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 Olsen teaching at at Liberty now and of course

C Gordon Olsen 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 August and 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 I knew I learned something today because of Reading up on C Gordon Olson.

I 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 to 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 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? Well, there's a reference note next to the word

Mary now If you're gonna say that shaft 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 on Noram 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 my

Roman Catholic friends hear me at the moment? He no doubt assumed as afterward Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas a sanctificatio 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 Weakened the honor he thus appears to confer 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.

Yeah, 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 Mariola tree 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 Augustine 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

Augustine's way look There's plenty of good reasons to disagree with Augustine 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 when I can 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 barely does once in a while Listen to the dividing line, maybe he looks at the blog if there's if he's mentioned and he'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 four 157 glasses they're wearing four 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 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 have 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 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 Molinism 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're 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 about 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 Enacts 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 beating 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's the impossibility the contrary etc, etc, and so I 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

Michael Icona 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 our except 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 should barely is constantly saying well

You know, you've got mark and then Matthew and Luke change 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 well, 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 are 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 if 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 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 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 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 did 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 it's not nearly on the level of Hank.

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

What fortunately 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 with 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 it probably just come out when this took this debate took place and so That that all came up and and it was so 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 say 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's 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 movements and We locked 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 into believing 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 neutral 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 ponces He he had assigned

Francis Schaeffer. And finally I 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 God has spoken with sufficiency with sufficient clarity in his revelation

But there is no neutral ground if God made it It can't be neutral the reason it is what it is because God made it that way

And so if you're gonna start with a consistent Christian epistemology You know,

I'm one of those folks is you don't compromise your position and then try to go back and apologize for having compromised it

And reason someone's your position. That's you know, if you if you want to go that direction, you know You you provide a defense for it.

It's just it's just not something that I think we can really do so Shabir got into the presentation and Let's go over here

To where he gets going here. I think we're right around here. I have a job to do as a Canadian And Direction to be persuasive

Just like in Mel Gibson's movie more goes on in the back room then then you would be aware of Yes, I was just thanking

David for his loving helping assisting with my education he took me to see The passion of the

Christ today and I did learn a lot from watching that film now the task before me is to Explain where I stand on this as a

Muslim and I want to begin there To explain why I have not found the evidence for the resurrection to be persuasive and I think the first point

I want to make is that I am a Muslim and Gordon you got it, right in referring back to 9 -eleven

In fact after 9 -eleven, I became more aware. Not only that. I'm a Muslim, but I'm a Canadian how Canadian I am because I saw my religion being hijacked on 9 -eleven and then persons like myself had to come up and pick up the pieces and to explain who we are as Canadians and us as Muslims and Not only did

I realize that I have a job to do as a Muslim but also I realized that I have a job to do as a

Canadian and as a Canadian Muslim and that job involves building bridges of Understanding with other people and it is in this spirit that I went out to see the passion of the price today because I do

Want to understand more of the faiths of my neighbors But the fact that I'm a

Muslim is what most is relevant to our discussion here tonight because that fact of course

May be a bias that precludes me from appreciating The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus I want and I I'm glad that he said that because I am convinced that that is the case now

He's gonna say he tries to listen and and obviously he's listened more than the vast majority of Muslims have

I have to give him that by a long shot, but but the inconsistency of the sources that he accepts that that creates skepticism about the crucifixion the resurrection the

Inconsistency between he's what he's willing to do there and what he does when he's defending the companions of the

Prophet and the Quran and Islam and and the idea of Embryology in the text of the

Quran and things like that. There is such a massive Disconnection there that it has to come from someplace and it comes from this type of Islamic anachronism looking at history backwards looking back at the

New Testament through the lens that That the lens that distorts called the

Quran the the fact that this book comes from a man Who does not know either

Judaism or Christianity in any? accurate fashion He does not have access to that which could have provided him with a meaningfully accurate means of commentary

That's what the Quran is That's and and since the Muslim is committed to a belief that that is the very word of Allah himself

Then Allah doesn't seem to understand Christianity or Judaism either and so it is that anachronism looking backwards

That then forces him to treat the the New Testament documents in this in this extremely inconsistent fashion

That he does that he would never allow For the Quran itself to first acknowledge that and then try to put it aside and look clearly at the facts after acknowledging my my own bias now

The fact that I'm a Muslim has trained me to Not appreciate the need for the cross because in Islam We are taught that God forgives and he forgives without demanding the price of sin to be paid except in certain

Circumstances there are occasions in Islamic law where one might perform a sacrifice so one might give charity

As a compensation for certain wrongs done Or if one has wronged someone else one is required in addition to seeking forgiveness from God to also

Repair the harm done to others to to the best of one's ability in doing that But never in Islam do we understand that someone else might possibly

Conceivably pay for our sins in fact we would find it to be objectionable If such a thing were to happen now,

I just have to stop for just just a moment Because I I don't know how many people had the opportunity today

To look at the blog. It's been quite active today I'm not sure how many posts have come up, but there have been a lot of them including the another classic angel

Cartoon that I posted right before the program, but I provided the following quote right before the angel cartoon and It says quote

God would simply not punish his son for the sins of others Do you hear that God would simply not punish his son for the sins of others and guess who said that?

Paul Owen Yes, former Mormon former Evangelical former

Presbyterian now some kind of Anglican Paul Owen of Montreat College And you're going hey that sounds exactly like what

Shabir Ali just said so what we're gonna Hear is Paulo and saying well, that's right. That's that this whole post and sell me in doctrine of atonement

Is what gives gives? Rise to these objections from Islam, and I'm just helping us all to see what we've missed and blah blah blah blah blah blah there's there's good old

Paulo and jumping jumping into the mix and Joining with the Muslims in attacking the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.

Thank you very much dr. Paul at least on the human scale I think all human beings subscribe to the idea that it will be wrong to let an innocent person pay for the sins of the guilty

Or if such a thing were done if someone else paid then there would be no forgiveness

Forgiveness means really that no one pays for your sins now having been brought up as a Muslim on these beliefs it became not

Easy for me to appreciate the significance of the cross that I see is placed on it in in Christianity second in Islam and Mike has alluded to this in his presentation

There is a different conception of what happened regarding the crucifixion of Jesus the crucial verses in chapter 4 verse number 157 where it says ma

Kata Lohoma syllable who will I can should be hella home? I'm giving you the original language just like Mel Gibson would

If I'm to translate that it means they kill him not nor did they crucify him but so it was made to appear to them and Those who differed concerning the matter are in doubt concerning him

For a certainty they killed him not But God raised him to himself and God is mighty and wise

Now again, sir for 157. That's why we spent how much time I've at least half an hour last time

Maybe longer than that. I don't recall but sir for 157 is the whole reason why the

Muslim will will deal with any historical evidence any That's why you even when you see the consistency that exists between Matthew Mark Luke John Paul Peter whatever whatever sources external sources

Archaeologically, it just doesn't matter you have to atomize that you have to cut all of that up and say no

No, no, this this maybe he didn't die Maybe you know, we revive the swoon theory.

We revive the vision whatever you've got to do something to come up with some way of explaining the crucifixion because 600 years later somebody said this in a different language different place didn't have access to the original sources

That's the argument in regards to Islam now Someone in channel just noted that Paul Owen says he never wrote that That was sent to me by the folks over try blog.

That's a someone named Paul Owen on their blog Said those things that's very very consistent with what he has said concerning the cross recently but if Paul Owen says that he never said that and That he would never say you need to keep studying more or that he would never say that there's anything about substitutionary atonement

That that is incorrect if Paul Owen says I never said those words if he wants to stand behind that great

I will note that put it on the blog and say Paul Owen says he never said this

I will then link to what Paul Owen has said Where he specifically makes the statement?

that he does not believe in these things and where he says that he believes specifically in a different view of the atonement and That it has to do with the holiness of God And in fact, this is the whole thing

It says I don't agree with penal substitution because God would simply not punish his son for the sins of others Christ was given up to evil men and the devil to suffer on the cross and to die to appease

God's offended holiness But he was not punished for the actual sins the people that post and some view of the atonement is hogwash

You need to study harder. That is the quote that was put on try a blog under his name And if he has gone on try a blog and said that's not me

Then I'd like to see where that was and if it's there I will gladly link to it

And then link to where he has spoken of the fact that it is God's holiness That is addressed in regards to Christ entering into the suffering of humanity rather than a penal

Substitution and we can go from there. But if he says that great fine, wonderful I have now made reference to the fact that he says that and I would like to see

Where that has also appeared on trial blog, but anyway, that is neither here nor there We continue with should be all these references to serve for now.

What's gonna happen here? And some of you may have wondered why did you spend so much time? Looking at the top seer literature the commentaries from the

Quran. Well because interestingly enough Should be all he did that's what he's doing his doctorate in is in in chronic interpretation

And so it's interesting to listen to a Muslim because if you've spoken with Muslims Especially from Islamic countries you've gotten probably a very consistent view of the idea that someone else was made to appear as Jesus and A very consistent view that there was the

Jesus was not the one who was crucified etc. Etc. It seems to me that Ali Basically wants to leave all these possibilities open and say we just don't know the only real problem is when you

Christians Make one of all these possibilities absolutely necessary That that appeals the postmodern mind where I'm you know, he's saying it could be this it could be that Quran doesn't say

I don't know that this would go over well in non English -speaking context.

I I've not taken the time to do it But I wonder how often should be early has done any type of debating outside of an

English -speaking context in areas where? Well, I know there are

Muslims there's there Muslims who've written to us who have attacked Shabir Ali and Who have said he's not, you know, really

Muslim and so on and so forth But they seem to me like the Peter Ruckman style anyways, so, you know,

I'm not sure what to say about that now this verse has been interpreted by classical commentators on the

Quran as Meaning that someone else was transformed made to look like Jesus and that someone else was

Crucified instead of Jesus so that whereas everything appeared as though Jesus was being crucified

In fact, it were not. So now I said classical Interpreters of the Quran and that may give the impression that these are the original and earliest interpreters, but they were not in fact

Neil Robinson a very able scholar from Leeds University in the United Kingdom in his book

Christ and Islam and Christianity has traced the origins of these interpretations and found them to be originating from Iraq in the middle of the 2nd century

There is no reported saying from the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that gives the details of this just now that I find interesting

And I agree It would be so much easier if there was a a deep and rich Commentary and and hadith tradition that we could turn to that's why

I say sir for 157 just sort of falls out of the sky. I Wonder if we're ever gonna know someday what what prompted all this but it it exists in essence even in Islamic history sort of in a in a vacuum and that's one of the reasons there's all these different interpretations of it which strikes me as odd once again that if the

Quran is such a clear book in opposition to The Christian scriptures, why are there so many different interpretations of passages like this especially one as so vital as this

I mean if it is so important to Islam to emphasize it is the continuation it is consistent with the prophets who came before and Here you have such a massive contradiction

Shouldn't it be very clear? very Perspicuous in what it's saying at this point and yet even the text itself is is

Is very liable to all sorts of different property to the stark narrative the way

I've translated it in the from the Quranic text some classical commentators on the other hand struggle with the variety of interpretive detail that was given by various commentators and the best summation of that I have found to be in the

Tafsir al -kabir the big Tafsir and a big commentary by the pride of the faith

Arazi now Arazi after Summarizing all of the various interpretations that have been offered by Muslim scholars on this in the end.

He concludes by saying these Interpretations are contradictory one to another and in the end only

God knows what happens and I think that is the best Muslim position Regarding what happened at the crucifixion now if we're to retrace our steps and find out where all these varied interpretations came from Where did

Muslim scholars get the idea that someone else was made to look like Jesus and crucified instead? This came from a variety of sources including informers from people of other faiths in the area there were

Some early Christian groups not the earliest find you from the second century of Christianity forward

There were Gnostics who believed that someone else was made to look like Jesus in the Mel Gibson movie we saw

Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross along with Jesus and some had believed that Simon was in fact transformed to look like Jesus and was crucified instead of Jesus and so this kind of information fed into the

Muslim commentaries But now when these commentaries are examined carefully Most modern scholars would tend to today in Islam to think that something else is

This the reality behind the Quranic narrative Yusuf Ali for example in his translation of the

Quran has it such that Even though it appeared To the onlookers that Jesus had died on the cross in fact.

He had not died Now what does that mean it appeared to the onlookers that he had died on the cross?

But but he hadn't so see all the different theories that are being promoted here I mean, maybe it was somebody else.

Maybe it was him, but he didn't actually die This kind of argumentation you should be starting to you know take get a whiff of How many people use this kind of thing today remember post modernists have the attention span of?

What 30 seconds a minute I mean how long are commercials Okay They have a very limited attention span so what happens is if you start throwing out enough

Possibilities once you get to a certain point people just throw their hands up in the air, and what will they say nobody knows?

nobody knows and What they'll do then is accept the idea that you cannot be certain about something because there are so many possibilities and Instead of doing the hard work to work through those things

Instead you throw out all this stuff and you eventually people go. Hey, you know what no one really knows and So then it becomes much easier to accept vanilla

Christianity That has no real substance to it doesn't have any backbone.

It doesn't have any definition It's just sort of a warm fuzzy relationship with Jesus, but let's not get overly

Specific about who this Jesus is or how you have a relationship with him, or you know You know let's get all emergent and fuzzy and and do stuff like that That's why that kind of theology is so Prevalent in our society today further to that We have

Muhammad Assad in the message of the Quran again a translation and commentary on the Quran well rooted in the traditional tough

Sears Saying also that the stories which grew up within Muslim tradition to say that someone else was put on the cross instead of Jesus It's not

Necessarily what the Quran implies and in fact he found and he exposed a very difficult problem with that interpretation

What which by the way was one of the sources that I read on the dividing line previously on Tuesday So if you want to actually hear the whole section

I read that one. He said was that The passage how much more time do

I have any indication Twelve minutes, I don't want to spend all my time here on Quranic interpretation and not get to the biblical facts

I want to be sure of that so Be careful What he said was that?

These stories that grew up among Muslim commentators ignored a grammatical problem

That was there in in the way They have interpreted the verse and this grammatical problem was pointed out by an ancient classical

Scholar of Quranic tough Sears a scholar by the name of as the machery in his

Tough Sear known as Al -kashaf the unveiling and what the machery said was that in fact when you look at the passage?

It says he was made to appear To them But it could also mean it was made to appear to them because in the

Arabic reference the reference who Using a personal pronoun there could refer to him or to it

And he said that if in fact this verse is referring to the crucified person

That the crucified person was made to look like Jesus that crucified person should have previously been mentioned so that the referent

Could be attached to him Keep telling the story and you said he said we want to know who is this he?

But if this person was just mentioned a little while ago We know this is referring to that person if the person was not mentioned you have to introduce him by name

And so some actually pointed out that this could not be a reference to the crucified individual

But the classical commentators were basing their commentary on the idea that this referred to Jesus But some actually pointed out that in fact it couldn't refer to Jesus because it was not

Jesus who was made to resemble someone else Of course so there you have and I played the whole section because I want you to hear

I I Think that Shabir is completely correct at that point there is tremendous to to take

Surah 4 157 which is so unclear in and of itself so ambiguous

So difficult to contextualize so different so difficult to place in history and and it is not historical itself

It gives it doesn't even pretend To provide any kind of context to make that the lens through which you view all of history is

One of the major errors of the Islamic position as we'll see we continue on Tuesday. See you then god bless

You standing at the crossroads

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 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen 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 tracks