Brief Discussion of Comments from C. Gordon Olson, then Licona/Ally Debate

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 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 I have promised we're going to get into the Mike Lacona Shabbir Ali debate today first very quickly. Lots I tell you the number of topics heading at us all at once.

I exchanged a number of emails with George Bryson this morning. That are just very odd. I don't. Evidently he does he doesn't want me to say that he won't debate even though he admits that he won't answer questions for me.

Well, I don't consider that a debate. So there you go there. I don't know what's could come of that but then other folks, you know, we've got Greg Stafford out there saying that you know intimidating that I'm afraid to debate him and all the rest of Stuff and just shaking my head about stuff like that.

And then we get an email from someone who shall remain anonymous for his own protection, but that about C Gordon Olson teaching at at Liberty now and of course C Gordon Olson beyond Calvinism and Arminianism and getting the gospel, right and basically an anti-reformed writer and Some of the things that he was claiming I was Looking over again beyond Calvinism Arminianism looking up a reference and I was looking through the end of the book.

And right at the end is appendix L Which says the character of theologians. I just want to mention this quickly. Just it just sort of gives me a sense of The scholarship that we're dealing with here appendix L the character of theologians, which basically is just sort of a cheap attack on Primarily Augustine a whole list of things.

It pretty much just sounds like Dave Hunt's Anti-augustine stuff, but as I was looking through it, I recognized a couple things here and For example, the eighth point is he advocated the Apocrypha as canonical scripture.

Oh. Who doesn't know that but who know doesn't know the rest of the story. That is that he believed the That the Hebrew canon of the Jews contained the Apocrypha which it Did not but he was wrong about that, but it wasn't like oh He knew the Apocrypha was this extra thing and he I mean it's so easy to misrepresent church history with these little lists and You know people do it for the right motives at times but but do it improperly and There's a good example, but then I love this one number six.

He held to worship of Mary. Oh. He held to the worship of Mary. Well, that just so happens that he gives a reference at least that's good thing. He gives a reference to shafts history of the church volume 3 pages 1020 through 1021.

Well, that's a little bit too easy to get hold of. Okay, that's a little bit too easy to check out and so I I happen to have that here and so I wanted to read what it actually said and when it speaks of Augustine it speaks for example of The fact that he does not bring forward the predicate of infallibility of the Pope for example.

He assumes a progressive correction of earlier councils by latter councils in the Pelagian controversy. He asserts the same independence towards Pope Zosimas Which Cyprian before him and showed toward Pope Stephen in the controversy and heretical baptism with the advantage of having the right on his sides.

The Zosimas found himself compelled to yield the African Church quite true and an excellent example of how the early church did not believe in what modern Roman dogma espouses. Continues saying he was the first to give a clear and fixed definition of the sacrament as a visible sign of invisible grace resting on Divine appointment, but he knows nothing of the number seven.

This was a much later enactment. In other words Augustine doesn't know about seven sacraments. But since he believed in a sacramental theology. Then the point is that that then becomes expanded in Later centuries in the doctrine of baptism.

He is entirely Catholic and we've discussed the difference between the Donatus controversy in the Pelagian controversy though in logical contradiction with his dogma of predestination. The shaft is completely correct.

He contradicted himself on that because of The two major controversies of his life the Donatus controversy in the Pelagian controversy. But in the doctrine of the Holy Communion He stands like his predecessors to totally in Cyprian and near to the Calvinistic theory of a spiritual presence and fruition of Christ's body and blood.

Well, you can hear the Roman Catholics screaming and throwing rocks at at the Alpha Omega Building for having read that but he's right again. Here's the section he also contributed to promote at least in his later writings the Catholic faith of miracles and the worship of Mary though.

Though he exempts the Virgin only from actual sin not from original and with all his reverence for her never Calls her mother of God. Now, let me get back to the worship of Mary in just a second. But did you catch that?

I did not know that I knew I learned something today because of Reading up on C. Gordon Olson. I Had missed somehow the discussion of the fact that Augustine never calls Mary the mother of God and there is an interesting commentary down in footnote 2 at that particular point this strict separation of the Godhead from the manhood of Jesus in His birth and the Virgin would have exposed Augustine in the East to the suspicion of Nestorianism.

But he died a year before the Council of Ephesus at which Nestorius was condemned very Very very very very interesting that particular fact. But what does worship of Mary mean. Olson just throws it out there that he worshipped Mary.

Which we would consider to be idolatry. What does he mean? What did he mean about it? Well, there's a reference note next to the word Mary. Now if you're gonna say that Schaaf says that Augustine promoted the worship of Mary Held the worship of Mary and there is a footnote next to the word Mary.

Then you're gonna go find out what in fact he actually said about that. And if you go down to the footnote it says look at sections 81 and 82 well I did. And so if you go to page 418 of this volume You read the following.

Augustine went a step further in an incidental remark against Pelagius. He agreed with him in accepting Mary Proctor onorum Domini from actual but not from original sin. This exception he is willing to make from the universal sinfulness sinfulness the race.

But no other he taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception. Hello. Do it my Roman Catholic friends hear me at the moment? He no doubt assumed as afterward Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas a sanctification in utero.

Like that of Jeremiah 1 5 and John the Baptist Luke 1 15 whereby as those two men were fitted for their prophetic office She in a still higher degree was sanctified by a special operation of the Holy Ghost Before her birth and prepared to be a pure receptacle for the divine Logos.

The reasoning of Augustine Backward from the holiness of Christ to the holiness of his mother was an important turn Which was afterward pursued to further results notice Augustine didn't take it there.

But other people did later. The same reasoning leads as easily to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary which Though also just as well to a sinless mother of Mary herself and thus upward to the beginning of the race to another Eve who? never fell Augustine's opponent Pelagius and his monastic ascetic a day of idea of holiness and his superficial doctrine of sin Remarkably outstripped him on this point ascribing to Mary perfect sinlessness.

But it should be remembered be remembered that his denial of original sin to all men and his accepting of sundry saints of the Old Testament Besides Mary such as Abel Enoch Abraham Isaac Melchizedek Samuel Elijah Daniel from actual sin.

So that Pontus in Romans 5 12 in his view means only a majority Weak in the honor he thus appears to confirm upon the mother of the Lord so in other words mother along Mary along with all Those others did not sin.

That's Pelagius. The Augustinian view long continued to prevail, but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman Church. Thank you brother chef notwithstanding this exalted representation of Mary there appear no clear traces of a proper worship of Mary as Distinct from the worship of Saints in general until the Nestorian controversy of 430.

Okay, did you catch that? So what he's talking about is a veneration of Mary the exaltation of Mary not Worship of Mary in the modern sense of Roman Catholicism if you know anything about shop. He's very careful about that.

He discusses that he even mentions that in his day the Marian the Mariolatry of his day Had advanced greatly from the time of the Reformation etc. Etc. This dispute formed an important turning point not only in Christology, but in Mariology also Etc etc etc and it goes on from there to discuss other things other than Augustin himself and so the reason I just spend those few minutes is you know most of us have reference.

We'd have those reference sources available to us. I think shop is on CCEL. I think maybe someone can Verify that for me in channel, but I think it's there these these things are fairly easy To look up, and if you'll just follow a few references it is I Don't know just very shallow to throw that kind of thing in there throw this dirt Augustin's way look.

There's plenty of good reasons to disagree with Augustin on this matter and that matter. But the unwillingness to then allow for the fact that his witness is very important in other things. His witness is very important in regards to the physical body of Jesus.

You heard what shop said in regards to the the Eucharist and and and so on so forth. These are important things just throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because you want to get rid of Calvinism.

That's what Dave Hunt does and seemingly Sigurd Nolsen partakes unfortunately of some elements of that. I'm gonna be making a putting putting together a blog article in regards to some of his comments on Romans chapter 3 and No one's seeking after God.

He makes this rather interesting argument that it means diligently seeking. Okay. So what what does that mean? What what would it mean if it means diligently seeking? Okay, because I mean there are a couple of of Lexical sources that refer to Diligence and seeking so what does that mean?

You see the assumption is just thrown out there. Oh, yeah, no one consistently seeks. So what you're saying is that by using that term that means there are people who? Non-diligently seek God is non-diligent seeking of God gonna be sufficient.

Is that the point that is being made in Romans chapter 3? I don't. I don't I don't think that's really the issue about I'll be blogging on that and giving you some more information on that. I don't want to get off the track of where I want to go today on the program, which will be Listening to this debate now, obviously, I want to focus primarily.

We're not gonna listen to all the debate but portions of it. I want to focus primarily on Shabir Ali's presentation because the the subject of the debate did Jesus rise a debate did Jesus rise now most of the conversation is actually on did Jesus die and So, why would that be relevant to me.

Well because that's what we're gonna be debating in October now many people would say to me. It's foolish of me. To address this issue in this context because I know that should be early does once in a while.

Listen to the dividing line, maybe he looks at the blog if there's if he's mentioned and it'll take time. Listen, I don't know. But it'd be a lot of people to say you're being foolish to in essence give your opponent Specific information as to how you would be responding to his claims, but I think just the opposite of that I think if Shabir Ali can if Obviously for me, I think it helps me tremendously To listen to what my opponent says in regards to the subject.

We're going to be debating and I think that that is true in reverse. All that can do is clarify now. I know I know some people say no. What that can allow him to do is is if you point out errors and he doesn't make those errors fine great pointing out errors doesn't really help you get to the matter the truth of a matter and Obviously, I believe very very firmly that the entire reason That a a believing Muslim Denies the crucifixion of Christ is because of surah 4 157.

They're wearing 4 157 glasses they're wearing 4 157 glasses that force them to only see certain elements of The New Testament record and that warp all the rest of the historical evidence. So that they end up accepting what one man Removed by 600 years from the original events has to say One individual wrong language wrong culture no historical connection, but that is the whole reason.

Why they would say that Jesus Christ was not crucified there's just no other reason so. The question then Would be why then tell should barely what you're gonna say? Well, I'm not telling him everything I'm gonna say in that sense I'm not making my presentation, but I'm going to interact with what he's saying if that helps him to have a more truthful Accurate presentation that only helps the debate.

You want a debate to be between the best of two sides if I'm having to take my time remember folks it takes far more time to correct a mistake than it does to utter a mistake and. So if there are errors that can be fixed up on both sides before the debate takes place.

Then more of the time can actually be spent on what really matters rather than just simply correcting the errors and misunderstandings the other side. Now I know that from one perspective. People say well, yeah, but you want to be judged.

I mean if you catch your opponent in this error and that error that just proves it. You're right. No, not necessarily. That that's not necessarily the case. I want to debate for people who are going to seriously listen to what is being said not those who are going to be greatly impacted.

By surface level things and I realize that means I'm debating for a minority of the audience not the majority. I know that I've said how many times I said that this is no this is not a new secret. This is not.

I'm just now announcing that I have decided to only debate for the minority audience. I have to debate for the minority audience that's serious about truth and is going to be considering that truth. I am NOT going to use cheap debating tricks.

To try to get emotional arguments to make people to make it work for certain people if emotional arguments is what's gonna It's what's gonna move you then there can be people that you are going to consider beat me Regularly in debate because they're gonna use that kind of argumentation.

I have different standards. That's just all there is to it. Okay, so with that in mind, I first have to start with a recognition that I would not approach this subject in the same way that Mike Laicona did now.

I Want people understand. I appreciate what Mike Laicona did but there are different ways of approaching the apologetic task and the William Lane Craig Methodology of saying well we go for greater probabilities.

We go for the preponderance of the evidence evidence. That's I can't do that. I am precluded from the utilization of that methodology of debate by my theology to demand that I do that is to demand that I change my theology and ain't gonna get that to happen no matter What the situation is can't do it.

I Do not see that and this has been coming up a lot because of what I said about William Lane Craig on the blog a couple days ago. That I have serious theological problems. I view his theology is sub-biblical.

Molinism is a Roman Catholic construct that it was specifically designed to get around the teaching of the Reformers. It is not biblical. It does not come from exegesis. You're never going to come up with this idea by exegeting the text of Scripture.

It's externally derived forced on the scriptures and the greatest proponent of Molin ism today is William Lane Craig. So I'm sorry if you're offended that I say that Dave Armstrong had a cow. That I would dare say that what is so surprising about that?

I've been saying this for a long long long time. I Cannot view as as having any meaningful Foundation a Roman Catholic methodology of getting around the sovereignty of God as Molin ism is. Why would anyone be surprised that I would say something like that?

I don't understand, but if you hold to a what I consider sub-biblical theology It's going to result in a different kind of apologetic methodology. You're gonna be defending something different. You're gonna be defending the idea that basically.

If you have primarily in Arminian theology you have a weak doctrine of sin. You have a high view of the capacities of man a low view of the work of the Holy Spirit of God I would argue in being able to bring regeneration Etc etc, then you are going to be much more focused upon trying to get your your apologetic target audience to make certain decisions.

You're not gonna be pressing upon them the authority of God demanding that they do so you're going to try to get them to to Willingly go along with you, and so this is where you get the methodology, and I'm not saying this is Mike like like Ona's methodology.

But I'm talking in general terms right now. This is where you get the type of concept that says well what you do is if you're arguing with an atheist you get the atheist to agree there might be a God and Then once you've got them to agree there might be a God.

Then you move that over to there might be a personal God. And then once you get to a personal God then it might be a personal God who communicates and Then a person who communicates and has created us and and there's this this these steps and steps and steps and steps till you finally Get around to a Trinitarian God and so That Kind of methodology.

I don't see in the apostolic proclamation. I Don't see when Paul stood on Mars Hill. I don't see him saying that I don't see him saying You know if I could just get you all to worship a couple less idols than you do now.

Then I'll come back next week, and we'll work on a couple others and Then you know we'll go from there, okay? Instead when I look at the end of Paul's sermon in Acts chapter 17 he says therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent and That would all include repenting of their false gods and repenting of their idolatry not a portion of their idolatry.

When we call for people to repent we're not saying well You know you're an idolater you use drugs, and you beat your wife. And let's start with just one of those things and we'll call that repentance.

Now you don't have to repent of the other things. As long as you stop using the drugs you can keep eating your wife and keep worshiping the false gods. And we'll still call that repentance. No that's not repentance.

That's a biblical repentance anyways. It's that's not it's not a piecemeal thing. It's repent and so God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent because He has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom he has appointed having furnished Proof to all men by raising him from the dead.

Do you hear that Paul? lays the foundation for the very judgment of God in that God has furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead now folks an apologetic that only allows you to say That there is a greater probability that Jesus rose from the dead than there is that he didn't is Insufficient to give a foundation for that kind of proclamation.

That proclamation is big that proclamation is sweeping, but that's the apostolic proclamation. And so that's why I say your theology is what determines your apologetic methodology. And if your theology is God is going to judge all men.

And he has most certainly raised Jesus from the dead and that is the proof that he is furnished to all men. By raising him from the dead then you can't say now sinner. I think if you would just be neutral and Examine the majority you'll find the majority of the evidence is going to point to the truthfulness of Christianity.

No the Christian viewpoint is Everything that is a fact is a fact because God created it to be a fact and that mankind as the enemy of God is going to suppress the truth of God is actively involved in doing so and So all the facts in the world you want to give them.

They're going to continue to suppress them and So you that's just not the direction to go you can't create a consistent coherent theology and apologetic in that way and so The comments that I made in earlier in the week on the blog that's what I was referring to is your theology is going to determine the means by which you defend things and so I would not approach this particular debate in the same way now I Think that what Michael Icona was trying to say is he knows he did the same thing I did and that is he listened to Shabir Ali.

And he knew That what Shabir Ali was going to do is what he did in my debate with him and that is he was going to attack The New Testament. How do you respond to that? I responded to that by demonstrating the incoherence of Shabir Ali's position.

I Obviously have been deeply influenced in my life by Greg Bonson and In listening to Greg Bonson debating Gordon Stein many many years ago I had it drilled into my head that you demonstrate the absurdity of your opponent's position you demonstrate that that the impossibility to contrary etc. Etc.

And so I Precluded that approach on the part of Shabir Ali by demonstrating that he had no reason had no consistent basis as A believing Muslim to utilize the kind of argumentation that he does against the New Testament.

And now what Mike like Kona does is look I'm not going to go to the Gospels. I'm going to go to a tradition that exists before the Gospels now. I agree. That that is something that needs to be pointed out.

That the tradition of Jesus's death burial and resurrection Long precedes the codification of that tradition in the writings of the Gospels themselves. Paul predates the Gospels. No question about that.

But what happens in this debate is is that Mike will say hey I'm willing to for the for the purposes of this debate and he says now I don't believe this. But for the purposes of this debate I am willing to to Accept that the that the Gospels are full of myth and legend and evolution Etc. Etc.

That's not my point. I'm on this other hill and you haven't attacked this other hill well, I Don't think that works because by the end of the debate Mike has to defend the Gospels. He has to go to the Gospels and now it's too late because the debates almost over and the moderator I I don't know who the moderator was.

But wow, we're not having him moderate any of my debates. I can guarantee you that so I just don't think that you can do that. My argument would be yes, there is an earlier tradition. It's found the creeds.

It's found in first Corinthians 15. It's found the Carmen Christi. It's it's it's found in these early early early writings and can be traced back Yes to within a matter of months of the crucifixion itself.

There is no question but my argument would be to go with you know, the eyewitnesses of Jesus Richard Balcom's perspective and Demonstrate the consistency of this tradition with the Gospels. So that there's not some change that all that when Shabir Ali is constantly saying well.

You know, you've got mark and then Matthew and Luke changed this and you've got all these improvements prove it should be here. Give us some documentation. Prove that that the consistency of that tradition found in each one of these sources does not override your Surah 4 157 lenses and glasses from 600 years later show us something from don't just say well scholars say give us the specifics.

When you when you want to say well, you know scholars say the Gospel of Thomas predates mark. No, you had one liberal woman scholar from Boston College at that point. And once that comes out, you know people realize whoa, that's not really a good use of scholarship prove your thesis and deal with the reality that there is a Consistency that all of the ancient sources not the Gnostics.

They're not ancient in the sense of first century. They're second century different worldview completely different perspective on God Creation everything else leave the Gnostics out of us show us anybody who was in any way Functioning on a Judeo-christian worldview who did not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the first century.

Deal with the consistency of that early tradition that goes that's consistent with the Gospels. That's consistent with the external evidence. Deal with that. That would be the approach that I would take in that particular situation.

So There will be times during the interaction where unfortunately I have to disagree with both sides most of the time. I mean, I'm looking forward to some things. There's look there places where Mike Licona absolutely Won the point without question and I've picked up some of the resources.

There's one time for example where where Mike And you could tell the poor guy was getting frustrated. Because and this this is one thing. This is one place where I was a little surprised at Shabir's responses and we'll play a little later on.

But just to give you an idea of what's coming. There's one point where Mike is making a very good point because Shabir has come up with this weird idea. That there's he doesn't see any reason why Jesus would have died On the cross as quickly as he did.

Because what pilot is his pilot wanted to rescue him and all the rest of stuff, which is very odd. And we'll get to that later. But Mike very rightly goes, excuse me. But Martin Hengel has this book and this is one of the books we've assigned for the class in October.

Martin Hengel has this book called crucifixion. It's an extremely in-depth Documentation of what crucifixion was like and how it was referred to and what it involved and and all the rest of stuff and he lists 13 sources 13 ancient sources that talk about the use of nails in nailing the person to the cross and the only reference it makes to tying the person to the cross is from Egypt not from the Latins not from the Romans doing this and.

Then he adds a couple other I think very good sources. He mentions Josephus he mentions a reference in Tacitus and I think he's quite right because what Tacitus says that is that the Christians would be affixed to the cross and then burned.

Well, if you affix them with ropes and burn them guess what happens the ropes burn and they fall off the cross. So if they stay on the cross, why are they stay on the cross because they were nailed to the cross.

And so he does an excellent job in saying Hengel gives you 13 ancient sources. So here the secondary source is Hengel's book the original Source are the 13 sources. He cites from antiquity such as Josephus or something like that.

That's an original source that you're making your argument from well when Shabir tries to respond. He responds by arguing. Well, I've got a book that says he may have been tied. Well, what book is that?

Well, here's this book and it's a dictionary and I've picked it up. It's not nearly on the level of Hengel. In fact, it cites Hengel as one of its sources. So it's third-hand. All right, if you're and that.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Mike saw that or knew that I recognized that particular point in time. But it cites his source his secondary source as a source itself. So now it's now it's third third hand and Shabir could not give any Ancient sources where the Romans themselves used tying and unfortunately what happened and we're gonna hear this when we get finally get to it.

Before fortune has happened. Is that they had just taken that day they had taken Shabir Ali to see the passion of the Christ and So Shabir being the smart man that he is over and over again used the additions the Inaccurate Roman Catholic additions and mysticism that appeared in the in the passion.

He said this is what the gospel writers did see you've got Matthew improving on Mark. And then you got Luke improving on Matthew and John improving on them. And then you've got Mel Gibson improving on all of them.

See here's the process and I just wanted to just oh, you know. But at least I could be consistent and say to Shabir Ali I opposed the passion movie before it even came out and as soon as it did documented all of the references where Roman Catholic mystics and everything else are the ones that were used.

I mean Shabir even makes reference to when the cross is turned over and that would have killed someone right there. Well, what he didn't notice was of course It was hanging in midair because this went back again the Roman Catholic mystics and all the rest of stuff that had nothing to do.

The historical crucifixion so on and so forth and so. The Gibson movie comes up over and over again because this was two years ago in 2004 I'd probably just come out when this took this debate took place and so.

That that all came up and and it was but anyway, the point is Mike nailed him on that but He doesn't he didn't seem to recognize it and he tried to get around saying well, you know I don't think we should impugn the motives of scholars.

No, the point is he could not give a single ancient Reference he couldn't go to original sources in a scholarly debate. That's what you're supposed to do. You're not supposed to be relying on well, you know I read a scholar someplace once that Intimated that such-and-such might be the case the scholar debate go to the sources go to the sources.

That's that's what you're supposed to be doing. So we will we'll be looking at that a little bit later on. But my point is there are a number of times Mike made excellent points. We will bring them out.

I don't want anybody to misread what I'm doing here, but I don't think Mike's gonna be upset that our theology I'm reformed and and that means if I'm gonna be consistent I have to be consistent with my theology and my theology precludes the presentation of the idea that there is a greater probability.

It precludes the use of the William Lane Craig paradigm and methodology and as a result. There are times when I'm gonna disagree with both sides and say no this would have been the direction I would have gone there, but just to give you an illustration.

Let me let me start off with just a little portion of Mike's opening statement here. Where you can see where that stated and I'm going to go directly into Shabir Ali's. So where do we begin?

Historical Jesus research. The eminent historical Jesus scholar John Meyer Explains as follows. He says suppose we have a Jew an agnostic and a Christian. This is not a joke. A Jew an agnostic and a Christian.

All honest historians all well acquainted with first century religious-religious movements and. We lock them up at Harvard Divinity School Library and we tell them you can't come out. Until you have hammered out a consensus statement on what we can know about Jesus.

Based on historical research only and apart from any faith or theological considerations. That resulting document would portray what scholars refer to as the historical Jesus. Now the real Jesus the Jesus who walked the shores of the Sea of Galilee May have been much much more than the Jesus portrayed in that document, but he's nothing less.

Now, let me just stop right there.

All of that is quite true in regards to what the historical Jesus is versus the real Jesus. All of that is quite true from my perspective. However, you're not going to be saved by the historical Jesus in that sense.

It's the Jesus who walked by the Sea of Galilee who is the only one that you can have a personal relationship with and that's the one that Muslims need to hear about and I personally don't think I would be surprised if a Muslim would go.

I'm very impressed by a Christian presentation that's willing to start off by saying the New Testament contains errors and Evolution and changes and so on so forth. I don't think most Muslims would really understand that.

That I mean how many Muslims would start off by saying well, I'm willing to admit that the the Quran Contains all sorts of these types of things and that's where I'm gonna start and and try to reason you in to believe in the Quran's perfect.

It's that step-by-step Methodology that becomes problematic when you're dealing with people who are actively involved in the suppression of the truth. If you're dealing with people that you can bring to a moral neutral point fine.

But I don't think anybody like that actually exists.

So obviously tonight I am NOT going to be presenting an argument that says the Bible says it I believe it and that settles it for me. It's more rather like what Tom Cruise said in the movie a few good men.

It doesn't matter what I believe it only matters what I can prove.

Now what I can prove on the basis of what on the basis of what? We're if we're dealing with Islam we're dealing with people who at least ostensibly believe that God has spoken and So to limit oneself and to in essence not allow for that element of divine revelation or try to reason from a moral neutral point or Or new to a neutral ground to my special revelation.

I know that's extremely popular. I just can't do it not that I would lack the arguments, but I don't believe theologically that you can go that direction. I remember very well when I had a professor in seminary.

And we were taking apologetics class and everybody including myself was struggling following what this guy was saying. But the reason was he was reformed and we didn't know it and I didn't yet have all the categories to fully understand that myself.

And when he stood in class one day, he said Thomas Aquinas proved the wrong God. I just didn't know what he meant, but thankfully unlike other people in the class I didn't give up on him and kept listening and kept reading.

He'd assigned the ponce's he he had assigned Francis Schaeffer and finally I got to Understand what he meant that the Christian God is not reasoned to from his creation in that sense. You don't start with a lesser God and reason him up to a higher God.