Finishing Up Sheikh Awal's Opening Statement from 2009

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon, 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Dividing dot line is the Skype address if you want to be able to be heard turning the pages of your

Bible, scratching your nose, yes, you do. When you're on Skype, we will hear it all, unlike, you know, people got along fine for a good 100 years on just plain old, you know, phone lines.

But everything keeps changing. I don't know. I'm definitely a geek and I love geeky things, but sometimes it's just going too fast.

You know, there's just there, you know, I've got a new phone coming. You know, my old phone has decided to error once in a while.

And I sort of wonder if it's planned obsolescence. I think it is. But you know, in fact, wasn't

I talking to you? I think I was on the phone with you. Yeah. And all of a sudden it just went, and that's almost exactly the name it sounded made.

And just decided to completely reset. And that's generally not a good thing. That's generally not what you want that to have happened during your phone calls.

But anyway, I've got another one coming and, you know, there's the learning curve and, you know, the setup time.

And it's like, you know, every couple of years, I don't know, maybe I'm just getting old and I like sameness.

You know, I know some people who are really into sameness. I know one person who doesn't even have a cell phone.

Yeah, my fellow elder at church does not even have a cell phone. That means when he leaves the house, you can't call him.

Nope, doesn't have a pager either. Nope. We did drag him kicking and screaming into the computer age.

But yeah, he doesn't do it, but you can still get hold of him. It's his wife that's, you know, responding to everything and pretending to be him and typing out the emails and stuff.

But yeah, I remember when we gave him some of those PDFs of like Spurgeon and stuff like that, he was looking at it like, wow, what a great gift for me, you know?

Oh, well, that's interesting. All right, let's go ahead. And before we dive back into the

Shake a Wall material, and we're going to talk with Kyle in Illinois.

Hi, Kyle, how are you? Hi there, James. How are you doing? Doing good. Good. I was just recently talking with a couple in our church, and they had some interesting theology about the concept of sin and the death, which

I believe only appears in 1 John. And essentially the concept was that at point of conversion,

Christ covers all your past sins, and he basically died to get rid of your sin nature,

I guess they would say. And then post -conversion, you're gone of the sin nature, but then if you sin a sin of the death, you know, you're out the door, you're gone.

And they take that sin of the death to mean the same sins listed in the Old Testament that were associated with stoning your adultery, your homosexuality, murder, those type of things.

And so I guess just wondering how—I mean, I recognize that there's something wrong with that, but in terms of how you would walk through the sin of the death and how you describe what happens with post -conversion sins, because they also draw a large distinction that man doesn't really sin after post -conversion, but if they do do sin of the death, you know, then that's a problem.

But other things are just kind of mistakes or falling short, and they would say it's the advocacy that covers that and not necessarily the blood.

Oh, wow. So yeah, it's just a very interesting— You said this was somebody at church? Yes, yep.

Oh, wow. All righty then. First things first, 1

John chapter 5. If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death.

There is a sin leading to death. I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

We know that no one who is born of God sins, but who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

I agree with, I think, a large portion of interpreters in regards to this text that John is referring to a specific sin, the very same sin that the writer of Hebrews would be referring to in the sense of the ultimate act of apostasy.

The writer of Hebrews would be referring to going back and offering sacrifice for 1

John. It would likewise be something that involves the denial of who Jesus is after confession of the truth of who he is.

For John, it probably had something to do with those false teachers that had gone out and then began to deny that Jesus had come into flesh.

So it would seem to be a fundamental denial of a positive affirmation you've made concerning the faith, specifically concerning who

Jesus is, and then the public denial of that. And certainly that's

John's concern is in identifying these false teachers who have gone out and, in essence, have set up alternative churches based upon this denial of the actual incarnation and things like that.

So there is, I think, a pretty good consensus there and a good basis in 1

John for seeing that kind of sin not as some kind of moral issue in the sense of, you know, getting drunk and running somebody over in a car or something like that.

There is a theological element to it that involves purposefulness in the action of the individual in the same way that going back to Judaism and offering sacrifice and thereby trampling underfoot the blood of the

Son of God, the book of Hebrews, is the same type of thing. Now, as to the rest of the assertions,

I'm somewhat hesitant. You know, when you just get a summary of sort of what somebody's saying, you make a comment about it and then they say, oh, no, you didn't do your homework and you didn't look at this.

I'm a little bit concerned there. But it sounds like if anyone is saying that, in essence, the thing that caught me in all you were describing there was this idea of being covered by the advocacy rather than the blood,

I think is what you said. I'm not sure. Yeah, that would be there. That's what they would say. And so they would say things like, you know, they would categorize sin very differently at that point then, that you'd call it mistakes or falling short.

And they wouldn't call it sin. And I recognize, obviously, just read in 1 John there that, you know, sin is a transgression of the law.

And so I don't— Well, not only that, but the very issue of advocacy that is introduced in 1 John 2, 1, if any man sins, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. So it's sin. And it is the idea that once you are in Christ, sin is no longer sin just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

In the sense that my sins have been nailed to the cross of Calvary, the writings that were against me, which brought condemnation, he's born in himself, there is a different way in which sin is treated because it's already been imputed to my sin bearer and I have experienced regeneration.

And so in that sense, there's a difference pre -conversion, post -conversion.

That's where I tried to take the discussion, but they said, well, you know, how is it possible for the sin and the death to exist if that's true?

And so, but would you say it's consistent then with the 1 John 2 concept that they were never from us, but they were never of us?

Oh, of course, yeah. You think on the same line of thought. Oh, yeah, yeah. I don't think there's any question in 1

John and in Hebrews that the person that does this is demonstrating by their so doing that, as the writer says in Hebrews chapter 6, we're convinced of better things, things which accompany salvation.

And so a person who would do these things would be demonstrating that they don't possess that kind of perseverance, that hope that has a safe and secure anchor within the veil because of the very fact that they have been taken back to the old ways and offered sacrifice.

So, yeah, both would be saying the very same thing. So it sounds like this person, whoever these people are, are saying that a true

Christian can send the sin unto death. Is that the idea? Absolutely. Yeah, they would make that affirmation.

Yeah, that would be very core to it. Yeah, well, I think, again, the best way to handle any kind of odd theology you encounter is what

I would call holistically. That is the best. You don't accomplish much going at every single little point.

It's the broad categories of biblical teaching that are going to be violated at some point by an off -the -wall perspective.

And so once we really establish fundamental issues regarding the nature of justification, the nature of righteousness, the nature of the atonement, imputed righteousness, etc.,

etc., the intercessory work of Christ, that's really where you start detecting imbalances in someone's perspective.

And it sounds like what you've got going on there. But yeah, as far as that sin unto death, yeah,

I think that's definitely the direction to go with it. Okay. Okay. All right. That's helpful. Thanks so much.

All right. Thanks for your phone call. Appreciate it. All right. Bye -bye. All right. Dividing that line on Skype and 877 -753 -3341.

We have been providing a response to Shake a Wall. I am thankful. I did get an email.

And to whoever sent it, thank you. I haven't responded to you yet. But recently, just trying to keep the email box from exploding is the fun part.

I did get an email, and I want to thank whoever sent it in. And thanking me for doing this series, because this particular individual is talking with a

Muslim who reasons very, very much like Shake a

Wall does. And so this individual had found this discussion to be extremely helpful, not necessarily in the sense that every argument is identical, but the mindset is the same.

And hopefully, that is helpful to you. So we are getting right toward the end of the opening statement.

I will try to find the rebuttal period as quickly as I can. I'm dealing with videos here.

I didn't actually extract the audios and do stuff like that. I should have been a little bit faster. And then

I also have, as most of you know, I try as best

I can to study the writings and presentations of future opponents.

I wrote an email to the only email address I could find on the web asking how

I could get hold of the gentleman's books. I couldn't find them online in any way.

Never got a response to that. But I did track down some

DVDs, and it was a DVD of a radio program. So it's like when we set up the video camera in the

Unbelievable Studios in London when I did the programs there. And so I have that queued up in audio format as well to get to because there were some very interesting statements that were made at that time.

But let's continue on with Sheikha Wall's opening statement. And remember, he's just starting to wrap up here, but he was just in the section talking about the total corruption of the

Bible and things like that. Now, of course, anyone reading

John and allowing John to be John knows exactly what they mean. They say, we have seen him, and he's alive.

The whole reason for that, they're not going, oh, we've been deceived. We were wrong, or John, you were at the foot of the cross and you misled us.

And I don't know how anyone can read the text just so completely out of its own context.

But the argument, honestly, here is, well, see, they said he was alive, not that he had been raised from the dead.

And so they didn't believe Jesus died on a cross. Now, no one just reading John would come up with that.

But the mindset here, and I realize a lot of people go, this kind of argumentation is just so poor.

But the point is that you're probably going to be talking to a person who's never read the text of John for themselves.

You have to know where to go to demonstrate that they're misreading this text.

And the reaction of utter amazement of how can you miss that so badly is not an argument to them.

You have to be able to, with some level of patience, say, well, you know, that's very interesting, but that doesn't seem to be even slightly possible if you just allow

John to be John and point out that John was at the cross. And, you know, were you aware of that?

In this instance, the people listening to shake a wall, they don't know that. He's given them no indication of that.

And so you have to be able to respond to those particular things and to understand the mindset that many of them have such a radical, radical idea of the corruption of the

New Testament that they feel warranted in isolating entire portions of the text that completely change the meaning such as, well,

John was actually there. They can get rid of that and ignore that by just simply saying, if it doesn't agree with Islam, therefore, it must not be true.

And some people would say, well, you know, this gentleman's arguments really aren't up to the level of a

Shabir Ali. But remember, remember, and I present this and every time I talk about Islam, I present this section.

But even in that context, remember the question

I asked Shabir during cross -examination, the very first debate we did, I said, as a

Muslim, can you tell us how we can recognize what is and what is not inspired in the text of the

Bible? What was his response? That which agrees with the Quran would be and that which disagrees wouldn't be.

And so you really do have this it, you know, it's the old illustration, but it's a good illustration.

They have these the lens through which they're looking at the New Testament is the Quran. And the

Quran comes long after the New Testament. And so you would think it would be the other way around, but it becomes the lens.

And so when the Quran in interacting with the

Injil contradicts that and the whole question is, why does it contradict that?

Why was the author of the Quran unaware of these things? But when it comes to those areas, then they'll just go, well, you know,

I don't have to worry about that portion because I can take this portion, read it in a way that fits with Islam and say, your book is supporting me.

Of course, they would never allow you to read the Quran that way.

And is that consistent inconsistency? That is, that is the problem. It was inspired in the, you would have said,

Thomas, we have seen the master and that he was corrupted. But they say, Thomas, we have seen the master and that he was alive, meaning we expect him to die, but he didn't die.

He was alive. Suppose you have an accident and that accident looks like you're going to die. But later, you know, the first of his brought the jaw of life.

They bring you out. So, oh, my God, they are alive, meaning they did not die. So Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. He did not die on the cross.

But it was made to appear to them. So because they don't have the exact knowledge of what. And that's where that one cut off.

So I'm going to continue on with the next one, which was because that was right at the end of his presentation, as I recall.

So I'm going to continue on with the next one, which is the rebuttal period. Unfortunately, the

Christian debater really did not respond to almost any of that. He just went back to saying, well, the

Bible says this and the Bible says not that, not so much answering all the misrepresentations that have just been given.

And so he then gets up for his rebuttal period. Um, Mr. Lazzaro just brought the charges that, uh,

I was not, I was out of context. I was not talking. Look, because I've given you the quotation to prove that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross.

Now, if he died on the cross, then we will talk about salvation. But the question, what I did was I've given you over 20 verses or so from your scripture that Christ did not die on the cross.

And I gave you reasons upon reasons. I was on top of the topic, salvation through Jesus Christ, through the

Quran or through the Bible. Now, if Christ did not die, then that means there's no salvation. So what I did was I dismantled the concept of salvation, uproot it completely from your books.

That's what I did. And I'm sure that's exactly what he feels that he's doing.

He clearly does not see, uh, that, uh, you can deal with any ancient text or modern text in an irrational fashion.

Uh, you can, you can take anything apart. You can ignore anything. Uh, you can, you can ignore context.

You can, you know, that's, that's not difficult to do. Uh, even if you do memorize the text and things like that and make it much more impressive that way.

But to say that I've uprooted it from your own text would mean that you're actually treating them in their original context and what, and in the way that their original authors intended them to be understood.

That's the only way you could do it truthfully anyways. And he's not done that. So I've begun to do that.

His, his opponent had pointed out, well, you're, you're ignoring this issue and that, that issue. And, and, uh, uh, you know, which is the only thing you can say, but then you have to be able to go in and demonstrate those things contextually, but I'm sure he actually does believe that.

And it requires a Christian who knows their, their scriptures to be able to, uh, provide that kind of response to them.

What are you talking about? In Islam, there's no salvation. Really? There's no salvation? Ask Jesus.

Didn't Jesus said, if you want to go to heaven, keep the law of Moses. This man came to ask him,

I've given you already Matthew 29, 16. This man wants to go to heaven. He said, good master. What good must

I do to enter life eternally, to enter heaven eternally? And Jesus Christ said, if you want to enter heaven, keep the commandment of Moses.

And that is the law. And we already pointed out that that's not what Jesus said. Um, when you actually look at the text and read all of it, um, he mentions some of the commandments and the man's response is

I've kept these from my youth. And Jesus' response is, if you would be perfect, then do what?

Go and sell all that you have and come follow me. Now, even, even if we didn't go any deeper than that, the fact that this demonstrates that Jesus knows the heart of this man, he knows that at the very root of his problem is idolatry.

He loves his stuff more than he loves God. And he is putting his finger upon that.

And so there's, there's something supernatural going on here. I mean, this man just comes up to Jesus and Jesus knows exactly what his problem is.

I mean, there's something supernatural there, but even leaving that aside, listening to the use that Sheikhawal is using the text right here, isn't it sufficient to note that Jesus says, sell all you possess and come follow me.

He adds following Jesus. So is

Sheikhawal really going to suggest to us that Jesus' own teaching was the

Islamic way and that is follow the law of God perfectly and follow

Christ. The whole point of the Christian message is no one ever did the first.

No one could ever do both. That would be a complete mission impossible plan of salvation.

But the point is, again, to even present the idea that Jesus is presenting the

Islamic viewpoint here requires that he never actually quote the whole text to the people in the audience.

And if there was a meaningful response being offered, the Christian would have pointed that out and gone directly to the text and said, this is what he's not telling you in this text.

And this is what he's not telling you in that text. But unfortunately, that didn't happen.

If Lord blesses and everything stays on track for next month, that will happen if that kind of argument is presented when

I have the opportunity of responding. Islam is simple, rational, straightforward, unambiguous statement.

Now, at least, did y 'all catch that? Yeah, that's something that believe it or not,

I think over time, you might start even recognizing that. That's called the

Shahada. And the only reason I stop it right there is that there are certain people, I mean, that flows off the tongue of any

Muslim with such ease because they say it over and over and over in all the prayers.

And so anybody who was actually ever a practicing devout Muslim would never confuse that with the beginning of Surah Al -Fatiha.

No, I don't think they would. Period. You believe in Allah and his messengers and the books, and then you do good.

And that is exactly what the Bible said. Where? In the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 12, verse 13, it says, listen to the end of the matter.

This is the whole matter. Follow God, do good and act upon the laws and commandments, because upon that God will judge you in the day of judgment.

Simple statement. As if Ecclesiastes is even meant to start being a full explication of the entirety of the biblical doctrine of salvation.

I mean, Ecclesiastes, what's the whole book about? The futility of life outside of having a divine view over and over again.

It's futility. It's futility. It's futility. I saw this. I saw injustice where I saw that. And it is a poetic discussion of what life would be like if you did not recognize the purpose of God.

But that comes long after the giving of the law, the sacrifices, the prophecies of the coming

Messiah and his work and all these other things to isolate that one text and say, well, this is it.

And to say, see, it's from your own books. Well, if you won't treat my own books fairly, why do you expect me to treat yours fairly?

Just just looking for consistency here, because as I've said for a number of years now, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

I'm not quoting from any book, but from your books. Yet you are accusing me that I'm out of context. I'm not out of context.

I'm on target. And the concept now is just quoted a verse that Jesus Christ did so many miracles.

Which miracle did Jesus Christ do? Now, this is interesting. This goes on for a while. And I guess

I understand the argumentation here. I'm going to give you again, this is

I think this is important to to understand. It is hard for us

Westerners to enter into the mindset of many of these folks that that are not coming from how we've been trained.

It's one of the difficulties, for example, that I've mentioned many times. One of the reasons

I don't get into dealing with the Eastern Orthodoxy is because just the foundational discussions of just how different the mindset is normally takes up the entire time you've got and you have trouble going from there.

But we need to try at least understand where they're coming from. And the argumentation being presented here, in essence, is

Quranic. In that it is Jesus never did any miracle by himself.

He always did it at the permission of Allah. And that's one of the arguments of the Quran. Now, here, folks, is where you have to be very careful.

This is where theology matters. This is where if you're going to be a sound apologist, you need to be involved in the church.

And this is where, listen to me now, you have to resist the temptation to be drawn into the defense of things you don't actually believe.

One of the most common things I have seen as I have walked the streets of Mesa or wherever it might be,

I walk up and I hear Christians talking with somebody else, is that so very often we will get we will become so embroiled in the give and take that the other side will say something.

And we automatically think we have to contradict that because they said it.

And I know they're wrong. So if they said it, they must be wrong about everything. That's what

I've appreciated. And I hope that I have shown the same thing. That's what I've appreciated in the examination of the

Ergin -Kanner stuff, is that a Turretin fan has been very, very careful.

You know, we've disagreed with Mohammed Khan and saying, you know, we've said from the beginning, yes, he's

Ergin and Emir are ex -Muslims. The question is, does that make them experts in Islam?

Why does Ergin make up all this stuff about his history, et cetera, et cetera? It's not a question as to whether their father was a

Muslim or that they were raised with Muslims. That's not even an issue. That's that's only being made an issue by the other side right now is as a smokescreen.

So we have been careful and there are arguments out there that, you know, one that I'll just mention in passing.

Mohammed Khan has and maybe he just did this initially to provide evidence in regards to Ergin -Kanner's name,

Ergin Michael Kanner, not Mehmet. But he's dragged up the fact that Ergin -Kanner has a massive lead foot.

He has got a bazillion speeding tickets. You can see them all online.

Just got one, I think, the 20th of May. If I recall correctly, it was 72 and 55.

If not, it was an 80 and 55. And he's got lots of them. He's got lots of them.

Now, on just a Christian leader level, that bugs me. You know, there's this thing called

Romans 13, the Bible. And, you know, I think becoming infamous amongst every road cop in the entire

Lynchburg area by name. Hey, Bob. Hey, Joe. Hey, Ergin. How you doing again? Hey, I saw you last week.

Yeah, boy, you had two wheels going around the corner there. You know, I don't know that that's really the way you want to witness to people.

OK, but I haven't mentioned it because it's not directly relevant to the question of the integrity of Ergin -Kanner in the pulpit.

I think it's relevant. I think it should be very relevant to the people of Liberty, I think. I don't know.

Do you not have a problem with someone who just, you know, every couple of months, about, you know, maybe six a year or so, collecting those, you know, it bothers me.

But there have been people who have raised issues and we've said, you know, OK, fine, but I don't think that's relevant.

You have to be careful about the argumentation that you're using and being fair.

I don't think it's relevant to whether he was a Muslim or not, or whether he's lied about his background, that he can't seem to keep his car in under, you know, anywhere near the speed limit.

And so what I mean here is, what you're going to hear is an example of this. The argument that he's going to present is that Jesus never did a miracle on his own.

Folks, that's exactly what Christians believe. Think about for just a second.

What does John chapter 5 say? I do nothing what I see my father doing. Perfect unity between the father and the son.

Jesus is not a renegade deity out there doing his own thing. And as the incarnate son, normally

Jesus is dependent upon and utilizes the Holy Spirit.

Because that's what we do in our lives as well. So the argument is aimed at a straw man.

The immediate response should have been, we don't believe that Jesus acts separately from the father.

In fact, we don't believe the father acts separately from the son. Or the spirit.

There's perfect unity between the divine persons. That should be the response.

But what would be the natural inclination of most Christians is to start racking your brain going, well, why did

Jesus do something on his own? Now, the argument is flawed, not only because it's against a straw man.

But it's also flawed because it doesn't take into consideration the purpose of miracles.

And it does not take into consideration the fact that Jesus does do things that no mere prophet could ever do.

And I think the greatest example of this, and I hope you're thinking about this. I realize sometimes when we talk about Islam, people tune out.

I'm never going to talk to one of these folks. You don't know that. But if you're sitting there thinking, all right, where would

I go to? Having established that Jesus doesn't do anything apart from the father, does

Jesus do things that no mere prophet would ever do? Well, there are a couple possibilities there.

But I think the clearest one that I would go to is John chapter 2.

And what does Jesus say? Destroy this temple. And in three days, I will raise it up again.

Not by Allah's permission or something like that. I will raise it up. Then you can go through the text of scripture and say, well, here in the book of Acts, this

Jesus God raised up. The father raises up Jesus. Jesus' own prophecy is he will raise himself.

And it is the spirit of God that raises Jesus. Father, son, and spirit doing what

Jesus said he himself would do. That's the perfect unity of the Trinity. And you're back to using all the text of scripture.

And you want to make a testimony. You want to make a witness that the text of scripture is consistent in these matters.

That's what I'm gonna be trying to do. I hope you'll pray for our encounter. But that's what I'm gonna be trying to do here in just a matter of weeks.

Which miracle? Believe me, Jesus Christ never performed a single miracle in the

Bible. Not a single miracle. I've never seen it yet. And I read the Bible from cover to cover, different versions for more than 20 years.

I have never seen a single miracle performed by Jesus. Not even one.

You know why I say that? Let's ask Jesus if he did the miracle. Where? Book of John, chapter 5, verse 30.

Jesus Christ is speaking. He said, I can of my own self do nothing.

The way I hear, I judge. Because I'm not seeking my own will, but the will of the father who sent me.

Did he do miracle? He didn't do miracle. He said, I can of my own self do nothing. Whatever I do, it is my father.

Book of John, chapter 28, verse 14. He said, my father is greater than all.

That would be John 14, 28, not 28. But hey, you know, at least he's trying to quote it off the top of his head.

My father is greater than I. If I do any miracle and performance, it is not I that do it, but the father in me who sent me and gave me the power with the

Holy Spirit, then I do this. Where did Jesus perform miracle? Nowhere. You say he walked on water, therefore he's

God, therefore he's deserved to die for you. You say, you know, somebody died and he raised him up. You said Lazarus died.

Look, they always give you Lazarus died and Jesus raised him up. Only God can raise you up when you die.

Let's ask Jesus if he actually raised Lazarus from the dead. This is the book of John, chapter 11.

Now, before he goes into the Lazarus thing, and it is interesting, he makes a fundamental error in the

Lazarus presentation in the order in which he presents things. That if you, again, if you know the scriptures, you catch those things.

But I did want to make one, again, we've talked about before, but we always have new listeners and not everyone in the audience is

Algo. I never have to repeat anything for Algo. That's the amazing thing is

Algo knows all. But I did want to emphasize something in the citation of John 519.

May I suggest that for dealing with Muslims, dealing with any subordinationist at all.

So that would include Jehovah's Witnesses and, well, most liberal Christians and so on and so forth, who would call themselves

Christians anyways. May I suggest reading and understanding having more than a mere passing knowledge of the fifth chapter of John is extremely important for you.

And I will not apologize in the modern sense of the term apologize for calling believers to have a scholarly understanding of a text of scripture.

I mean, isn't it amazing amongst Christians how there is this anti -intellectualism that tells you that you should never challenge folks to, for example, go deep into a particular text of scripture, that there's something unspiritual about that.

And yet, like I said, we'll buy phones that have a user manual that's thicker than the

New Testament, you know, and we'll spend hours figuring out this function, that function, everything else.

And yet there's something unspiritual about going in depth on a text of scripture. I think there's every reason why housewives and mechanics and schoolteachers and I don't care what you do, engineers, whatever.

I don't apologize for a second and saying I think that you should take the time to, if you don't want to buy the books, go to a library, get hold of some decent commentaries on the

Carson's Pillar Commentary on John and work through this text so that you have it clearly in your mind to the point where you can explain to somebody else.

That's when you can find out whether you really understand text. Could you explain to somebody else?

Because this is probably one of the most abused texts. And if you know it well and you know the context well, you can shut anybody down from the abuse of this text.

For example, in verse 19, truly, truly, I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself unless it is something he sees the father doing for whatever the father does.

These things the son also does in like manner. For the father loves the son and shows him all the things which he himself is doing.

The father will show him greater works than these so that you may marvel. For just the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son also gives life to whom he wishes.

Now, you will almost never hear contextual citations of this text because there's too much about the deity of Christ in John chapter 5.

There are just too many words, too many phrases, too many assertions that demonstrate the deity of Christ for them to give you the whole thing.

But I want to just briefly focus upon that one phrase in verse 19.

Nothing of himself. Now, what does that mean?

I suggest to you that once you look at what the rest of the text says, for example, the fact in verse 23, so that all will honor the son, even as they honor the father.

He who does not honor the son does not honor the father who sent him. May I say to my Muslim friends, you are not honoring the

Jesus of John chapter 5. You may say you honor Jesus because you say you have to believe in him and you pronounce blessings of peace upon him like you do any other prophet, but you say he's a mere

Rasul. He's not the son of God. He did not die and rise again the third day.

You do not believe the testimony of the gospel of John to Jesus Christ. And in fact,

I suggest to you that the Jews believed everything about Jesus that you do. So the point is that was enough.

But this very same text of John, when it says of himself, is not saying that he himself lacks authority.

He himself lacks power. He does nothing by himself from himself in distinction and disconnection from the father.

This is an assertion of the unity of the father and the son, not the incapacity of the son.

You have to emphasize that. They are taking a text that is actually, remember what prompted verse 19?

Jesus had said back in verse 17, that his father was working until now and he is working.

He's talking about on the Sabbath day. He's talking about the father's maintenance of creation,

God's maintenance of creation. And Jesus claims the same right for himself. And for this reason,

Jews are seeking all the more to kill him because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God his own father, making himself equal with God.

One of the errors we're going to hear, and I hope we haven't missed it and I didn't miss it as he was making it. But one of the errors that Sheikha Wall makes is that he talks about, you know, the sons of God.

Quotes John 1 .12, as if we're all sons and therefore Jesus isn't anything different. The gospel of John never uses huyas of anyone but Jesus.

He is the monogamous, the unique son of God. Tekna is what is used of everybody else.

And so the unity that exists between the father and son flows directly from the statement, was calling

God his own father. That's in a unique sense, not the way that we would have, would call

God father, but there is a unique sense to this. And as a result, making himself equal with God.

Making himself equal with God. This is Jesus' response. His response, not to say, oh no, no, no, no, no, that's not it.

His response is to emphasize the unity that exists in activity and purpose between the father and the son.

That's what we need to remember. All chapter 11, the whole chapter 11 of the book of John is speaking about Jesus and Lazarus.

I'm going to put it in a nutshell and I'll give it to you in condensed. What happened was that Christ was very close to Lazarus and Christ left the city, he left the town, he left the village.

By the time he left, Lazarus died. So when Lazarus died, they went and buried him in a sepulchre.

A sepulchre in the ancient time is a carved out roomy chamber of a stone that they hewn.

So they put him inside and they put huge stone at the entrance. That's how they buried in those days. So after four days,

Lazarus was dead. The fourth day, Jesus Christ came to the village. When Martha, the sister of Lazarus, heard that the master was in town, she ran to him.

She said, master, your friend Lazarus is dead. If you were here, you would have raised him. And Jesus Christ said,

Martha, he's not dead. He's alive. He'll be awake. And she said, yes, master. I know he will be up in the day of judgment.

And Jesus Christ said, even now, Martha, if you have faith, you will see the glory of God. Show me where you bury him.

So on the way going to the sepulchre, Jesus Christ began to commune with God. Listen to what he said.

I am quoting word for word. I'm not adding, I'm not deleting. Jesus Christ, on the way going to where they bury

Lazarus, he began to commune with God. But what he was saying was not audible. The people could not understand that mysterious communication between him and God.

So the Bible said, and Jesus wept in the spirit. The shortest sentence in the Bible.

And Jesus wept. And Jesus wept in the spirit? I never heard that one before.

It's always good to check your memorization every once in a while. So go over those note cards, because it doesn't say, Jesus wept in the spirit, of course.

It says Jesus wept. I'm not sure what the in the spirit edition part had to do with that.

And Jesus groaned in the spirit. In other words, oh my father, give me the power. Oh my father, this is it.

Oh my father, give me the power to raise him. So the people who were there, they could not understand. I, where, where is that coming from?

I, I'm looking at the text right here. I don't see any of that. Um, uh, that that's,

Jesus groaning in the spirit is, is due to the presence of death and sin and man's experience.

But, uh, we're, we're getting a little bit of a different perspective here. Understand what he was saying. So they said, and Jesus groaned in the spirit.

When he get the assurance to raise Lazarus, he said, open, remove the stone.

So when they removed the stone, Jesus Christ spoke Hebrew and he said, salusa comni Lazarus.

In other words, get up Lazarus. And Lazarus came out. He came out from the dead with bandages around him.

And Jesus said, remove the bandages. So they removed the bandages around him. And the people begin to say, oh my

God, he is God. They did. They began to say, oh my

God, he is God. Um, I, I, I've seen a lot of different translations of the

Bible. I got the Greek right there, right on the screen. And no, of course it doesn't say anything like that.

Uh, actually, uh, I think that might be a really bad paraphrase of verse 45.

Therefore, many of the Jews who came to Mary and saw what he had done, believed in him. Now, is he saying that to believe in Jesus is to believe that he's

God? That may be, that'd be nice, but I really don't think that's where he's going now.

Notice the prayer of Jesus before he calls Lazarus forth.

We haven't heard that yet. Because for effect out of misremembering,

I don't know. That's going to move to after Lazarus comes out. So as to emphasize the point that Sheikah Wall is making.

Raise someone from the dead. But Jesus Christ, he knew or he heard what they were saying.

Listen to what he said after Lazarus came back from the dead. And notice after Lazarus came back to that, actually in the biblical text, this is before he called him forth.

Christ look up into heaven. And he said, Oh my father, I know that thou hearest me.

And I know that thou hearest me always meaning whatever I ask of you, you give it to me.

Oh my father, I know that thou hearest me. And I know that thou hearest me always. But I'm saying this loudly so that they may know that thou are doing the works.

Where did Jesus perform miracle? Actually, that's not what he said either.

So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised his eyes and said, Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but because the people standing around,

I said it so they may believe that you sent me. Not that you're doing the works, but that they may believe that you sent me.

When he had said these things, he cried out loud voice, Lazarus come forth. So the entire argument, other than the fact it's a straw man in the first place.

We don't believe Jesus does miracles separately from God, the father. But then the entire argument becomes,

Oh, Jesus says that, you know, I'm just doing this. Interestingly enough, uses language fulfilling the

Quranic. Understanding. Not what the text actually says, but fulfilling the

Quranic. Understanding, uh, quite interesting himself. No miracle.

Moses parted the Red Sea. You know what? The Red Sea parted the Red Sea. Was he God? No.

God gave him the power. I was waiting for you to quote me. You know that verse.

I am the way, the truth and the life. I was hoping that you quote that. I am the way, the truth and the life.

Now I'm going to take an audience poll. And we have installed special equipment on our new system that will allow me to see all of you who put your hands up.

Well, okay. No, it doesn't really do that. I can see people going, you know, looking at their computer going, ah, but here's an audience poll.

I guess I'll just poll the audience that we have. The massive studio audience. Y 'all want to say hi?

Massive studio audience. Okay, there's two people out there. But anyway, this very text

I addressed within the past six months. And I addressed it in the context of Zakir Naik speaking about John chapter 14.

Since this is one that happens all the time. Is this not one of the texts that would come up in a discussion between yourself and a

Muslim? Obviously it is. I am the way, the truth and life. No man comes to the father but by me.

One of the keys to maintaining control of a conversation.

This is something that those of you, you know, Rich has gone out to Mesa for many, many, many years and has seen me witnessing the

Mormons out there. And you've learned what? The way to control a conversation is to know what the

Mormon believes and where they're going to go before they get there. And so if you're going to present a Bible verse, you want to know what they already think about it.

And so you can present it in such a way as to short circuit their misuse of it.

You want to interpret it correctly so they can hear the correct interpretation and can't misuse it.

That's how you control conversations. Well, same thing here. And when you go to John 14, 28, you need to understand what the

Muslim is going to say. We address this. In fact, I believe it's on YouTube in my response to Zakir Naik and his appearance on the

Dean show. John 14, 28, no man comes to the Father, but by me.

What's he going to say? Well, of course, first of all, that he's going to assume it's by my teaching, not by me, but by my teaching.

You have to challenge that. But then he's going to say, well, in the days of Moses, how did you come to the

Father? It was only by Moses or by Isaiah. And now today the final prophet is

Muhammad. So the only way to come is by Muhammad. Now, that's not what Jesus said.

And Jesus did not make it impersonal that he, well, you know, he's giving the teachings of Allah. And therefore, that's how you come to the presence of God.

There's something very personal in what Jesus said there. But knowing where they're going first will help you when you present it to do so in the most effective way.

That's what they always call. I agree with that. Jesus Christ was the way. He was the truth. He was the life.

I agree. No problem. In return, I'm asking you this question. At the time of Moses, who was the way, the truth and the life?

Who? Moses. Because if you follow him, he was successful. At the time of Noah, who was the way, the truth and the life?

Noah. Christ did not say, I am the only way. There are so many ways. But at that time, he was the way, the truth and the life.

And really, no one go to the father but through him. But he said to you in John chapter 14, verse 16, if you love me, keep my commandment, not anyone's commandment.

Keep my commandment. In Matthew 24, 24, he said, for there shall arise many false prophets and false

Christs who will show you many great wonders and signs. If it were possible to deceive my own very elect. You know, aside from the miscitations.

I hope the Christians in the audience who don't spend any time memorizing the word of God are feeling rather guilty right now.

That a Muslim sheikh can stand in front of an audience and quote text. And yeah, he's made some mistakes and needs to review his text more closely and is inaccurate in his understandings of them.

But still, we possess the word of God. We've been blessed with the word of God.

And yet, how much time do we spend with the word of God? And some of you say, well,

I can't memorize anyway. You know, I think a lot of people can. There are different ways of memorization. There's effective ways of memorization, et cetera, et cetera.

But the real question is not to become defensive, not to feel like I'm jumping on you or something like that, but just ask yourself the question, do

I really desire to do so? I mean, do

I take it so for granted that I always have it? I mean, it's on my phone, you know, there's always a search function.

But there is a real blessing to being able to quote the word of God. And in these types of situations, man, it is extremely, extremely helpful.

But I just hope we hear this and maybe it'll be enough to push some of you to turn off that television, shut down that computer, or use the computer.

Computer can be a great way of helping you to memorize stuff. There are some great memorization programs out there.

But hopefully just to, you know, glorify God and to be better prepared to give an answer. Among them is

Paul, who have never seen Jesus, came and wrote Galatian, Ephesian, Thessalonian, all the books, 28 books,

I think he wrote. Did you catch that? Paul wrote 28 books in the

New Testament, folks. Of course, there's only 27 books in the New Testament. And he wrote,

I believe he wrote 13 of them. There are a couple of you out there believe he wrote 14 of them because of the book of Hebrews.

But there's only 27 books. Now, again, maybe he just got going too fast here, but just a few moments ago, he was saying,

I've been reading and studying this for 20 years, cover to cover, etc., etc. And you don't know how many books are in the

New Testament. I know how many, sir, there are in the Quran. There's 114 of them, unless you're talking to Ibn Kabir or something like that.

But that's a historical thing. It makes me sort of go, hmm, that's interesting that you would make that kind of mistake.

27 books wrote by Paul. More than half of the book was written by Paul. See, I think he's realizing there, this isn't working because I think the numbers, 27, okay, half of them, that's approximately half, 13, depending on whether you go 13.

He said more than that. So he's probably going with Hebrews being Pauline or something like that. That's fine. No, don't need to argue about that one.

Since I have two minutes more left, I'm going to throw in this. It is not part of it, but I'm going to throw it because this is the only time

I've seen you. I'm telling the Christians, the name of Jesus is not Jesus. In the day of judgment, you see

Jesus Christ. You say, Jesus, he wouldn't even look at you because that was not his name. And we're coming around to the end of the program.

So this would be a good place to stop anyways. But this is the old Yeshua, Jehovah's salvation versus the

Greek version, Jesus. Let me assure anyone, if you call on Jesus, he will know why you are calling upon him and will respond.

That's not really an issue. So there was the opening statement and then the rebuttal.

And I played one of the questions in a previous iteration of the program where he made the comments about Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Alexander's being in the 12th century.

That's the 4th century, actually, Alexander's early 5th century. And so there's some serious misapprehensions on Shackelwald's part factually regarding historical issues and things like that.

But hopefully this response has given you some idea. We'll continue with the other material next time on The Dividing Line.

Thanks for listening. Hope it's been a blessing to you. We'll see you then. God bless. I stand for the truth.

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.