but I don't have any doubt about what

Mitt Romney believes theologically Ironically I have a lot of questions about what

Barack Obama believes theologically In fact, I I have a much clearer idea a much clearer idea of the theology of Mitt Romney Than I do of Barack Obama Because there's there's no question in my mind that if he attended madrasas in Indonesia You do not attend a madrasa without saying la ilaha illallah wa muhammadan rasul

Allah you you don't He has said the shahada. So there's no question my mind

He is at at least an apostate Muslim but then you look at his

Christian confession and you look at at Jeremiah, right and you you look at black theology and we've we've taken the time to read that stuff, too and Then you know,

I read something just recently some comments. He made over Easter that sounded let's put it this way They weren't things a

Muslim could say They weren't things a Muslim could say

But I don't know with near the specificity and accuracy what

Barack Obama's Theology is in comparison to Mitt Romney's I Know more about Mitt Romney.

He's he's a known entity as far as the theology goes Now we're not gonna be signing any of these statements and and sign on with any of this stuff because we do not want to get wrangled into the political realm and End up with all sorts of Distractions along those lines what

I do want to say what I do feel I need to say is When you're talking about Liberty in a society and We as Christians I'm speaking now to my fellow citizens in the

United States we have tremendous freedoms

They are being eroded because the foundation upon which they're based is being eroded

I Would argue that our freedom of speech? Has an expiration date on it if the worldview that is becoming prevalent in our society continues

It's unabated March to absolute majority There the reason

You can talk about inalienable rights The reason you can talk about Freedom of speech is because originally we had the idea

That we are creatures made in the image of God There is no basis for freedom of speech in secular humanism and that's why secular humanism so often limits freedom of speech and limits any discourse wherein humanism itself is criticized and And so We right now have those freedoms

If God does not see fit to grant repentance to this nation It will not be long.

And of course I speak as one who Thinks of time going by very quickly these days.

It will not be long before programs like this are silenced certainly, we already see this happening and we have talked about this many many times and If I recall if I remember

I'll I've got a an article that I just saw this morning that Again illustrates how this is this is coming our direction

It's just it's coming our direction now as citizens of an ostensibly free society

What this presidential election is raising once again is a discourse amongst

Christians as to what our responsibility is in a free society and there are differences of opinion and there are people in in my circle of Friends and acquaintances that have different views than I do at this particular point

Okay, but one thing I feel

I need to mention That I need to be clear on is

I do not believe That the presidential election or a senatorial election or any election is an election

About defining Christianity. I mean I can actually see situations.

I could I could imagine a situation Where I Have an option of Three or four candidates and I actually vote for a non -christian before a

Christian Because I've known some Christians who have run for Republic office that weren't really equipped to do the job, right and there are certain offices where there are certain requirements and abilities to make people work together that are extremely important and Just because a person's a

Christian doesn't mean they're actually necessarily good at what they do. I mean

I Could I could wish that you know, if I go in and see a cardiologist, it'd be nice if we could pray together, but the reality is

I want the best cardiologist and I'm not gonna go to a substandard cardiologist because just because he happens to go to a church someplace so it seems to me that there's a bunch of Christians who have gotten the idea that that my vote in an election is actually a

Definition of orthodoxy that that I'm defining orthodoxy by my vote and here's here's my problem folks

We are living in a society that is becoming less and less and it's post

Christian It is less and less and less reflective of our views and we either have to recognize that and Do what we can to be salt and light or go off and try to found a commune someplace

I mean as the only options I can see Now there are a lot of people go.

Well, I'm just I I Will only vote for a Christian. Okay, but the reality is as far as the

United States is concerned is there are going to be two choices in the fall and I'm very concerned when

I hear people turning this into well, we need to make sure that that that people don't think this is this is a

This is how we define Christianity, but who thinks that it is I Mean, I I just don't understand the mindset of people who are going.

Well, you know That Mormonism it's not Christian. I agree. I agree a thousand percent

But I also agree that a worldview that promotes

Homosexuality gay marriage Abortion and a worldview that is going to seek to silence any

Criticism of those attitudes is Anti -christian and it just seems to me that as a

Christian I have to look at that and go. Well, what's wisdom in this situation? Do I want to do

I want to continue having my freedoms? Do I want to continue to be able to to speak the gospel and to and to not be forced to confess

Homosexuality as a as a moral good There are certain people in Congress who just a couple days ago began a movement to suggest the

Redefinition or the amendment of the Constitution to amend the First Amendment So as to remove the right to in essence criticize the government it's like oh great and I Have to look at that and I have to go what will allow me to continue preaching the gospel

It just seems to be wisdom in my mind and I I just I don't understand the mindset that that is turning this into a theological

Referendum on what Christianity is There is no question in my mind that the religion of Mitt Romney is not

Christian But the current regime in control doesn't seem to be very friendly toward Christian freedom either

So I have to balance those things out I have to look at those things and I am I am concerned when people with a knee -jerk reaction start quoting the

Godmakers Rather than considering what the whole situation a whole viewpoint needs to needs to be and So I do think we need to take the opportunity to educate our fellow citizens on the nature of Christianity calling

Michael Medved and Doing what that guy I heard do yesterday Is not the way to do it

You need to go read the Godmakers it's a cult Well, you know that doesn't really accomplish much

It would been so much better to have had someone call in and Address fundamental issues and do so knowledgeably and fairly

That that would have been that would have been wonderful that that would have been good So if you look at the blog right now the current first article is the

Mormonism 101 series repost I just put it up just a few minutes ago right before the program started

And why that's a long series? There's there's a fair amount of reading there. I'll admit but It is thorough.

It is well -documented and It I think Lays the issues out as clearly as as they can be laid out as to the issue of Mormonism What the series does not do is?

Then address. All right Once you have a clear understanding of what true of what truth is and What falsehood is in the religious realm?

What do you now do? As a citizen a minority citizen

Let's face it folks We if you have a biblical worldview and live in light of a biblical worldview you live in the minority

Of this nation. I mean look at me. Could I get elected to any office at all?

I mean think of the wayback machine. Can you imagine? The the the goldmine of quotes to demonstrate how bigoted and hateful and nasty

I am the the wayback machine would be he says homosexuality is a sin and he says gay marriage is an oxymoron and he wants to discriminate against gays and I mean

I mean all this ridiculous kind of stuff that we have to deal with all the time I could not be elected to the position of dog catcher.

I Couldn't and So if the only kind of person I will vote for is me

My vote will never actually Amount to any it won't have any impact on at least trying to slow

At least trying to curb the unbridled rush to utter self -destruction that Western society seems to be completely intent upon pursuing and so Those are some things to think about But I am really concerned

When Material that You know,

I mean the first Godmakers film was okay It was okay. It had some good people in it. It was we criticized everyone that came after that but We have to Remember that Jesus said we need to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves now, what does that mean?

What what does that mean? I mean as wise as a serpent.

I don't think that means that we just stumble through things and just put our blinders on and and Fire our our theological machine guns at the society around us

Gentle as doves There needs to we need to say strong things

But there is a way to say it and it's gonna be different for some people than others But I I think and I I've got wonderful good brothers and sisters over in the

United Kingdom but there was one thing that that What's his face that up in Mars the guy

Driscoll that his name Mark Driscoll said that did resonate with me in his discussion with Justin Brierley and I and I hear it when

I listen unbelievable a lot and That is a lot. Not all I know there are some great and and proper brothers out there who

Who don't do this, but a lot of Christians in the United Kingdom are just Wimpy The the the the society has has just told them that they can't say strong things

Well, there are ways to say strong things and I think the best way to say strong things is

To demonstrate that you've actually thought through what you're saying that you have a foundation for it that you're not just You don't you're not just familiar with one side you know both sides and And the and the conclusion that you are announcing is actually based upon you're having really thought things through and Shown respect for others.

And if you do that, then you can say strong things and Still be hurt

It's when you don't do that and when it's a knee -jerk reaction that it just sounds so hollow and it really brings disrepute on the gospel itself and so there's some thoughts that I think are are important and Do you just want me to mention this stuff is that what you were going to be using the microphone for because you have it over in front of your mouth and We're just gonna mention the

May 6 2008 thing. No, actually I was going to there's a couple of arguments From scripture

That I've had thrown at me it recently That well, I mentioned this first May 6 2008 is when you started on the cone stuff

That was where I played that I play it. No, I read it. Yeah, I read this stuff from the black theology stuff

Like liberation. Yeah. Yeah that stuff so we and it's say that's in the bookstore So now from a scriptural point of view,

I've had it argued toward my Perspective on this

Exodus chapter 18 starting verse 19 May I read it into our hearing?

I guess you're going to now. Listen to me. I will give you counsel and God be with you

You be the people's representative before God and you bring the disputes to God then teach them the statutes and the laws and make known to them the way in which they are to walk in the war in And the work they are to do

Furthermore you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God men of truth those who hate dishonest gain and you shall

Place these over them as leaders of the thousands of hundreds the fifties and the tens

Let them judge the people at all times and let them be every mate Let let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge

So there are those Within the Christian camp that are saying this is the standard for which we are to select our leaders and the very first thing is that they be men who fear

God and a polytheist cannot fear God because the polytheist doesn't have the true

God, right and if if if this was a

Situation in the theocratic nation of Israel where you're appointing the judges to Apply the

Word of God then a Mormon. Not only would not be chosen a Mormon would have been stoned

Quite honestly if if a Israelite had converted from the worship of Yahweh to the worship of Joseph Smith's God, which of course is an anachronistic thing, but There is no question

Biblically that the God of Joseph Smith is utterly unlike the God of Moses Who has eternally existed

That person would have been cut off from the people and certainly would not be chosen as a judge

The problem is that is assuming that the people over whom these judges are going to be

Placed are a people who are going to submit to the Word of God that's not the

United States of America and And That would be wonderful if there was such a revival and and if you're post -millennialist and a theonomist even you believe that the only time that that's ever going to become valid is when there is such a growth of the kingdom and Such a conversion of the people that that is what the people want

Even you believe that at least I think that's last last time I looked at that position so to apply that to a secular society that is steeped in secular humanism and is fundamentally in Love with its own self -destruction

I think again How are we as Christians supposed to live in this world?

How are we to give a testimony? How are we to be salt and light? We can either become completely marginalized out in no man's land and have no impact whatsoever just just disconnect from From even pulling on the on the the cultural break or we can continue to pull on the cultural break and as we are pulling give testimony as to why we're pulling and as to why we are

Calling people to repentance and faith But to be honest with you

There is no one Now I know there are some people say oh this person over here could win or that person

We have a two -party system You can argue and complain about that all you want We have a two -party system the one of two men will be elected president in in the fall there.

There is no third I'm sorry some of you seem to think there is but let's just let's just Land in in in the real world here for just long enough to realize there are there are only we only have two choices

Well, I like to have more what would I like to have sure that'd be wonderful I would love to have a bunch of great godly candidates.

That would be great but we don't and so for me the question is

Accelerator or brake Accelerator or brake That's that's the issue is

You want you want to press the accelerator you want to you want to you want to press the brake? You want to have more time to try to testify

Do you want to have more time to pray that the Holy Spirit would bring revival in the churches and when would unite our voices?

I mean what's gonna change the society is not an election this society needs repentance

What does repentance come from it comes to preaching the gospel? What are we gonna do to protect?

The freedom that we have to do what we're doing on this webcast right now

That's the question. That's the question because I The day is coming the day is coming when

I don't know that the weakness Give you an example. Here's the here's the article I was talking about Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kansas To rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties

The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city's human relations code

They're expected to vote on the changes next month according to Hutchinson Human Relations Commission and whenever I hear that I just immediately start thinking about the disaster that those commissions have been in Canada and There's now there's there's a there's a reaction against it in Canada but where there's

Enough of a foundation for the reaction to gain traction is the question even up in Canada According to the

Hutchinson Human Relations Commission churches that rent out their buildings to the general public Would not be allowed to discriminate quote against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party end quote

Merle Dye a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission Confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions the proposed law

Quote they would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals unquote

Dye said Well that type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination if a church provides lodging or rents a facility

They could not discriminate based on race. It's also that kind of thinking in quote So what you've got here is you now have sexual behavior being made absolutely equal to race

That this is this is it's it's it's pretty much done. I think we may be too late

I mean, it's completely irrational. It's completely illogical, but you can't get these people to reason with you

You really can't they just yell at you you're a homophobe you're you're a bigot there's there's there's no

Rational interaction with these folks anymore and it's it's just the next generation's buying it hook line or sinker and Matthew Staver chairman of the

Liberty Council action told Fox News proposed law is un -american It is a collision course between religious freedom and the

LGBT agenda Staver said well you better believe the LGBT agenda is the reduction of and eventually banishment of religious freedoms

They hate religious freedoms unless it's the people that have sold out to their side, but The the idea that people could still openly

Say what the Bible says About their own behavior they hate that and they will they will not stop

Until they have banished that kind of thing here. It's coming and You can just see every week every month every year

The compromise compromise compromise compromise it all keeps moving the same direction

Because there is a fundamental collapse in Western society on these issues and so we have to be we have to be thinking and I am

I am concerned honestly by some some of the comments that I have seen and I say this is a person who has the one of the best records and pedigrees and having consistently not only said that Mormonism is a non -christian religion, but I've lived in light of it and There's many a

Mormon security guard. I wonder how Steve's doing in Salt Lake City Who from the 1980s and 1990s and into the 2000s?

saw us standing outside the gates and passing out our tracks and witnessing to people and For the first number of years it was driving the 654 miles

Depending on whether you went over the little you know And I won't tell you how long it takes to drive 654 miles because it sort of depends on shall we say conditions

But I've been there. I've done that you can go back and you can listen to the radio programs

I've done in Salt Lake City with people calling in from the community and BYU professors and and the the unfair stacked odds

Been there done that definitely got the t -shirt We have been consistent in identifying

Mormonism for what it is And I believe that Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney's wife and Mitt Romney's kids need to hear the gospel

There's no question about any of those things but the question is when you go into that voting booth and You seek to apply a

Christian worldview. You're not voting for the next pastor of your church

And you are not voting for the next leader of your denomination You're voting for The single man who will have the greatest influence in such things as Supreme Court appointments and executive orders and all sorts of things that will directly impact the freedoms you will have as a

Christian in a very rapidly secularizing nation

That's what you have to be thinking about and no I'll go I'm not gonna tell the story about having to buy extra socks because the car was cold because Actually, we didn't have to buy extra socks

We just had to stop and get the socks out of the trunk of my 1964 Dodge Dart Because the floorboards had too many holes in them and it was very very cold

There's only one more thing that's been troubling me in all of this and that is Oh the

Christian attitude That I sense from I get phone calls James Here and there are people that it's like have you read mark 1231?

Are we not commanded to love our neighbors and brother you hate? the religion you don't just Want to call them to repentance

These people that call me. Oh, yeah, there's there's a deep -rooted hatred anger and I I remember seeing a spot from the 2008 election where Romney walks into a coffee shop in New Hampshire it's very early on and There's an elderly gentleman sitting there and Romney walks up to the man

And he he puts his hand out wants to shake the man's hand Yeah, and the the man looked it doesn't even look at him won't look at him and I will never vote for a moment

Yeah, that's and he's just got this and I don't know if this man's a Christian or not But you know

Romney says to the guy Well, okay, but I'd like to buy you a cup of coffee. Anyway, which is

Yeah, and I Asked who was whose neighbor that day? Yeah, you know and that's that's really got me haunted lately.

Yeah, you know When we stood outside the gates of the of the Mormon Temple everybody knew why we were there but those that talked to us and talked to us for any period of time realized that we were there and We were showing them respect and we showed compassion toward them

One of the things that has just been so damaging to the gospel has been the behavior of the streets creatures up there

They don't love those people They they want those people to detest them. They want those people to be angry toward them

When when you can stand there and and yell at those people it shouldn't be Mormon It should be moron and I heard him do it.

I heard him do it When you when you can do that kind of thing don't don't talk to me about your

Christianity and don't talk to me about your Love of the gospel or anything else. You don't you don't have a clue what you're talking about and There should be no bigotry or bias towards someone

We just we we just do great damage to the gospel when we behave in this fashion and It's an it's the ugly underside of Christian apologetics or people get into it and they they just It's it's a shame and hopefully

Hopefully people who listen consistently to this program know that that is not What motivates us that I may say very strong things

But we do so because of a strong commitment to the gospel not for any Personal animosity toward Muslims or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Roman Catholics or atheists for that matter and I think people who get into it for that Eventually burn out and go someplace else.

We're getting ready to Look at 30 years so that that tells you that tells you something right there so eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

I really Wasn't planning on doing a whole lot of open phones, but maybe you'd like to talk about it.

That's that's fine. Maybe there's some Mormons in the audience that would like to Comment on the subject that that's fine

I have sound files queued up and I'm going to press on from there We still have an hour and 15 minutes on on the program, but if In fact tell you what why don't we just queue up a break?

And if during this break time Yeah, Ralph keeps saying 30th. I'm in 30th anniversary cruise.

I would love to do an anniversary cruise That that would be fun. That would be fun and Vicki Ann's telling me that mrs.

Romney called her today Something tells me that she said the same thing to everyone she called

I Thankfully don't get those on my cell phone. I do get those incredibly annoying people who want to lower my interest rate and I just I just want to find them and Usher them into eternity.

It's just ah Because you know, what's worse? You know, what's worse is they don't get the idea that some people might actually travel

You know what time it is when they call when I'm in the UK or Sydney to three o 'clock in the morning and anyway

But what was I saying? Oh, yeah, we're gonna take a break. And if you want to comment on that subject

Then during the break is when you need to call All right, because if you don't call during the break,

I'm gonna get into the Jay Smith Adnan Rashid stuff and Then we're gonna move on to another subject.

So now it's time to call if not, we'll move on with The subject of Islam we'll be right back

Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see

The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word what has happened to this sacred duty in our day

The charges are as follows prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious isagesis entertainment without a license and Cross -dressing ignoring

God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org

The history of the

Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the

God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and Theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality

Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in Their book the same -sex controversy

James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject

Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including

Genesis Leviticus and Romans Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner

They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people the same -sex controversy defending and clarifying the

Bible's message about Homosexuality get your copy in the bookstore at a omen org

And welcome back to the dividing line love that gray level stuff still good stuff

Well, of course, it's still good stuff Anyway, someone in channel just asked if I've debated alia tie.

No, I in fact He went over to Saudi Arabia. I guess he's back in the States now, but I'm sure that'll happen sometime in the not -too -distant future all right, speaking of Islamic apologists with a a in their name

It should be about everyone that I know we've been listening to a debate that took place between Adnan Rashid and Jay Smith at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland We are currently seeking to arrange that I'm exchanging emails with folks in the

Dublin area and Student Organizations there at Trinity College and we are trying to arrange something for late

September of next year on my way back It looks like I'm going to be going over to London and then going over to Berlin Berlin Hamburg that general area and then coming back via Scotland and Dublin on the way back so it's going to be going to be a big one

September October of this year is going to be absolutely insanity I think

I could probably get 30 40 ,000 miles of flying in just in those two months

Might might get me to the platinum level who knows It's it's possibility, but anyway so we are seeking to Set those debates up and I would very much like to See if Adnan Rashid would be willing to Continue the discussion begun with Jay Smith, even though it wasn't really the topic it was the approach that Adnan took and I would like to but what

I would like to do is see if we could divide the make it a fairly lengthy debate divide it in two portions and debate both the

Islamic claim of no textual variation in the transmission of the text of the

Quran and Then these claims that we have no idea no idea what the what the

New Testament originally said that would be Very very very useful. So we've been listening to that and that's what we will continue on with listening to Adnan Rashid Now he has actually

Moved on shall we say from the the textual part? We've already listened that now he's giving your standard

Islamic objections to the deity of Christ Standard I would say a contextual

Here we're going to have the he was ignorant of the hour argument. We've dealt with that numerous times

Recently from a number of different Islamic apologists. I won't spend too much time on it again just to point out the inconsistency of the citation

Because the Muslim could not possibly believe the G has ever said this so they sort of have to do the textual attack first because Jesus uses language of himself in this text specifically referring to him as the son that would be inappropriate if in point of fact

The Islamic perspective of Jesus as a mirror Azul was true verse 36 and mark 13 32 that When is the last the final hour the day of judgment he said?

No one knows of the hour Not even the Sun and the angels except the father except the father

Father with capital F because there are three persons within the doctrine of the Trinity got the father got the son got the

Holy Spirit Well now not no wait a minute First of all whether something has a capital or not is an editorial issue

There's nothing in the original Greek language that would tell you whether it's capitalized or not The original unsealed text was all capitalized so that that's irrelevant

But is Adnan here admitting that the language that Jesus uses is Trinitarian because it is and it's

Trinitarian with a recognition of the incarnation Because this place is the

Sun above the angels Now as Jesus above the angels from an Islamic perspective

I mean these are questions that would need to have an answer right is that clear Jesus was asked this question if he was

God then he was omniscient Jesus was asked this question he wasn't asked a question the this is in the

Olivet discourse. This is a part of the Transitionary period in Matthew 24 where I believe you're you're transitioning from the discussion of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem into the later material regards the coming of the

Son of Man which has yet to take place and So this isn't this is in response to a question

I guess But it's in response to a question about what show it's in the response to the assertion that Jesus made that when the disciples showed him the temple he said this is all going to be destroyed and The resultant question that came at that point right he has knowledge of the future the past and the present

He knows what happened in the past what is happening now? And what will happen in the future if he's

God with capital G, and he's speaking as a son. We are three persons within the

Godhead right God the father God with capital G the father

God with capital G the son God with capital G the spirit, and if the son is

God with capital G. It simply cannot be Ignorant of the hour

Why? because again Son God with capital

G. Cannot be but glorious right and yet his glory was veiled during the incarnation

Son with capital G. Cannot help but be infinite in his presence and yet there was a special Shall we call it localization of?

the presence of the Sun in the incarnation I mean, I suppose you could say well.

God is everywhere presence of God isn't everyone, but there is a specific joining of a human nature to the

Sun Not to the father or not to the spirit so This again is just assuming things not proving things

That it's not leaving room for the fact that there could be a purpose Whereby the glory of the

Sun would not be shown during the incarnation or where certain

Aspects of knowledge that would allow the Sun then to be completely dependent upon the spirit so as to be our example all those a lot kind of stuff just as I I'll be honest with you.

I just don't think that Adnan is really overly familiar with the discussion of those things because because Most Christians aren't either

Most Christians aren't either He has to know when the hour is because he's God with capital

G and God the Sun never ceases to be called Jesus himself may be a human at the time humble as the

Christians will argue that he he was humbling himself He was simply trying to show that he's also a man at the time that that's not the purpose of Humiliation is to show that he was human not that that that is not the purpose in fact

It's interesting could a Muslim honestly Really see what the purpose of the humiliation of the

Sun is in light of the Carmen Christian Philippians, too Not really because they are historically precluded from being able to see that purpose why and Having and being found in appearance as a man.

He humbled himself By becoming obedient to death even the cross death and the

Muslim because of 40 Arabic words is Unable To allow for that historical reality and therefore to interpret that text in its historical context and therefore

Really can't grasp it the way that it needs to be Except that the

Sun speaks as one person I mean, I suppose this would be an objection against oneness theology

In some forms of it anyways, but it's not an objection against the Trinitarian perspective

Which I'm not a hundred percent certain Adnan really understands Well, and if Sun is going to be capital

G God then he must be glorious But he wasn't at that time, what's what's what's the real argument here?

I Don't accept that there can be an incarnation. I don't accept that God has the freedom or ability to limit the the

The exercise of his divine prerogatives or anything else I Mean, that's the fundamental assertions being made here

And at that time at least at that time he sees to be caught thank you So at that time he ceased to be

God If he voluntarily Takes that position then he ceases to be

God Now that's not a really good way of expressing it But it's pretty it's very much similar to the clip that I play from the debate in Sydney Where Abdullah Kunda said well what you're saying is that that God can create another

God or God greater rock That's larger because you're saying he can cease to be God Because we can only imagine

God always Exercising all of his prerogatives and all of his attributes fully.

I guess there can be no For his purposes veiling as there was in the incarnation

So I think at that point I'm gonna have to find the next section I Guess not

I'm glad I checked didn't that sound to you like he was stopping it sounded me like he was stopping

But I I don't have this one all marked up like I normally have them where you okay

You slip you skip to this section and this section and once we had done was opening statement here It's gonna be sort of fun to try to find

The next part but that's live webcasting. That's how it goes So ladies and gentlemen, was he

God in flesh? We are in agreement when it comes to accepting him as a servant of God me and Jay are in agreement on that point

When Christians assert that he was a prophet of God We are in agreement that the Quranic Jesus is accurate historically because historians today have told us

Having studied the Gospels and the Christian records and histories people like James DG One of the highest authorities and patristic history he stated that having studied all the records all the records about Jesus Christ There is only one fact which we can establish for certain and that fact is that Jesus Christ was a

Jew Living in the first century who was a law -abiding Jew well,

I just I just love how folks who Really don't do a whole lot of reading in in our

New Testament studies well, all sudden decide that they know who the real scholars are and they're the ones that agree with them, of course and So you quote from Jimmy Dunn who has made a career out of Shredding the

New Testament in many ways and You know again, you can't really criticize done and expect to get anywhere in academia today

But you know the first book I had to muddle through Jimmy Dunn's was unity and diversity in the

New Testament which was a whole lot more on diversity than it was on unity and You you just know

I I suppose there might be one or two Muslims maybe some converts who have actually

Read enough of done to understand his mindset and where he's coming from But the vast majority of them have only read a few quotes

I really doubt that Adnan has has read much of Jimmy Dunn's stuff and hence,

I can sit here and and talk about worldview issues and presuppositions that he brings to the table and and Inappropriate view of the inspiration of scripture and stuff like that, but I Think most that would be lost on On Adnan unfortunately

Even though I tried By the way, this is exactly what the

Quran says I this again I feel like I'm you know beating the dead horse or beating a drum, but This is not exactly

What Islam says it is not now you you may say oh, but I see a connection

But how did the person saying it Get to the conclusion that they got to this is where I think there's just a real disconnect on the part of many many

Muslim writers and speakers is There they they hear that and they go oh that you know the

Shabir Ali does the same thing well There are many people to come to the conclusion that you know Jesus was a prophet in the Jewish milleal and etc etc etc

But how did they get there they didn't get there by believing that there is a divinely true revelation about who

Jesus is They got there through agnosticism that we can't know I mean even the way that he just put it there.

Did you hear that Jimmy Dunn? He he studies all the sources like nobody else does you know these the underlying?

Assertion is he studies all this stuff But nobody else does or anybody else who studied this couldn't have come to a different conclusion which of course many people have but They study all this stuff, and they come to the conclusion that Jesus was no more than what the

Quran says he was well How does a Muslim? the the Muslim view of Lisa bin

Maryam Where does that come from? Well it comes from the Quran and what is the

Quran it's the eternal word of God it's eternally existed in the

Arabic language on a heavenly tablet From outside of the earth and did

Jimmy Dunn come to its conclusions from something like that no So they back into these conclusions from a naturalistic perspective

From a perspective that is distrustful of divine revelation and fundamentally does not allow for for the harmonization of divine revelation and the

Muslim gets there from accepting what the Arabian prophets said 600 years later and Think that ah see they are agreeing with me

When they would be loathe to agree with him That Really is

Something I think they need to be much more upfront and honest about and explain. How is it that the destructive criticism of?

Christian liberals leads to your view and of course

I won't even get into now, and why don't you apply that destructive criticism to your text and See what that leads to but we won't go there for the this particular moment

Christ was sent to the house of Israel Exclusively he was a prophet of God He was one of the mightiest messengers of God and my

Jesus is a messenger of God my Jesus is a prophet of God My Jesus now, that's weird to me

Muslims don't talk about my Jesus There there you a

Muslim can't have a personal relationship with Jesus Jesus is just a is just a prophet he'll come back someday, and he'll destroy the cross and kill the pig and Lead Muslim armies to defeat the coffers and the mushrik's

But what do you mean my Jesus? Who is the Muslim Jesus? I was just I'd mentioned last time and I just finished working.

Well. I'm not finished chapter, but I just finished arranging The Quranic texts on Lisa bin

Mariam and I've put them in chronological order so that the reader of the book will read through everything that the

Quran says about Isa and It is interesting in in reading again everything the

Quran says about Jesus 25 specific references to his name.

There's more when you Have other ways of referring to him But if you read it all you could not love the person

That is revealed there you couldn't there's just there is not enough about him

I mean, I've said many times. There's only one place. He speaks from identifiable physical location on planet

Earth And that's from his cradle One of the many places where the

Quran has borrowed from pre -existing sources non

Islamic sources Christian or Jewish sources or sort of Christian sources

Other than that it's just a voice that just sort of floats around and talks about monotheism and becomes an argument for the prophethood of Muhammad It's really all there is to him you could not there's there's no way to say that's my

Jesus and I I think

Christians need to keep that in mind as you speak to a Muslim what especially if they've bought into the the stuff that you get from You know the

Dean show and stuff like that Where? You have these these

Muslim apologists who will say we are the second largest religion in the world or maybe the largest religion in the world that teaches people to love

Jesus and teaches people to follow Jesus well okay, but I when when when we have such fundamental differences in our belief about who

Jesus is I'm sorry. We're not talking about the same Jesus We're not talking about the same

Jesus. My Jesus was born of a virgin mother virgin Mary. My Jesus was one of the most powerful one of the biggest personalities to walk the face of this earth my

Jesus is very important to me I cannot be a Muslim if I do not love Jesus and the

Jesus of the Quran is exactly that Jesus who was Historically confirmed to be a

Jew a law -abiding you and who was a prophet of God. Thank you very much for listening

Now great great controversy and inconsistency here History establishes my view of Jesus Why didn't he mention surah 4 157?

Why didn't he mention Jesus speaking from a cradle? Why doesn't he mention the very things that would

Provide some type of substantiation of that you'd have to if you're gonna be arguing

Honestly at that point. I think that's very very important now

I need to find the next section here and I'll tell you what we'll do is we're gonna we're gonna queue up a break and I'll find the next section see you that you get to listen just make it a brief one make it a quick one

But I need to find the next break or the next section of the the dialogue here because it's been a couple weeks since I listened to the debate and I don't remember how long the

Back and forth was as far as the rebuttals go it I can sort of see in the wave file where I think it is but rather than force you to do that we'll just take a a quick break and Be back with more of Adnan Rashid This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day The morning Bible study begins at 930 a .m. And the worship service is at 1045

Evening services are at 630 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE

If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PRBC .org

Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth

Letters to a Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional

Mormon missionary Examining the teaching and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well -defined arguments

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon the prophecies visions and teachings of Joseph Smith The theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS Church This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons Letters to a

Mormon elder get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at AOMN .org

Okay, what I've found is What what what happened is there wasn't really a a rebuttal period

Instead you you had questions immediately starting which I always think somewhat diminishes the value of a debate but The questions were worthwhile and you get the you get the back -and -forth and so we're go ahead and just go ahead and dive into those

For the rest of program here. And so after that period of time they Dived into the audience questions.

Let's let's the first one was interesting because it was on the subject of the Gospel of Thomas One two three go

I Can't hear

Now Now, immediately, it sounds like a

Pakistani fellow here is asking about the Gospel of Thomas. He says, you used your mind and logic. Actually what

Jay had done is he had pointed out the ridiculous nature of the Gospel of Thomas. But did you hear the terminology that was just used?

That it should be thrown out. Thrown out of what? It was never a part of anything. I mean, the assumption is that it was a part of early

Christian writing, and it was not. It's from Gnosticism. It is influenced by Gnosticism.

It does not come from the time period of the apostles.

It does not come from Jerusalem or the area around Jerusalem, etc., etc.

And those are the things that Jay Smith had pointed out. And by the way, using the same logic, your own

Bible, which you keep with you, it states in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3 onwards, that a man is a head of a woman, not the other way around.

A shave off a woman's hair if she is uncovered, if she prays or prophesies. A man is not made for a woman.

A woman is made for a man. Things like that. So using the same logic, can I throw this Bible out? The same logic, can

I throw this Bible out? Of course, to even begin to parallel the

Gnostic concepts of, I will make her to become a man, with the biblical concepts that recognize the difference between male and female, different roles in the church, etc.,

etc., is just pure rhetoric. And coming from a

Muslim is pure hypocrisy. Shall we go into the Quran where you may lightly beat your wives, sir?

Well, probably not. Definitely not. All right, real quickly, real quickly. I didn't make that decision, it was actually the early church fathers.

Remember I said, I'm not here in the 21st century to make that decision. The early church fathers threw it out for not just that one reason.

I would not put it that way. Yes, they rejected it once it became known, but unfortunately what this communicates to people when you say, threw it out, it sounds like it was once in, or was at least in consideration for being in, and it wasn't.

So I guess the only way you could put it is, never gave it consideration, would be the, I think, the proper way to express it.

Well, it's just the content. I'm just quoting the content to show you it does not agree with the Gospel account. There's no references that we have like that anywhere in the

Gospels. You can see already the content doesn't agree. Secondly, look at the dating. It is not 58 AD like Adnan says.

No real respected scholar. I don't know who these Myron McCormick he's talking about are. Never heard of them before, but no respected scholar would put it to 58

AD. And he's exactly right there. As I've said many times, what you have are some fringe folks who make their money off of promoting

Gnosticism, who promote this stuff. I did get, and I should have brought it in with me, but it's in my backpack,

Simon Gathercole's new book, and it is a thick book. Man, I wish

I could get it in electronic form, but it's not available. And it is small print, compact, onto the page.

This is a long, in -depth book examining the theories that have been promoted.

Because they are theories. The best you can do is theories. When you've got a book that has such minimal historical evidence behind it, as far as a manuscript tradition is concerned.

Two Greek fragments and a Syriac copy. When you have something like that, all you can come up with are theories as to origination and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

But it goes through and it deals rather fully with the people who are promoting the idea of very early sources.

And I was looking at the chapter on its dependence upon the synoptic

Gospels and its knowledge of the synoptic Gospels. And so it's funny for the, it's rather obvious to the unbiased observer anyways, that the

Gospel of Thomas is based upon and dependent upon the canonical Gospels. So the Muslim, who for whatever reason, maybe because they just don't know the teaching of it or it's just some way of attacking the

Bible and confusing Christians or whatever, on the one end is always pushing the

Gospels as far back as he can. But he has to push the Gospel of Thomas as far forward as he can.

The problem is, they run into each other. I mean, it's pretty obvious that the

Gospel of Thomas is dependent upon the canonical Gospels. And so the farther back you push the canonical Gospels, the farther back you're pushing the

Gospel of Thomas, which obviously means it has nothing to do with Thomas or anything else. So which is it going to be? What's good for the goose is good for the yander and all that kind of stuff.

They put it to around 280, so it's much too late. And the reason why is very simple. Look at the internal idiomatic expressions that are used there that were borrowed from Tatian's Diatessaron, proving that it's a much later date.

Thirdly, look and see where it was written. It was written in France and Spain, much, much too far away to even be close to the

Mediterranean, where it should have been written, if it really was Thomas. Thomas didn't live in Spain or France.

So that's obviously... Now, I don't think we have any idea where it was written, to be honest with you.

Richness. Well, he is an Englishman. And the Englishman will always blame the French. What are you talking about?

I mean, that's just a genetic thing. That's a genetic thing. It's too far away. It's too late.

And it contents completely contradicts what we see in the Gospel account. For all three reasons, it was considered to be erroneous.

By humans. Of course, by humans, yes. By the early church. And I say that. But let me ask you, how much time do we have left?

Okay. Now, did you catch that? Adnan says, by humans. Or maybe the questioner said, by humans. I don't know. Well, yeah, this is a debate between humans.

And it's real nice for you to sit back and go, oh, well, you know, our canon was determined just by God.

And how do you know that? Well, humans told you that. So that's...

Who put the Quran together? Who wrote and actually decided which were the 114 surahs?

A guy named Zayd ibn Dhabit? Who was a scholar? No. He was a secretary of Muhammad.

Was he even done while Muhammad was living? No. He was joined at the time of Uthman. And Uthman had Zayd ibn

Dhabit, al -Azm, al -Zubayr, and al -Ali, the four of them, decide what the Quran was 18 years after Muhammad's death.

Is that who you claim to be? Oh, not human? Yeah, you see, again, the inconsistency comes back to bite

Adnan and the Muslims. Because you can sit there and say, oh, we don't have any human involvement.

But the reality is, history says that you did. Now, you can...

I'm not arguing that God could not have used the means of Zayd ibn

Dhabit or anything else. He could have. But the argument that had just been made, the objection that had just been voiced by the...

I couldn't tell from the audio whether it was from Adnan or from the audience member was, well, but it's human beings.

Human beings were used in the process. Well, human beings were used in the process of the production of anything.

Unless you're going to say that the... I mean, why did God use Muhammad? Why didn't he just float some golden plates down?

Or platinum plates? Or zinc? Or whatever. Maybe some heavenly material that we've never seen before.

That would really give you good evidence. And why not just do that? But he didn't.

He used people. You've got to argue. There's no way for the Muslim to avoid the recognition of the fact of human intermediation involved in the production of the

Quran. From Muhammad through to Uthman to Zayd ibn

Dhabit. That's what took place. That's how it happened.

Just deal with it. And if you're going to make an argument that says that's how

Allah did it, well, then you can't disallow that God could have used similar mechanisms and similar methodologies in the

Christian perspective. That's just the way it is. So it's just as much a human document. Jay said the early church fathers.

Now, Jay is making my point. Thank you very much for making my point. The early church fathers decided what is the word of God. No, they did not.

No, they did not. Ah. Early church fathers decided.

Okay, so your early church fathers named Uthman and Zayd and so on and so forth.

I mean, that's not the terminology we're used to using, but if you're going to go that direction.

But again, this is why it's important to have an understanding of what the Quran, I'm sorry, what the canon is and how it came into existence and how it was recognized.

It's very, very important to recognize the early church didn't sit around and say, we have the authority to create canon.

We have the authority to decide what is and what is not scripture and all the rest of that type of stuff.

That is not what took place in the early church. You will not find the early church writers making that kind of statement.

Go ahead and look up Athanasius. Go ahead and look up any of the councils that were involved in later promulgation of canon lists, and none of them will say we by our authority are creating the canon by putting this list together.

That's not how it happened in any way, shape, or form. Not God. God doesn't decide what is the word of God here.

Early church fathers chose the canon. See, he's making a complete distinction, which he will not apply to his own side, between God using means and God just bellowing it out from heaven.

You've got the wrong book. But then doesn't that become divine revelation?

So where does it get added to the canon? I mean, how does that work? And now we have later church fathers in the 21st century, in the 20th century, deciding what to go into the

Bible. There are no church fathers in the 20th century.

That's sort of an anachronism. They are the ones who decide what is the text and what is not, because they see so many different readings in the

Bible. So early church fathers. Now, did you catch that? So if you seek to recognize the accretions over time in the scribal process and only have what was actually written by the apostles, now you're playing with the word of God.

When did Adnan Rashid become a King James only -ist? Now, there's an interesting conjunction of viewpoints, is the

Muslim King James only -ist. Again, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Origin?

Origin promulgated the canon list? Now, origin is very important in a testimony to what was viewed as authoritative in North Africa around 220

AD or something around that time frame. But the idea that he created a canon list doesn't make any sense.

For example, when it comes to the Old Testament, he was aware of the difference between the apocryphal books and the books in the

Old Testament canon and things like that. But are you saying that he viewed a particular book as having more authority than another particular book?

What exactly are you saying? The canon of Eusebius was different to that of Origen.

The canon of Matthew was different to that of Eusebius. If you don't believe me, go and check the canon of Eusebius for yourself.

I'd just like to ask, why does Islam prefer the tradition behind the Gospel of Thomas? If we even know what that is, how would we even know what that is?

Rather than the tradition of the Q document as you described it. I mean, why do we assume, or why does

Islam assume, that the contents of the tradition behind the Gospel of Thomas is more true or trustworthy and so it can be used to topple the

Q tradition and to set up the Gospel of Thomas in the New Testament as we have today? I think you have grossly misunderstood what

I was trying to say. As far as I as a

Muslim am concerned, none of these traditions are from God. These documents were written by men.

Did you not prefer the Gospel of Thomas? No, I know. I have no specific or no particular preference. No preference?

As long as I can use it negatively to promote positively my viewpoint,

I have no preference. Oh, come on. I mean, seriously, Adnan, look at what the

Gospel of Thomas says and look at what the New Testament Gospels say and you will have to admit that there is a fundamental difference in what they view in regards to who

God is. It's just, well, I guess

I shouldn't be overly amazed at this, but I continue to be overly amazed and I guess

I shouldn't be completely shocked in light of the fact that the Quran quotes from many of these sources without showing any more consistent concern about the reliability of its sources than modern

Islamic apologists do. I mean, you can quote from the

Arabic infancy Gospels and the infancy Gospel of Thomas and all this kind of stuff and it ends up in the

Quran somewhere, not because the books were there, but because Muhammad heard the stories in sitting around campfires at night while going on caravan trips up towards Syria and ran into Christians and Jews and heard these stories and they got put into the

Quran. Now, some Muslims will say, that's pure coincidence. It was interesting that Shabir, I think, is fully aware of those things and uses them as evidence of the truth of God outside of the

Quran, which is an interesting way of putting it. But anyway, let's be consistent at this point, shall we?

The point I was making was, and please pay attention, the point I was making was that these Gospels were rejected by someone.

Why they were rejected, we don't know. We will never know. Why were they rejected?

So, I guess, as long as it calls itself a Gospel, it needs to be in the

Bible. Is that really where we're supposed to go with this? As long as it's a

Gospel, then it needs to be accepted. So, there can be no critical examination. There can be no asking, was this traced to an apostle?

Is there consistency in its teaching? And it makes me wonder why there's a canon to the

Quran. Why couldn't just anything be thrown in there, too, as long as it claims to be?

I guess he'd be open to, if we find an ancient text in Yemen, where there's an extra four or five surahs, well, we can't have man rejecting part of the

Word of God, need to add it in there, right? Or would he maybe just possibly argue that Allah had something to do with the compilation of the

Quran? And Allah had something to do with the non -preservation of things that didn't belong in the

Quran. But once he argues that, then he has to allow it for other books, like the

New Testament, as well. And then his arguments fall apart. They were rejected by certain men, church fathers, in the first three centuries.

That's the point I was making. Not because one is better than the other. I don't know. I will never know. As far as I'm concerned, the

Quran is my yardstick. The Quran is the book I use to determine what may be truth in those documents and what may not be the truth.

Okay? So I'm making it very clear that we don't have any specific preference over other gospels.

So a gospel of Thomas May will be directed to a gospel. What I'm saying is, who decides that it should be thrown out and who decides that it should be accepted?

Instead, we should decide it based upon a guy who's speaking Arabic 600 years later who wrote his own book!

There you go! Who contradicted history, was ignorant of the actual content, had never read the

Old and New Testaments, did not have direct access to the Old and New Testaments, but we're going to take his word as final anyways.

There you go! And then, quote, Jimmy Dunn, the process. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Christians can never tell me today. It's a challenge. But you do think it predates?

I'm not saying that. Again, I'm not saying that. Scholars who have published works for Cambridge and Oxford Yes, April D.

McConaughey and Marvin Mayer. Because Jay doesn't study scholars, obviously.

Study these scholars. You go and check who Marvin Mayer and April D. McConaughey are. Both of them are.

And then you will see exactly what I'm coming for. Scholars are saying this. Thank you. Okay, very good.

Good question. If you notice, he wouldn't even take a position on that. That proves his point. He doesn't know who Jesus is. He would rather go to a 7th century document, hundreds of years' distance, never having been to Palestine, and trust that view of Jesus, rather than the idol of Zakat.

Thank God we have the idol of Zakat. Thank God we've got John, who's at the foot of the cross. He knew

Jesus for three years. Mary was at the foot of the cross. She knew Jesus for 33 years. Are you going to trust the idol of Zakat, or are you going to trust something that comes from a man who cannot read or write, didn't know how to read or write, was given a revelation, and even he didn't write it down.

It was written 18 years after we don't even have that manuscript. Talk about manuscript evidence. Wait until we get into manuscript evidence on the

Quran. We're going to destroy the Quran tonight. But, thank God, we do have manuscript evidence for the Negev.

And we've got more than manuscript evidence. We've also got an enormous amount of translations, and the Urgent Proverbs.

Yes, of course, chosen by men. But so was the Quran chosen by men. And that's not being said. See, I would just want to expand on what

Jay said, but I said chosen by men as the means. I don't want to leave in the mind of anyone in the audience,

Christian or Muslim or just observer, that God's activities are somehow, they're out there, and then this is all taking place in the human realm, as if God's disconnected from that.

That's the only thing that I would want to change there. Now, by the way,

I had forgotten about that, about something until just now. Somewhere in this question -answer period, we are going to get into a topic where I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with my good brother,

Jay, in how he answered a rather important question on the subject of the

Trinity. I don't remember exactly where it was, but looking at this, there's almost over an hour of Q &A left, so it's going to take some time to work through it.

But when we get there, unlike the attitude I normally see on the other side of this divide, we will deal with it honestly and openly, and I will have to disagree with him, and I will try to offer constructive and biblically -based and theologically -sound criticism of the statement that he made.

And the reason I say I don't hear this on the other side is I don't hear. Maybe it's just because I don't know what to listen to, and maybe some of the more solid

Muslim apologists could direct me to maybe some webcasts, maybe some websites, where there is meaningful interaction and disagreement amongst those who practice dawah, where some of these issues would be addressed.

For example, I know there seems to be a split between the

Muslim Debate Initiative folks and Adnan Rashid, which wasn't there a few years ago.

Has there been discussion of this? Is it done respectfully? Is it done openly? Certainly a lot of the modern

Islamic apologists are recognizing, I hope, that the

Zakir Naik approach is not an effective or truthful means of proclamation or calling to Islam and things like that.

Those would be some of the questions I would have. There's a lady who will put up her hand. Yep. Just before to ask my question,

I will just say I am Camille. Nice to meet you. I come from France, so sorry for my bad

English. Oh no! She comes from France! It's like a personal question, because my father is

Muslim and my mum comes from a Christian Catholic Church. And I could see how they live their life day after day.

And one, even if my mum today is not really Christian, but it doesn't matter, I see my dad because he thinks that God is so high that he can be a human.

It's not possible. Isn't it true, Cam? So my question is just for both.

Could you just explain to me how today you live your relationship with God? It's a bit of a personal question, but I mean because of the

Christians, because as you have said, Christians think that if they believe in Jesus, which is, who is the

Son of God, but who is God made flesh, who saves the world by faith,

Christians think that they can have a direct relationship with God without a lot of stuff.

So that's why I ask really day after day how do you live your life with Jesus for once and without Jesus for you?

So this is a question about application of your own faith. Lovely. Let's go first.

I love it because really that's where it comes down to. The fact that Jesus, my Jesus, came down to earth and took on human form.

God can do anything he wants. Please don't limit God by saying he can't take on human form. Never, never limit God. That's easy for God to do.

He created us. He can certainly enter into his own creation. More than that, by doing so, he did something special.

And this is what really amazes me, that he would come and die for me. The fact that he would come and give his life for me.

God doing that for me? Giving it all to me? To me, I'm in awe that God would do that.

And so when I think of Jesus, I see all that history from the very beginning where God promised that in Genesis 3 .15

that he was going to do that, that he was going to come to the line of need. During the absence from the line of need, he is going to come and crush the man of sin.

That's the first prophecy that shows that Jesus is fulfilled without that. And the fact that he did live for 33 years on earth.

The fact that he came as a babe, grew up as a man, and then got up and died and rose again.

Ah, I'm just in awe. Because that means that God has been where I have been. God actually comes down to my level.

That means God can relate to me face to face. The God of Islam is totally distant, totally other, never comes to earth.

My God comes to earth all the time, anytime he wants. And that's the beauty of Jesus Christ. And therefore, he knows my problems.

He knows exactly what I'm going through. But more than that, he's taken off all those problems of dying and taken off that exact transformation.

Which means I can be with him forever on the other side of death. I can't wait to see Jesus. Come on with me.

We'll see him together. God of Islam is very close to us.

Contrary to the Jain slaving. Chapter 2, verse 185. God tells us, When my slave calls upon me,

I am closed. I'm there listening. God of Islam does not kill himself. And if God kills himself, then who is going to forgive you?

If God dies himself, who's going to forgive you? Who's going to run the world? Now, if God dies himself, who is going to forgive you?

I understand when this comes from a Muslim on the street. I do not understand how someone like Adnan Rashid could make this kind of an argument.

It shows such a fundamental ignorance of the position he's critiquing that it is absolutely amazing to me.

I mean, first of all, death does not mean cessation of existence.

Even in Islam it doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that in Christianity. So the idea that, well, if God died, then who can forgive me, is assuming if God ceased to exist.

But then that ignores, continually, the fact that we believe that God is triune, and so you have the

Father in heaven, and you have the Spirit as well, so even if Jesus ceased to exist, which he didn't, you would still have the

Father and the Spirit. I mean, you'll hear the, well, if Jesus was God and he died, then who kept the planets in orbit?

All based on this idea that death is a cessation of existence, which is not a Christian belief, nor is it a

Muslim belief. So why do we keep hearing this? We shouldn't, but it comes up over and over and over again.

And notice the applause. Yeah! All right, yeah, if God died!

So it is collective ignorance at this point. God cannot die,

God cannot die. If God dies, he ceases to be God. If God becomes a man, he ceases to be

God, which is impossible. God cannot be a man, God cannot die because he ceases to be

God. So my God, sorry? She's asking for me. It's a very, it deserves a lecture on this topic.

This topic is a lengthy topic, we can talk about it some other time. Thank you for answering the question. I think

Jay's response was considerably more, shall we say, evangelistically flavored than Adnan's.

I didn't say that Adnan's was really designed to convince anyone to look at Islam any closer.

Here we go. This is a little kid, and this is, where are they getting this stuff from?

Why don't their elders at least teach them correctly about what other people believe?

Well, I realize there are Christians who don't teach accurately about what other people believe. Out of ignorance,

I hope. But anyway, this is sad to hear. When Jesus was dead, who was controlling the world?

Oh, it's a very easy question. The Spirit was controlling the world. Okay, now,

Jay said the Spirit was controlling the world. Then he says something about Philippians 2.

Well, again, I don't, you need to, I think Jay needs to recognize the young man thinking that Jesus ceases to exist.

And he needs to correct that first, and then point out that we believe in the

Trinity, and therefore the Father and the Spirit were not incarnate. Philippians 2, verse 6, 11, answers all of that.

And sometimes when you must have a question, what are you supposed to do? You're supposed to come to us and ask us and look at our scriptures. He who did not consider, that's

Jesus, who did not consider equality to be grasped, humbled himself, became a man, to the point of dying for us.

He controlled the universe. The Spirit is still controlling the universe. God is still controlling the universe. The problem is,

Muslims have this idea of dualism that cannot be permeated. They have the idea that God always is up here, and the Spirit is somewhere else, which already implies that the

Spirit is on earth. He's controlling the universe in the Quran. So while the Spirit is as close to you as your jugular vein, who's controlling the universe?

When Moses was talking to God in the burning bush in Surah 12, 20, Ayah 10 to 14, who was controlling the universe?

Why he was down on earth in the burning bush? So even in the Quran, it suggests that Allah comes to earth.

He claims to be Allah. He claims that the burning bush is hallowed ground. So, the same question

Muslims must ask, but I have yet to see a Muslim that can answer that question, because if God is not able to enter time and space, and is not able to continue controlling the universe, that's not much of a

God. I'm so glad our God does that. I'm so glad that the

Holy Spirit continues to exist. I have a question.

Well, again, I would just, personally, I think you first have to challenge the incipient assumption that Jesus ceases to exist, and then explain the doctrine of the

Trinity at that point. And my first statement would not be the Spirit. My first statement would be the

Father, and then the Spirit. So I found that a little bit odd. That's a very good question.

So, Jay is saying that it was man and Jesus who died. Well, that's not...

Okay, so here's where we start getting into where I think Jay got tripped up by some of the questions here, in regards to who was it who died and who did not.

And part of this is because the nature of death itself has not been addressed, and the nature of the

Incarnation has not been addressed. And I have not had an opportunity to talk with Jay about this, so I can only go on what he's stated.

But this is where we start getting into that particular area, and we're going to run out of time as we get to it, unfortunately.

God can die anytime he wants.

Well, I wouldn't put it that way. Again, you have to emphasize the nature of the

Incarnation, the relation of the two natures, and the nature of death, which has not been defined here.

And that, I think, leads to part of the confusion. I think Muslims need to stop and say, what can and cannot do?

Let God be God. Can God die? Can God die?

God chooses not to die. God, in His image, will not die. So there is no certain criteria for being

God? God can do anything? Oh, my. And see, you Muslims are saying He can do everything.

He can't do this, He can't come and eat. He can't come to work, He can't walk. You're already asking, He can't go to the toilet.

Why God can't? This is not in the speaker's final. This is a very simple question.

I need a straight answer. Can God cease to be God? God can never cease to be God. But God can not do that.

There are things God cannot do.

God cannot cease to be God. Likewise, God cannot take on human form. That's how He ceased to be God.

And please don't impose that. Okay. Okay, we'll move on to the next question.

One, two, three. I actually, if I recall correctly, it actually gets expanded more in one of the future questions, which is why

I didn't interrupt it there. But if someone asked me, can God cease to be

God, obviously I would say no. Can God die? I would say, what do you mean by die?

If you mean cease to be God, and you're just using different words, I already answered that. If what you mean is, can

God enter into human flesh and give His life, that's exactly what He did do, but that does not mean cease to exist.

So by not defining what death means, and not defining the nature of the hypothetic union, the

Muslims think they really scored a point there when actually they scored nothing at all. We'll take three questions.

My question is for Jay. Jay, I'm sorry I missed most of the lecture. I'm very sorry.

But I'm gathering you believe that the Bible is the unaltered Word of God. Everything, yeah?

No, I'm not going to admit to that. Okay, the originals. Okay, so you're on record as saying some parts of the

Bible are concocted. Could you just shed some light on what parts they are? Talk about a leap!

Talk about a leap! You make the appropriate assertion that inerrancy refers to the originals, and oh, that means you believe that parts of the

Bible are concocted. I don't even find that to be an honest question. It's not.

It's agenda -driven, and it's inserting a whole truckload of stuff without even trying to provide a foundation for it.

That's terrible. There are 40 verses that are in doubt, that are concocted. What do you mean by concocted?

I can show you the YouTube video of you admitting that some parts of the Bible are concocted. In fact,

Jay said they are corrupted. Corrupted, excuse me. Okay, so could you shed some light on the... Now here's where we...

Here's where we get to where Muslims also, in this particular context, don't seem to be willing to allow for the definition of terms by the people actually using them.

As I pointed out, Adnan Rashid will refer to the title of the

Metzger work, referring to the New Testament, it's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.

And he thinks corruption means loss.

It becomes unknowable. And then restoration is just a human process where we do the best we can to guess at what it originally said.

That's not what Metzger is talking about, and as I've pointed out when we started this a few weeks ago, corruption in textual critical language, which is what

Metzger is using it in, corruption in textual critical language refers to any disruption in the transmission of the written text over time.

That does not mean that the original is lost, altered, forgotten, destroyed, replaced.

But if there is anywhere in the manuscript tradition, and remember, the manuscript tradition is multivalent, it is not a single line,

Chinese whispers type of a concept, a phone game type idea.

And so, since it's going through multiple paths, you can have disruption at one point, without disruption at another point.

So he just does not understand, and does not seem to want to understand, the nature of what corruption actually is.

And that's going to come up again. There are 40 verses that are in doubt, and we know where they are.

They're listed in the NIV in all the translations. Matthew 16, 9 -20 is in doubt.

It's in doubt, throw them out if you don't want them. John 7, verse 53 to John 8 -11 is also in doubt.

Throw them out if you don't like it. 1 John 5, verse 7 is in doubt.

But that's not... It's in the original scriptures. Now think about it. If you take just the longer ending of Mark, I thought he said

Matthew, but it's actually Mark 16, 9 -20. Maybe I just misheard him. But if you take the longer ending of Mark, and the

Percipate Adultery in John 7, verse 53 to 8 -11, that's 24 of the 40 he's listing. That's over half of them are just two textual variants.

I'm not sure if there's a total of 40 or not, as far as verses are concerned. There are a few parallel corruptions between the synoptic gospels, but I'm not sure if there's a total of 40.

With the original scriptures, the Texas Receptus is not in doubt. Now, that lost me.

If you compare them with the original scriptures, the Texas Receptus? I'm confused there.

I know that Jay is not a King James onlyist or a TR onlyist, so I don't know why he used the term

Texas Receptus. Because the TR refers to a later eclectic printed text originating from the five editions of Erasmus, that of Stephanus in 1550 and the 1598

Basis. So, that one I didn't understand. But we'll pick up at that point and continue our review of the

J. Smith -Adnan Rashid debate. I think there is further discussion about the natures of Christ.

It will be useful in a future discussion. But as I said, we're headed to Boston on Thursday.

Pray for the recording of our emergency room response to and corrective of the elephant room coming up this weekend.

Thanks for listening. We'll see you next week. 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 dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and podcasts.