Jamal Badawi and Ally/Licona Debate

Jamal Badawi on the Deity of Christ and the Incarnation

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 to 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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three. Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a sunny warm. Yes, very warm afternoon here in Phoenix. Last I looked I think I saw Reading of 108 no one hundred and seven point two degrees currently and There's supposed to get up to like a hundred and ten at least supposed to tomorrow.

So yes, it is that time of year and I'm really looking forward to Riding my motorcycle home through that especially in traffic where you get to stop and sit there with your engine Idling in the Sun At those stoplights and after about 15 seconds of that pink elephant start running through this through the intersection in front of you.

It's great I love it. It's it's wonderful stuff. Those aren't pink elephants. That's a firetruck. Yeah, it's coming to put me out At least put my feet out. That's that's the problem man. You put your feet down on that asphalt there's a reason why it's melting and You know, I tell people back east, you know, they've got those all those potholes from the water getting underneath and freezing and breaking stuff we don't have that we have the little little what do you call those ridges in front of the Intersections because as people slow down and accelerate the asphalt get you know, sort of like like kind of cartilage Fabric that you'd push back and forth.

That's what it does here because it's so hot.

Yeah, of course. As you're sitting there, you're wondering okay, which is gonna melt first the asphalt or my shoes.

Oh Yeah, you can feel it. Believe you me you can you can feel it. It's it's fun. But anyway, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number for you to call today. We did not quite finish listening to Jamal Badawi and his presentation on the deity of Christ.

We only have about Five minutes that left I think maybe a little less than that and he's going to be getting into now the The section where he is actually Presenting where he believes Jesus denied his own deity.

I remember we weren't overly impressed nor could we actually be overly impressed? With what was presented earlier there in regards to the Trying to deal with the positive evidence is because we didn't hear any of the strongest positive arguments addressed.

We didn't hear the Granville Sharp constructions. We didn't hear Anything about the identity of Jesus as Yahweh and Jesus is the creator of all that all that stuff was just passed over in silence. Which truly makes me wonder, you know when someone passes over in silence, it's a little bit I'll be honest a little bit like I'm just working on a blog article right now yesterday I posted a blog article where I began discussing a little bit of Dave Armstrong's book the one-minute Apologist and I made the the statement there you can you can find out a lot about the quality of a person's Understanding and their study by what they do in a brief period of time.

Now, what do I mean by that? Well, it's one thing if you're writing a huge book or you're spending a tremendous amount of time to To Collate facts and to to put together research and things like that that that's one thing.

But if you are asked and this is frequently in an apologetic situation What we have to deal with in our society if you are asked in a brief period of time to give a clear communicative cogent Understandable Presentation response Positive presentation of something regarding the deity of Christ response to an attack upon the deity of Christ response to an attack upon the doctrines of grace, whatever it might be.

That's where the rubber meets the road. That's where you find out if someone really understands what they believe or Whether they've got some some major holes in in what they believe it's a little bit like I've always said if you can't take what you're teaching and Especially when it comes to theology, you know, there might be some super technical things that require a more of a foundation like You know teaching the syntax of Greek participles or something like that but if you can't take what you're teaching especially of theology if you can't go into the youth group if you can't go into the kids classes and Make an understandable presentation.

You're probably over dependent upon scholarly language and lingo and things like that. Or you're overly dependent upon some other form of argumentation for mr. Armstrong, it's called verbal flooding or in this case written flooding if it was spoken it would be verbal I guess but It is it is what you do when you don't really have a whole lot to say so you just say a whole lot more than you need to and You keep citing yourself and you talk about things that really aren't relevant to the issue at all and and make it sound like you really know what you're talking about when in point of fact, you're just dancing around and and Hoping that people are sitting there watching you dancing around and they're so fascinated they forget that you're not actually answering the question and So if if you have to answer something briefly in this case Jamal Badawi Only has five minutes left.

And so now you really start finding out How accurate is his understanding you can't nuance things as well in Armstrong's book he's got two pages to address an issue and That means you've got it you've got to pick your best stuff and if you've got misrepresentations and miss citations and Misunderstandings in only two pages.

Well, it doesn't really matter if you expand that out to 200 pages the problem is in your foundational understanding and that's where the that's where the test really is I think for For many people is what can you do in a brief period of time and let's face it in our society today you normally only have a brief period of time you might have a brief period of time at a At the gate at the airport sitting on a flight on a bus on a train in the taxi cab whatever it might be very frequently you have a brief period of time and If you can can demonstrate that you you have the ability to make a meaningful statement.

And you can do so accurately and you can also represent the position that you are decrying or that you are contradicting Accurately in a brief period that demonstrates you actually know what it is you're talking about and so as we listen to Jamal Badawi, you will see you will hear Very frequently what you get in debates this rat-a-tat-tat this this semi-automatic Presentation of argumentation.

This is where it gets the closest to what you see in Collegiate debate where you have people who who? Literally physically train their bodies to be able to speak three and four hundred words per minute.

They're not trying to convince anybody. There is only a small group of judges who can even understand what they're saying. It's like the FedEx guy in the old commercials from about ten years ago. How fast can you talk and how many facts can you throw out now?

Obviously then the other side has to speak just as fast, but you can never contradict all those facts. So it's it's not a matter of honestly dealing with the facts. It's just throwing stuff out and whoever gets to throw the most stuff out doesn't really matter if it's good or cogent reasoning or whatever.

That's how you win. Well, that's what we're about to get here when you hear someone just throwing this out throwing that out throwing this up. It's a great rhetorical device and and it sounds real good and it can get your base all revved up and excited but It's impossible in the context of debate to then analyze each one of these texts reach one of these claims In a meaningful fashion, especially since the next guy is going to have a lesser period of time to respond to these things.

Anyways, I've said many many times that it takes ten seconds to enunciate an error that takes at least two minutes to correct and So if you take two minutes throwing out ten seconds of falsehood each time it would take you quite some time to unwrap all that and that would be difficult to do within the context of a debate and So we're about to catch sort of an example of that in the batteries presentation starting right here.

The references in the Bible are given there now. Moving to the to be which is the last portion in that second page I would say that in return as opposed to this allegorical language This is obviously can bear more than one meaning we find that Jesus peace be upon him make explicit and clear Statements that clearly shows that he is not divine and shows his subordination to his creator and the creator of all.

Now just just so you remember to this this metaphorical allegorical language. So basically all that he had presented before this about Messiah Savior etc. Etc is just meant to be taken allegorically. Now remember he didn't actually deal With a meaningful presentation of the deity of Christ.

He didn't deal with the best text. He didn't deal with the use of the us. He didn't deal with the use of tetragrammaton Kodi, ah, so all that stuff. He just you know went zooming right past all of that and did not deal with it.

But now we have clear compelling what evidence that Jesus is subject to his creator. Well, that would mean you'd have to find someplace says he's created but always always always remember that for the Muslim and I think you saw this in the.

In the exchange with Greg Stafford, he's started posting he's put the first two sections up, but he says there's more coming. So I'm just waiting till it's all there. But he started posting a big huge response about two months after I once again demonstrated that it's you know.

Any fair-minded person honestly this I don't think there can be a question about this. Any fair-minded person who examines the information about John chapter 12 verses 39 to 41 and Isaiah 6 1 looks at the Greek Septuagint asks themselves a basic question.

What is John drawing from here? What is he trying to present? I don't think there's any question about what the text is. But Greg Stafford is Jehovah's Witnesses in a position where he cannot believe that he cannot accept that.

Simply can't he has to come up with another way around it and it may be just just so far-fetched. But he's got to because his final authority is not the Bible his final authority is watched how I will track society and it's theology so he can't allow the scripture that and.

So when when you when you do that you start with certain presuppositions the Muslim, you know, we're in the debate that I had with Mr. Stafford the presupposition that came out was God cannot become incarnate.

There can be no Incarnation you God somehow when he created Created in such a way that he can't enter into that which he himself made. Now they'll never explain why that is it just is God can't do that.

Remember Hams Abdul Malik in our debate. When I pressed him on that issue, well, that's just God doesn't do that. That's and The Quran says in essence and for the Muslim It is an absolute given. Absolute given.

Allah would never ever ever enter into his creation. There can be no incarnation. So they by definition Immediately dismiss The nature of Christ as revealed the New Testament they cannot allow For Jesus to be God incarnate.

He cannot voluntarily Submit himself to the Father. Therefore all texts where Jesus talks about being lesser than the Father and every ahead this has to do with his his his. Having made himself of no reputation Philippians chapter 2 all of that is taken to be an indicative of oh see this is this means he can't possibly truly be deity.

Because they will not allow for the incarnation. They will not allow for a true human being who is truly divine as well because they say well that has to be 50 -50. There's no such thing as being half God half man.

And of course, we don't believe that Jesus was half God half man, though. It's the Logos who became flesh. The Logos did not cease being the Logos the Logos not cease Being divine and the flesh does not become divine.

You have one person with two natures and We can go to John and we can go to Philippians. But the only way that you can make that work is to allow scripture to be scripture and since they can't allow scripture to scripture because remember Islamic anachronistic is a Jesus looking backwards upon the text.

With the ignorance of Muhammad as the filter the ignorance of Muhammad as the filter. Now some people are you so mean no the man was ignorant of Christian theology. That is a fact. If it was anybody else anyone else That you could go to what they allegedly said and demonstrate the same level of ignorance nobody would object.

But unfortunately a religion has developed out of the man's words that will kill you if you speak the truth about his own ignorance. That is an amazing thing to realize. But that's the fact so anyway, it is the ignorance of Muhammad that forces through the Quran the Muslim to look backwards upon the text and to smash the text to to atomize the text to break it apart and only what fits with Muhammad's misunderstanding of the Trinity misunderstanding Christian theology can stand and everything else Has to be dismissed and so that's that's what Islamic anachronistic exegesis based upon the ignorance of Muhammad's that would be I Ae I am Not sure how much longer it can go, but we'll we'll keep putting it together here.

So we all have an understand what's going on so. With that in mind then guess what the objections are all going to be based on. It's pretty pretty easy to guess it right ahead of time for example.

He said that he does not do anything of his own authority. That's not a character of God.

That he does not. Okay now see that how long that take less than ten seconds. Maybe five six seconds. No reference given. It's John five. But no reference given. You can't. If you go into John five the actual Emphasis the text is upon the unity of the father and the son the fact that the father has sent the son that's the whole same context that the Jews recognize that Jesus language about the father means that he's equal with the father and they they want to kill him and Jesus everything Jesus is saying in that is that he's not some Separate competing deity with the father that he and the father are doing the same things.

He does nothing of himself means that he's in harmony with the father not that he's some angel or just simply a Rasool a Prophet Apostle etc etc. That needs to be kept in mind, but just see how short that was.

Just boom. No reference. Just throw it out there. No context. That's just that's just you know I would call that Sort of in the lines of gerrymantics. You know you just throw stuff out there. And you know that if you're forced to actually deal with it your the wheels are gonna fall off.

But you just hope the other guy doesn't have enough time to actually force you to deal with it is.

Is what you're hoping. Speak any word of his own authority, but what the father sent him.

Okay, John 5 again. And all that means is perfect unity between the father and the son the speaking of the Word of God there. He is not a competing deity. He's not someone separate who is trying to draw people's Attention and worship away from God the father.

There is a unity that exists there. Which is why that same chapter ends with you must honor me even as you honor the father. That that unity is what becomes the basis for that.

That he said my father is greater than I there is nobody who's greater than God.

That he was not there that John 1428 just just thrown out there again. No references for some reason I'm not sure exactly he might be doing that because the references are on the sheet that he had passed out.

He's made a reference to a handout so you know maybe he's just assuming you're gonna read that and so he doesn't have to because he's in a hurry, so we won't pick on that but John 1428 well, that's a standard one you get from Jehovah's Witnesses all the time.

And you need to be prepared to have a meaningful response to it. It's not difficult to do given the context of John chapter 14 and everything it comes beforehand. But I think the best way is to be to be ready to go.

Wait a minute. You you're only quoting a portion of that particular text when Jesus says the father's greater than I am what he's saying to the disciples is that if That since he's going back to be with the father if they had loved him they would have rejoiced because he's returning to be with the father for the father's greater than he is and.

So you see it's not just Jesus saying oh, no. No you just need to understand I'm a lesser being and so on and so forth. Instead what Jesus is saying is if you love me you would have rejoiced because I'm going back to what?

Well was he saying his high priestly prayer to the glory which I had with you before the world was. Jesus has voluntarily entered into human flesh. He's walking the dusty roads of Galilee he is surrounded by by enemies who are constantly trying to catch him in every word that he says and He's now told his disciples.

He's going to be going back to where he was before. Where before the world was he shared the very glory of the father? Which take that back to Isaiah, and there's only one who has his glory. Jehovah doesn't share his glory with anyone else and so They should have rejoiced because he's going back because the father is greater and that term is a positional term.

It's not an ontological term. He is in a greater position obviously, it's not the father who's walking the dusty streets of Galilee and so he's going to be going back to the position where he was before where he was the object of adoration of the of The angels and the heavenly host and we see this again in the book of Revelation and they should have rejoiced.

But they were focused upon themselves. That's what John 1428. It's about not oh see I don't know I'm not Tom. I'm not Dita, but here Jamal Badawi just sort of throws it out there. No recognition of context or anything like that.

Just sort of throws it up.

Tempted and It is quite pointless for Satan to tempt his creators. The creator of heavens and earth. And say you bow down to me and I give you a little piece of what? You created yourself. It doesn't make any sense.

And of course, why doesn't it might make no sense to him because there can be no Incarnation there can be no true human nature. Allah cannot enter into his own creation now. It seems to me very clear that.

Especially given some statements as you make here in a moment. That he does not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. He thinks it's not understandable. And so he will do what Jehovah's Witnesses will frequently do sometimes.

You know remember the the little red book You can live forever in paradise on earth that had all the pictures in it and stuff. It was their their main study book. They would study with people for many years.

They stopped using it I don't know about five six seven eight years ago something like that, but In that book Within just a few pages. You would find the Watchtower Society at one point accurately defined the Trinity and a few pages later Inaccurately defined the Trinity once properly once modalistically now, of course on their part.

I would say that was purposeful I think they are well aware what the doctrine is and they were purposely deceiving and misleading their people but many of the cults and isms and in this case Islam if they will flip-flop back and forth because they just don't take enough care to accurately represent what is they're talking about and as a result will either attack modalism or attack tritheism or or Whatever it might be and you've just got to be careful.

Just because someone is is Making objections to your faith don't get wrapped into don't get wrestled into Defending a position. It actually isn't yours. You've got to be very quick to be willing to say wait a minute.

That's that that's that's not that's not we believe. When I do role plays, I love getting people to defend positions that that actually are not Christian positions. They sound like it but I tweak it just enough that it's it's actually heretical and man I've seen people go to the mat defending that thing and once I've got him doing that, you know.

The role play is all over with it's it's real easy. And unfortunately, I hear that a lot in.

Apologetics encounters as well only a human being a full human being nothing but is one who could be subjected to.

Temptation now notice that a full human being nothing but into which I say why? And you're not gonna get a why outside of because Islam says so. I mean that's you know. It's like going back to Hams Abdul Malik.

And so which manuscripts don't contain this? Well, they're there, but you can't say well. No, I can't tell you which ones there but I've read scholars or which scholars like I don't have their names, you know, just.

It just has to be. Because we know the Quran's true. See. So when the Quran runs up against facts. Then it just just has to be. That's that's just all there is to it.

He was denied the knowledge of the unseen in several occasions. And one of the most important attributes of God is the knowledge of the unseen.

Except as Anish Arosh is going to point out there were many times when he actually claimed to have that and. So the one time where you have the issue of the date and hour of his coming might there be a purpose?

Why the father has that knowledge and the son in his incarnate state voluntarily does not over against the Sun having supernatural knowledge for example of Nathaniel when he when he Sees him and and the the knowledge that he has of in the healings for example.

That's take place remote healings where doesn't even have to doesn't have to be around the person and he's able to do that. Again, since you're not worrying about context and not even worrying about references as far as going to them reading them.

Quoting them anything like that. And again, I understand this is right toward the end of his presentation. He's checking stuff out there very fast. And sometimes that happens, but it doesn't help in making your presentation overly.

Sound or solid. When somebody called him good master He said why call you me good and said that God alone or the father is absolutely good. That's funny.

He didn't say absolutely good. He said good. You know people people try to use this one say all see Jesus was denying his absolute goodness. No, he didn't say that. He was the exact same term that the man used so you don't have any basis For reading good in the man's usage and then changing it in Jesus usage to absolute good.

So it just becomes something less than the father. The point of Jesus's response the man is you call me good. Why? You need to know who you're dealing with. You need to know this man doesn't know who he's dealing with.

He's throwing out these terms and and he doesn't know who he's talking to and if you're gonna use this as an argument then you Can't change it to absolute good. You have to come out Jesus was not good period.

And that's sort of funny for a Muslim to say who of course does believe Jesus was good and In fact, did we not hear Jamal Badawi just on the last program talking about how the prophets, you know Are as close to being sinless as men can be and Jesus would be even more so in that context.

Bad bad bad. Text use. He was subject to change. It says in the Bible. He grew in wisdom and knowledge.

Yeah, that's called the Incarnation because if he's fully God and fully man Men do grow and that's how it's supposed to be. And so once again, we see that overriding presupposition, which really has nothing to do with his deity.

Because it would have reference to something else God is immutable. God does not change and God didn't change just because Jesus grows because he's growing in his human nature not in his divine nature.

God is eternal and his knowledge is complete from the beginning. He referred to himself as a prophet and did not say a prophet and priest and son of God. He didn't say that.

Which is really again Super super bad argumentation. He called himself a prophets. Okay, yeah, I did. And he called himself, you know son of God son of man and I am and all sorts of stuff like that but.

Upon what logical principle? Can you argue that if he called himself prophet then it means he can't be anything more than that. What's that? What's the logical foundation for saying? Ah, you called yourself a prophet and therefore that means you can't be anything else other than that.

There is no logical basis for that so why even make that kind of argument. Well, because there are some people who do not think logically and therefore will accept your argument, even if it's not logical.

Sadly, that's that's the only conclusion. I can come to himself as a prophet and people believed in him as a prophet. And he made a clear distinction between him and the father.

Yes, he did make a clear distinction between himself and the father and because that's what Christians believe and have always believed and So why would anyone make reference to his distinguishing himself from the father unless?

They are attacking modalism, which of course isn't what we believe in the first place, but Just as with so many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses or else.

They'll attack that now having clarified this point. Let me raise a couple of other issues very quickly in the remaining few minutes. One. Some people say how about the miracles of Jesus peace be upon him.

Are these the actions of any ordinary human being. The answer to that is very simple, of course.

No, who's arguing? He's just an ordinary. Even a Muslim isn't arguing.

He's just an ordinary human being on the basis of the Quran. Whenever it mentioned any miracle of Jesus peace be upon him it says the ism Allah by the leave and permission of my creator. And we have seen before in the gospel of John That Jesus himself say I do nothing on my own authority, which mean even the miracle it's not my authority.

It is the power of God that has made to appear through my hands.

However, there is still a major difference between the means by which Jesus works miracles and Anyone else who worked miracles because when the prophets worked miracles those miracles were meant to demonstrate their prophetic authority.

But when Jesus works miracles he utilizes that even to the point where he then accepts worship as a result of those miracles and he demonstrates his lordship his power over over life and death itself and they are meant to to Look forward to the fact that he would rise from the dead.

And in fact that he had authority as he puts in the gospel of John to take his life back. So that's a different context than that which is found in the previous men who had worked miracles as prophets of God.

So I have given you a list but to shorten the time of presentation since you have all the references I listed eight important and outstanding miracles of Jesus peace be upon him all of which Has some sort of parallel in the Old Testament of other prophets Especially Elisha and Elijah including bringing the people who are dead to life again.

Which might mean that in the Old Testament you have foreshadowings and and lesser Presentations of what would be ministered in Christ's life, but that doesn't mean that well that juice just like all the other prophets.

That's what they've got to do. They've got him at. Dave got to make. Jesus is no more than a Russell. No more than so you can't have anything that would make him more than you can't have the other prophets being but Dim lights in in in in preparation for The the great outflowing of light in the ministry of Christ.

You can't have that. So that's why you're you're hearing what you're hearing right now.

Including rising or going up to heaven. Now if these were evidence of divinity then other prophets other than Jesus peace be upon him should have been regarded also as divine.

If that was the only argument that a person had if you didn't have people worshipping him if you didn't have the the divine names being used of him if you didn't have the the fact that he's he's described as eternal and Creator of all things.

Well, okay. Sure, but that's the whole point here. It reminds me a little bit of the Mormon who tries to Get around all of the historical evidence that demonstrates the first vision did not take place as Joseph Smith made it up later in his life.

It's it's the analogy that I've used in the past has been the person who Thinks that they can escape a landslide because theoretically you can dodge each and every rock in a landslide. Yeah, but the rocks come at you all at once if they came at you if a landslide came one rock at a time.

Okay, but truth doesn't have that nature comes at y 'all once and you simply can't keep begging the question. Every time the facts come along and demonstrate that Joseph Smith didn't have the first vision the same thing here.

You've got all this evidence. But what he does you just dismiss each one without seeing the relationship to the whole body of the text of the Bible and again There's your anachronistic Islamic anachronistic Anachronistic exegesis blah blah blah because you you are breaking apart the text.

They'll never allow you to do that with the Quran. But they'll do it to the New Testament because they have to.

Because they're reasoning backwards then some people say the most important thing really is not the miracles or the claims about Jesus but the message of salvation. And that raises a very serious question because the whole notion of vicarious or substitutionally sacrifice is Based on the assumption that you need an infinite sacrifice to take the sins of humanity.

That there is some inherent conflict that existed between God's mercy and God's justice. It presumes the concept of Trinity which for 2 ,000 years. Nobody has been ever able to give any cogent Explanation.

It assumes that God Jesus was full God and full man at the same time. Which in my humble understanding is a logical contradiction. For there is nothing human if you're a full human of being divine and there is nothing divine If you are fully divine of being limited by human limitations.

Now.

You've just heard the Islamic mindset. No one's ever explained the Trinity. Well, yes, of course, they have you. You may not be willing to listen. You may not be able to listen because of your pre-existing commitment to Muhammad and to Islam.

You may be precluded from obtaining an accurate knowledge of the doctrine the Trinity because your holy sacred book misdefines it. Because your prophet didn't understand it even though there was no reason for him not to understand it.

It was well known at his time period but the man was ignorant of those things. If he didn't have access to the Bible in his own language or in the original languages then he certainly wouldn't have had access to such things as the can decrees of the Council of Nicaea or Any of Athanasius his writings or anything else to truly be able to understand What was being said and what had been taught and so?

It does not follow that just because Jamal Badawi or anyone else does not understand the doctrine the Trinity that it is not understandable. In the same way there is no contradiction in the incarnation.

He's assuming some kind of joining of Human and divine so that they are changed and the divine is changed into something human. The human is changed in something divine. He even said it correctly fully God and fully man.

But then his confusion demonstrates. He doesn't understand what that means or does not accept the Christian definition what that means because again of a overriding pre-commitment and overriding acceptance of the Islamic theology that forces him Into a misunderstanding of the theology that came before.

These are.

Contradiction that I do not wish to dwell on. I have quotations from not Muslim But many honest biblical scholar that this is just an impossibility.

Now now catch that the honest biblical scholars, and who are the honest biblical scholars unbelievers? So of course if we were to use this kind of argumentation Then we would refer to the orientalists who today Even question the existence of Muhammad.

Who will say for example that Muhammad is a later development in Islamic theology that originally Islam was a Christian heresy and interestingly enough the first early Christians the first Christians to encounter Islam saw it as a Christian heresy.

And they will they will point to such things as a Number of facts that can be collated and put together that Jesus was the focus of Islam initially and then Muhammad takes over for that not not there was a historical person named Muhammad at all.

But that this is a development of political development over time so are those the honest scholars of Islamic history. I mean what how would they respond if we in essence made all believing Muslims dishonest scholars?

And all of those who Who don't believe Muhammad exists those the honest scholars? How would they respond to that so why do it in reverse? That's called hypocrisy. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument, and if there's anything that can be identified an Islamic apologist it is Inconsistency the application of one standard of Christianity and the opposite standard to their own documents.