Do We Need the Cross for Salvation?

Well, I do want to welcome you to the 2018 G3 Conference and this special pre -conference debate addressing global warming.

Just kidding. That's the only levity that we'll have all night, I'm sure. My name is Michael O 'Fallon, and I am the founder and editor of Sovereign Nations.

It's an organization committed to the rights of sovereign nations and the faith that stands as the bedrock foundation of Western civilization.

Tonight, we come together to do what so many seemingly can't do in other arenas of disagreement and politics, and that is to debate, to argue one position and truth claim against another, and yet to do so with respect for our fellow man.

With us tonight are what I believe to be the best two representatives of both Christian and Muslim apologetics.

I personally selected each participant for their ability to both represent their own position with strength, while at the same time being careful to not misrepresent the opposite side or engage in ad hominem argumentation.

My job is to simply and fairly moderate without any biased interference.

The men with me tonight completely disagree with one another in regards to the following question.

Do we need the cross for salvation? Representing the

Islamic side of this question is a gentleman that we have brought all the way from Pakistan to be in warm Atlanta, Georgia this evening.

Would you please welcome Adnan Rashid. And representing the

Christian side of this argumentation will be Dr. James White from Phoenix, Arizona.

Tonight we will follow a modified Lincoln -Douglas format. The opening statements will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of rebuttal.

Then we will have four 10 -minute sessions of cross -examination, where one man can only ask questions and one man can only answer questions.

We will then have 10 minutes apiece for a close, and then we'll be handling some audience questions.

After the rebuttal period, we will have a brief five -minute break, and as well we would ask that you find some paper and submit some questions up to the front desk here at the moderator's stand during that time.

So if you just give me one minute, I'm going to head down to the moderator's table. Dr. White will come up and take the podium and start with his opening presentation.

Mike, I need the paper. Thank you, sir.

I'm sorry, I prepared his arguments for him before. Thank you very much.

It is indeed an honor to be with you here this evening. Our subject is one that should interest every person in this audience, whether you come from a

Christian or a Muslim background, or maybe even no religious background whatsoever, because the fact that it separates two of the world's major religions on an extremely important issue.

Both Christianity and Islam acknowledge the historical reality of the person of Jesus, the

Messiah. But we have very different beliefs as to who he was and specifically what he accomplished.

This evening, our focus is upon soteriology, upon the doctrine of salvation, and specifically

Christ's redemptive work. We disagree about who he was. Christians believe he was the son of God, the very incarnate second person of the

Trinity. Muslims, of course, do not believe this. But while that is relevant to our debate this evening, we are going to be focusing specifically upon the

Christian belief that the cross is necessary for salvation. Is the cross necessary for salvation?

For the Christian people, the cross is the center point of history, the jewel of the triune God's eternal intention to demonstrate his glory in the gracious, free, and perfect redemption of an undeserving people.

In Islamic theology, the cross has no redemptive meaning. Jesus did not die upon the cross, was not crucified, and hence did not rise again.

There is no need for substitutionary atonement in Islamic theology. The Christian view of Christ is considered excess in the

Quran, and Muslims often speak of the worship of the cross as kufr, an act of unbelief, or even worse, shirk, an act of idolatry.

Now, either the cross is the greatest redemptive act of the creator, that by its very audaciousness renders all other salvific claims irrelevant and empty, or it is a tremendous slight and insult to God.

By its very nature, it precludes any kind of middle ground.

It has to be one or the other. So, for our debate this evening, in the very brief time that I have,

I must demonstrate the centrality of the cross in divine revelation. We will begin with the writings of Jesus' apostles.

Secondly, I will trace this truth from its prophetic underpinnings in the writings of the ancient prophets of what we call the

Old Testament or the Tanakh. And finally, we will consider the necessary nature of this great work of redemptive love.

So, let us turn to what the scriptures say as a foundation, first and foremost. In Acts chapter 2, we read

Peter saying, The aspect of the proclamation here at the earliest period of the apostles is the cross, the redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ.

Later on in Acts chapter 4, Even in the working of miracles, in the healing of the sick man, it's

Jesus Christ and him crucified and risen from the dead that is central to the

Christian proclamation. In 1 Corinthians chapter 1, we read, And only a few words later,

You can tell that in this proclamation of the gospel, the cross and the salvific work of Christ, absolutely central in this earliest period of the

Christian faith. Paul later says in that same epistle, This is central to the

Christian proclamation. When Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, he said, How did he do this?

By abolishing in his flesh the enmity. How do you bring Jews and Gentiles together into one body?

The cross of Jesus Christ, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in himself, he might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross by it having put to death the enmity.

And when he wrote to the Colossians, he likewise said, He was prophesied to be the prince of peace.

How does he bring about that peace? Through the blood of his cross. Through him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven, the cross has cosmic significance in the earliest

Christian writings. In that same epistle, Paul said, The very reason that Christians can believe that they have peace with God is focused upon that center point of history where the

God -man gives his life voluntarily upon the cross of Calvary. In the book of Hebrews, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Again, the cross at the very core, the very center, not only of how we have peace with God, but likewise how we as Christians are to live the

Christian life, the model that we are to have is to have our eyes focused upon Jesus Christ.

So the New Testament witness cannot be questioned. The cross is absolutely central.

But is that some innovation? Is it an excess? Does it go beyond the prophetic word?

Well, the Lord Jesus taught his disciples after his resurrection in Luke 24, 44, that all things which are written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the

Psalms must be fulfilled. This is a key element of the

New Testament teaching. And in that process, one of the texts that clearly he directed people to was

Psalm 22. He directed us to Psalm 22 with some of his own dying words on the cross.

You are probably familiar with the words as they come across in Aramaic, Eli, Eli, lama, sabachthani.

In Hebrew, Eli, Eli, lama, az -bachthani. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Now, as Jesus is hanging upon the cross, this is not, as is often misunderstood, some idea that, oh, he's been abandoned by God and he senses failure here or something like that.

He is specifically quoting a phrase that everyone would have understood. It would be like me saying, amazing grace, how sweet the sound.

I don't have to continue on from there because pretty much everyone in this room knows the rest of that particular hymn.

Well, Psalm 22 is one of the songs of the people of God. And so Jesus is directing us to the 22nd

Psalm. He's directing us to it. Well, when we go to the 22nd Psalm, what do we find?

All who see me sneer at me. They separate with the lip. They wag the head saying, commit yourself to Yahweh.

Let him deliver him. Let him rescue him because he delights in him. This is exactly what the Messiah is experiencing on the cross.

This is exactly what is happening round about him. I am poured out like water and all my bones are out of joint.

My heart is like wax. It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a pot shirt and my tongue cleaves to my jaws.

And you lay me in the dust of death. And then one of the key texts, for dogs has surrounded me, a band of evildoers has encompassed me.

They pierced my hands and my feet. Now, why do I have that graphic of some ancient Hebrew fragment up there?

Well, if we need to, we can get into whether it is like a lion or they pierced my hands and my feet.

There is dispute about that. The Greek Septuagint and certain Masoretic texts say they pierced my hands and my feet.

Others say like a lion. It's a textual variant. We can get into it if we need to. Maybe we won't.

We'll see, but definitely we'll be able to do so if the need arises. But just consider this text as a whole and you'll see it is being fulfilled in what takes place at Calvary.

It continues on to say, I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me. They divide my garments among them and for my clothing, they cast lots.

This is the description of what the Lord Jesus himself experienced upon the cross of Calvary.

At the end of Psalm 22, posterity will serve him. It will be told to the

Lord, the coming generation, they will come and will declare his righteousness to a people who will be born that he has performed it.

The point here is very clear. Psalm 22 ends with the vindication of the suffering servant.

And this is what Jesus intends us to see on the cross when he cries out, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.

He points us to Psalm 22 and we see the consistency between what is said in Psalm 22 and the fulfillment in the

New Testament Scriptures that I've already read in your hearing. Here we have the famous Isaiah scroll from Qumran.

And this is the very section where we find what is today known as Isaiah 53. Surely our griefs he himself bore and our sorrows he carried, yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.

But he was pierced through for what? For our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities.

The chastening for our well -being fell upon him and by his scourging, we are healed.

We have substitutionary suffering taking place here written 700 years before the events in Christ's life.

That graphic I show you is written 100 years before Christ was born. All of us like sheep have gone astray.

Each of us has turned to his own way, but Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

This is substitution in his suffering. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth.

Like a lamb that is led to slaughter and like a sheep that is silent before it shears, so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment, he was taken away. And as for his generation who considered that he was cut off out of the land of living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.

But Yahweh was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief. If he would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring.

And my friends, I stopped just to say, look around the room. 2 ,000 years later, he will see his offspring.

Here we are speaking a different language and we follow him. He will see his offspring.

He will prolong his days and the good pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in his hand.

As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see it and be satisfied. By his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will do what?

Will justify the many. Why? As he will bear their iniquities. Almost sounds like it's coming straight out of Romans 3 and 4.

The gospel 700 years before Christ. Therefore, I will allot him a portion with the great.

He will divide the booty with the strong because he poured out himself to death and was numbered with the transgressors, yet he himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors.

I don't have time to get into the fulfillment of this in the book of Hebrews and Christ's role as our high priest and all these other beautiful things.

But here, you have the very voice of prophecy, the consistency.

So, let's consider these things together. God is holy, just, pure, and cannot abide that which is evil and impure in his presence.

God announced his redemptive purpose as far back as Genesis 3 .15. We don't have time.

I could not even list the prophetic passages relevant to the ministry of Jesus Christ in the time that is allotted to me.

But we've looked at two very clear ones, but they are not the only ones. The state of man having fallen in Adam, this is one of the areas of disagreement.

The state of man having fallen in Adam required a radically powerful redemptive act of God.

The law pointed toward a greater fulfillment. Imagine that high priest. Every time he comes in and he sprinkles the blood upon the mercy seat, there's still blood there from the last time.

And he's going to have to do it again the next year. And the next year, that repetitive action was meant to point toward a greater fulfillment.

Every person who functioned within the context of that law, if they would but look, could see that greater fulfillment that would be coming.

The cross is the ultimate display of all of God's attributes. He sovereignly orchestrates its time and its place.

It took place exactly when God decreed that it would take place. It shows his holiness.

It shows his wrath against sin. I've said many times, if when you look at the cross, all you see is love, you're not seeing all the cross.

Because the love that is seen there is seen more deeply and properly against the background of God's wrath against sin.

His holiness stands in the background. The nature of the one giving himself, the very

God -man shows his condescension, his love. Remember earlier, the Lord of glory, they would not have crucified the

Lord of glory, the glorious Lord. His sufferings demonstrate his deep mercy and his compassion for sinners.

He could have called a whole legion of angels, but he does not do so. He restrains that power in grace and mercy.

The cross fulfills God's law, which is a reflection of his very nature. And this is another area we're going to have to discuss.

Because we believe it is absolutely vital that God's law be fulfilled. Either his wrath must come against sin, or there must be propitiation.

You can't just simply wink at sin. You can't just simply say, I forgive sin without the law being made right.

This is a major difference this evening. Without atonement, the law remains broken and violated.

God's glory marred, and as a result, forgiveness becomes arbitrary on God's part, unknowable on our part, and uncertain in our experience.

Only in the cross do we find God's holiness, justice, wrath, love, compassion, mercy, and grace fulfilled in one cosmic moment of prophetic fulfillment.

It is truly the center point of history. Everything before it pointed to it, everything since exists in the light of it and points back to that center point of history itself.

So why was the cross necessary? Because God eternally ordained it as the means of his own self -glorification.

Eternally, it's part of God's decree. God prophesied the cross and in the self -giving ministry of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, 700 years earlier.

God's entire purpose, to graciously join a people to himself through the son, providing for them full and free redemption from sin in his voluntarily taking their punishment upon himself, that act requires their purchase by this one central redeeming act of father, son, and spirit, all who are involved in the cross and in the resurrection.

And so, as a result, we look to the book of Revelation and the book of Revelation points us toward the future and fulfillment and gives us a vision of what it's like in heaven, the continuous worship of God that takes place there, how it's undisrupted by what takes place here upon this earth.

Man may rage, but God remains absolutely sovereign over his universe. And there, we're given a vision once the lamb has come forward, the lamb who is slain.

You have the elders and you have myriads of angels and they're worshiping God. And we are told in Revelation 5, and they sang a new song saying, to the lamb, worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals, for you were slain and purchased for God with your blood, men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God and they will reign upon the earth.

Is the cross necessary for salvation? If there is an empty tomb, there is your proof because God raised him from the dead.

This was the central core of the message of Jesus' disciples. This is the Christian teaching.

And we thank you this evening for being here to listen to this very important discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Dr. White. And now with his opening presentation, if you can give us just a moment as we switch

VGA cables, Adnan Rashid. Right. Before you start the time, thank you for inviting me to America to have this debate.

I'm always very pleased to debate Dr. James White. I have a lot of respect for him.

I've told him this many times, so I'm not going to waste time telling him any more of that.

I always exchange presents with Dr. James White every time we debate.

It seems this time he doesn't have one for me, unless you pull something out of your bag.

But I always like to give presents to Dr. James White because I know he's a dedicated

Christian and I have a large collection of books on Christianity. This particular one is an interesting one.

It's a New Testament in Latin published in 1697 and interpreted by Theodore Beza, who was also a

Calvinist. So, a token of our friendship to Dr. James White. Thank you very much.

And I do have things for you later. I can start my time now.

Right. In the name of God, the merciful, the beneficent, I am Adnan Rashid. I'm from London. This time

I traveled from Pakistan to debate Dr. James White. And the topic today is, do we need the cross for salvation?

Very, very interesting topic. Dr. James White preached a very passionate sermon.

And if I didn't know what I know today and listen to Dr. James White, I would have been ready to baptize myself.

But unfortunately, that's not going to happen because I have this to present, what follows.

What James will have to show us tonight, salvation cannot be achieved without the cross.

And teachings of the Old Testament and the New Testament on salvation through works, slash repentance, or the law, are erroneous and or abrogated.

Jesus, not Paul, was responsible for teaching salvation through the cross alone. I will show today, salvation can be achieved without the cross.

Blood sacrifice was not necessary for salvation. Following the law and repentance was enough to achieve salvation.

Paul is alone in his notion of salvation by the cross. The Old Testament, the synoptic tradition, and James were not consistent with Paul on this matter.

Islam is in agreement with the Old Testament and the Jesus tradition on this matter.

There are a number of atonement theories. I wonder why Christian scholars have to go through so much trouble explaining the concept of atonement via the cross.

And they have come up with so many theories. One of them is ransom theory, and the satisfaction theory, acceptance theory, penal theory, which is what

James White believes in, the government theory, mortal theory, and the

Christus Victor theory. James, he believes in penal substitutionary theory, which simply means that God is very angry with humanity.

Humans are full of sin, and a sacrifice must be done to satisfy God. It has to be done, and that is justice.

Salvation in the Old Testament. We will start with the Old Testament and see whether salvation was possible without blood sacrifice, because Paul, he states in Hebrews 9 .22

that without a blood sacrifice, salvation cannot be achieved or our sacrifice will not be accepted.

However, when we look at the Old Testament, we see so many passages, so many chapters, so many instances where salvation or forgiveness or redemption was achieved without a blood sacrifice.

For example, we have the book of Numbers 31 .50, where jewels were simply accepted.

Leviticus 5 .11, flour was good enough. Deuteronomy 9 .18, Moses simply repents for the people, and the list goes on and on and on.

Amos 5 .18 -24, why would God not accept their sacrifices? Hosea 6 .6,

I desired mercy, not sacrifice. In fact, in chapter 14, verse 2, the

Israelites state that we will offer sacrifices from our lips. We will offer the bulls of our lips.

We cannot offer bulls anymore as blood sacrifice. For that reason, we will simply repent from our lips, and we hope for forgiveness.

And there are so many instances in the Old Testament where I can simply go on and on and talk about salvation or redemption or forgiveness is achieved without blood sacrifice.

Now, in the book of Ezekiel, chapter 18, verse 21 -23, we read, but if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live.

He will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

Simply, he will follow the law and he will live. There is no need for a blood sacrifice.

You simply repent, you follow the law, the rules, the commandments of God, and you will be forgiven.

This is exactly what Islam teaches. And we will see in due course how Islam is very consistent with what the

Old Testament teaches and what Jesus is thought to have taught. When we come to the

New Testament, the gospel of Matthew is a very interesting one. It is often called the gospel of the law because it talks about the law so much.

Jesus put so much stress on following the law. And when a young man came to Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, we are told he asks

Jesus, what is good for me? What do I do to achieve salvation or success, to achieve eternal life?

And Jesus tells him to follow the commandments. Simply follow the commandments and you will have success.

Here is the point where Jesus should have told him, I have come to redeem you, to free you from sin, to get you your redemption.

But he doesn't tell him that. There is another instance where we have debated Christian scholars and activists as to why

Jesus cannot be God, because he missed many golden opportunities to teach that to his followers and he never taught that.

In the gospel of Mark, chapter 29, verse 12, we are told that a Jewish man, he comes to Jesus and asks him, what is the first commandment?

And Jesus tells him, hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God. Worship thy Lord with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul.

This is the point where Jesus could have taught him, I am the second person in the

Trinity, that is the Holy Spirit as well. You, the Jewish people, have been worshipping one

God and one person or in one being and you only knew one person, that's the

Father. Now things have changed, new covenant has come across and there are two more persons you have to worship.

Jesus didn't do that. Likewise, in the book of Matthew, when this young man comes to Jesus, he asks him about salvation, about eternal life and Jesus tells him, simply follow the commandments, follow the law.

And then in the gospel of Matthew, we are told that you will never enter the kingdom of heaven if you do not follow the commandments of God.

So you can either achieve eternal paradise or hellfire by doing charity or not doing charity, again in the gospel of Matthew.

So we can go on and on and on talking about the gospel of Matthew where Jesus Christ actually talks about the importance of law, salvation through the law.

In fact, in chapter 5 verse 17, Jesus is believed to have said that, think not

I've come to abolish the law, rather I've come to fulfill the law. And anyone who teaches you to go away from the law, even on a minor point or on one point will be considered least in the kingdom of heaven and we will see what

Paul did later on. Paul completely broke away from the Jewish law and he preached that, that only faith in the cross or faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is enough for salvation.

You do not have to follow the law. Paul was very clear on that point. The gospel of Luke and Acts.

Luke was written apparently or allegedly by Luke and the book of Acts is also attributed to a man called

Luke. Whether Luke actually wrote the gospel or the book of Acts is another question altogether and myself and Dr.

James White can debate this topic another time, the canon and the authorship of the gospels and the controversy about the authorship.

I'm not going to go into that. Let's assume for a second or for the debate or the sake of the discussion that Luke was indeed written by a man called

Luke. Although these attributions were made to these authors or these individuals in the mid -second century, years after these documents were written and almost all major Christian scholars are unanimous on the point and I'm not talking about liberal scholars.

I'm talking about conservative scholars. They are unanimous that these documents were initially written as anonymous documents.

So Luke amazingly omits when he copies from Mark and this is another theory which scholars follow that Luke and Matthew, they plagiarized from Mark much of the information they put into the gospels.

And when it comes to copying from Mark, chapter 10, verse 45, Luke amazingly omits the salvific formula.

He doesn't talk about and to give his life a ransom for many.

In the gospel of Mark, chapter 10, verse 45, we read this part but in the gospel of Luke, we do not see this part.

He simply omits it. I wonder why. So even in the book of Acts, omission of vicarious atonement in Acts is very visible to scholars.

Scholars have picked on that and they have highlighted the point that the book of Acts doesn't put much stress on atonement by the cross.

One example is when the story of the Ethiopian eunuch is told and he's reading parts of Isaiah 53 and he asks

Philip as to what this means and Philip starts to preach to him about Jesus without telling him that this is actually talking about the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and that sacrifice will atone for your sins.

You will have salvation through that. Jesus doesn't go into that. Sorry, Philip doesn't go into that.

So this is a problem. Why would Luke, if Luke is the author of these two documents, the book of Luke and the book of Acts, why does he not put stress on the issue of atonement?

Rather, the central point in the gospel of Luke is that Jesus died as an innocent man.

He was killed by the Jewish scribes and priests innocently and that is the point of the gospel of Luke.

This is what we see as the prominent idea which Luke wants to discuss in these documents.

At no place does Luke state Jesus died for you or for your sins.

Even speeches in Acts do not contain the atonement theology. Who thinks so? Dr.

James D .G. Dunn, I think Dr. White will...

He will... Sorry. Right, it's okay, no problem. Dr. White...

Sorry. Yeah, that's fine, no problem.

So James D .G. Dunn, he talks about this problem, the problem of Luke not talking about atonement, an important corollary to the

Acts sermons concentration on the resurrection is the absence of any theology of the death of Jesus.

His death is mentioned but only as a bare fact, usually highlighting Jewish responsibility. The historical fact is not interpreted.

It is never said, for example, that Jesus died on our behalf or for our sins. There are no suggestions that Jesus' death was a sacrifice.

In other words, in the synoptic tradition, we find very little evidence or very little stress on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

That we find in the writings of Paul, not in the synoptic tradition. And in the

Gospel of Matthew, as already clarified, we find a lot of stress on the law, following the law, and that's where the salvation is.

In the Gospel of Luke, Luke doesn't talk much about atonement or anything like that.

Acts 20, 28 seems to have a formula which insinuates that there was a sacrifice, but not clearly.

And Donne talks about that. Even 20, 28, the church of the Lord or God, or of God, which he obtained with his own blood or with the blood of his own, not properly speaking, part of an evangelistic proclamation, remaining more than a little puzzling and obscure.

In short, an explicit theology of the death of Jesus is markedly lacking in the Kerygma of the

Acts sermons. He also states, so far as the Kerygma of the Acts sermons is concerned, we have to say that it lacks a theology of the cross.

It makes no attempt to attribute a definite atoning significance to the death of Jesus Christ.

It mentions the death of Jesus Christ, but doesn't extend that death to claim that this death was actually a source of atonement for humanity.

Now, there's another problem in the Gospel of Luke, which apparently talks about atonement, but there is a problem with it.

The problem is whether we accept the longer ending of Luke 22, 19 to 20, or whether we accept the shorter ending.

I'm sure James is aware of this problem, and I'm not going to spend much time on it, and we can possibly talk about it in the crossfire.

But to highlight a simple point, Codex Beza omits, which is an early

Greek manuscript, it omits the longer ending, which actually talks about Jesus, this is my body which is given for you.

Do this in remembrance of me. And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

So the words for you in the verse 19 and the formula for you in the verse 20, this part is omitted in D.

D is the name of Codex Beza, which is an ancient Greek manuscript, and it is one of the earliest witnesses that doesn't contain the longer ending.

No doubt, majority of the Greek manuscripts do contain it. This is why people like Bruce Metzger, scholars like Bruce Metzger, they believe that this passage may be original.

It may be original. Others disagree, people like D .C. Parker, on Luke 2220, he believes the shorter ending is likely to be the original writing because it is more in line with Luke's theology.

It is more in line with Luke's narrative, his language. So Finland also concludes that there is a problem there in the

Gospel of Luke that this longer ending does not actually help the narrative, rather it creates a problem because of the manuscript evidence which can be discussed in due course.

The Gospel of John, John's lamp of God that takes away the sin of humanity.

Now amazingly, when you put the synoptic Gospels on one side and the Gospel of John on the other side, we do not see this formula, the lamp of God, put in the synoptic tradition.

For some reason, John's Gospel has this formula, this extension of this story where John the

Baptist had baptized Jesus in the River Jordan. E .P. Sanders on John's Gospel, he states, it is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents and there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50 % of what he said and another one, the other 50%, which with almost no overlaps.

Consequently, for the last 150 or so years, scholars have had to choose and they have almost unanimously and I think entirely correctly concluded that the teaching of the historical

Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic Gospels and that John represents an advanced theological development in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person as if Jesus said them.

So scholars do believe that the Gospel of John cannot fully serve as a source of history of Jesus, rather synoptic tradition is to be preferred.

Now, James versus Paul. Paul is the man who came up with this theory of atonement, salvation through the cross, as seen already that in the

Old Testament, there are plenty of passages to claim or to assert that salvation can be sought or can be achieved by other means other than blood sacrifice.

The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus put a stress on the law, follow the law and you will have salvation, you will have eternal life.

Luke does not talk about atonement to my knowledge and John cannot be trusted when it comes to historicity of these events.

So who are we left with? Paul and Martin Luther in the 16th century believed that Paul and James are two opposite ends.

They are opposing each other theologically and James is saying one thing and Paul is saying another and it is impossible to reconcile them.

It is impossible to reconcile them. In fact, for this reason, Martin Luther referred to the epistle of James as an epistle of straw, having praised it for his good teachings, for his usefulness and it can be used by Christians.

He has nothing against those who use it, but he doesn't consider it any important. He thinks it is an epistle of straw.

Why? Because James taught the law. James upheld the law.

He believed in salvation through belief with works, not belief only as Paul put it.

There are so many passages, Galatians 2 .16 where Paul talks about not following the law necessarily for salvation.

Same formula is repeated in Romans. 3 .19 -28, Galatians 3 .10,

Galatians 3 .24 -25. Paul is consistently saying the law is no longer necessary.

The sacrifice of Jesus has done it for us. We don't have to follow the law anymore. We simply have to believe in his sacrifice and we will have salvation.

James on the other hand, he is on the other side of the fence. He states that you cannot believe and not follow the law.

You cannot have faith without good works. And that's what James was talking about.

It seems the entire epistle of James was written on Paul. And the rest will be talked about in my 10 minutes when

I return. Thank you so much for listening. Time. Thank you, Mr.

Rashid. We will now be heading into our rebuttal period.

Dr. White will start with his 10 minute rebuttal. Could we have a tech that could possibly come up just to make sure that our laptops are, you're gonna be using a laptop this time?

I'm not gonna be using it anymore. I think we're okay.

We're doing fine. And before we start that timer, since Adnan jumped the gun, okay.

Yes, I did remember you, Adnan. And you all are gonna appreciate this. I have two gifts for Adnan.

The first will help him get around Atlanta tomorrow. So what you do,

Adnan, is you wear this. And if anybody gives you any trouble, you go, rise up, and they'll leave you alone, okay.

So there you go. There's sort of the funny one.

Though it does look like it should be fairly warm. So that'd be pretty nice. The serious one, I very much appreciate.

That's a, if you didn't know what that was, that's a Beza Latin New Testament. Over there, I'm very, very appreciative of that.

But for you, I have a real nice ESV study

Bible here. It's actually small enough. You might be able to get it into your luggage and be able to get it all the way back to London.

So I did remember you. So thank you very much. All right, there you go. I didn't forget.

I just normally wait till a later point. So okay, here we go. All right, so much to cover there.

But I want to remain focused upon the real key issues. So let me just deal with some of the major statements that were made and then focus upon what

I think is the necessary thing for us to be thinking about this evening in what

Adnan had just presented to us. Couple of things. Luke and Acts were said, there was a discussion of, well, it's agreed that no one really knows who wrote these things.

When you actually look at Luke -Acts as a set, there are specific names mentioned.

I mean, if there is any of the New Testament Gospels and early histories that are specifically identified for us as to their authorship, it would be the

Luke -Acts pair. So I'm not sure where that comes from. And it's interesting that when we looked at Mark 10 .45

and Mark's specific language of Jesus giving his life as a ransom for many, it's interesting.

He said, well, but Luke didn't include that. Why not? It's not a question about Luke including or not including it.

Mark, according to the theories that he's presenting, is earlier than Luke. So if this is something that develops later on, why does the primitive gospel have it and the later gospel not?

That would be backwards. The point is, if Mark has it, it is extremely primitive. And so it seems to me that that sort of actually militates against the position.

He says, well, there is no atonement theology in Acts. Well, if what you mean is there is no extended discussions like you have in Hebrews or Romans or places like that,

Acts is meant to be... I personally think that the best theory for explaining the function of Acts is it was an explanation as Paul is in prison.

Because it ends where we don't want it to end, doesn't it? Paul's in prison. We don't know what happens.

I think one of the best theories as to the very form and function of Acts is it was like an amicus brief.

It was a demonstration of what this early Christian movement was about and a demonstration that it was not something that the

Roman people, the Roman government should be persecuting. And so its focus is upon what the early history was.

Yes, what the message was, but it's not meant to be a systematic theology. And yet, as we saw in Acts 2 and Acts 4, absolutely central to the apostolic proclamation was the cross.

The fact that God predetermined that it would happen and that without the cross, there can be no forgiveness of sins.

Just because it doesn't dwell upon that or have chapters of explication like the book of Hebrews does, does not mean that it was not a part of the primitive teaching of the church at that particular point in time.

I would just very, very quickly point out that in Luke 22, 19, Codex Vese Cantabrigensis, Codex D that Adnan was speaking of, is like the living

Bible of the early church. Beza himself said it was more to be stored than studied.

It is the most variant manuscript in the early period. And that phraseology is actually found in P75, which is our best early papyri, which is at least over 200 years earlier than Beza.

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 579, and all the rest of the Byzantine manuscripts contain it as well.

They just have it in a slightly different phraseology where the last word comes first and the rest of them are the same. So the phrase is found in all but one of the

Greek manuscripts. And that's a Latin diglot that is extremely questionable in all those things.

But I'd like to point out that very phraseology is used in 1 Corinthians 11, which if I'm correct,

I think Adnan dates Paul before Luke. So that would mean that that phraseology predates

Luke's writing of it. So it's not being there is not really an issue. We can get into the textual critical stuff.

As you can tell, that's something I like to get into. But I want to focus upon something else right now.

At the very beginning of Adnan's presentation, I think we have the key to this evening's discussion.

I mean, might've been the first 30 seconds. Might've been the first 30 seconds.

Where he used the phraseology erroneous or abrogated.

He was talking about this idea that, well, what Paul's saying is it's just by faith.

And I really think that Adnan has a deficient understanding of Paul's doctrine.

In Ephesians chapter two, Paul lays it out. For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus, what?

Unto good works which God has before ordained that we walk in them.

Paul and James are not in contradiction with one another. If you follow

James two carefully, I spent 24 pages on this subject and the God who justifies.

Follow beginning at chapter two, verse 14. They are saying the exact same thing.

Paul emphasizes that the very work of the spirit of God within us is to bring about a conformance, the image of Christ, that we do what is glorifying to him, but it is not the merit of my actions that brings about my goodness before God.

And that's the issue. The issue is not that the New Testament is saying that those Old Testament laws were erroneous or abrogated.

That's not what Paul was saying. That's not what any of the New Testament writers are saying. The proper term is fulfilled.

Not erroneous, not abrogated, fulfilled. That is they pointed forward to something else and in Jesus Christ, the law finds its perfect fulfillment so that when we are united with him, indwelt by his spirit, it then becomes the work of the spirit and the word to sanctify us and make us more like Christ.

We can only truly fulfill the law when we have died to the law in Jesus Christ.

He is the one that fulfilled it perfectly. We are united to him by faith. And then when we are born again and made new creatures in him, we are indwelt by his spirit and empowered to do what is pleasing before God, not to add to our righteousness, but to glorify

God. This is the balanced understanding. When you take all of the New Testament, and obviously,

Adnan's not gonna take all the New Testament because if you're quoting James D .G.

Dunne and people like that, you've already started with the presupposition that the New Testament is an incoherent, contradictory work.

Well, the problem is, well, you may certainly believe that, but if we do a debate on what the

Quran teaches on this, I'm at least gonna start off by saying, well, consistently, if we allow all the

Quran to speak, this is the position, and so let's debate that position. But in general, mainly because the

New Testament is so much bigger than the Quran is as a whole. I mean, the Quran's only like 53 % the length of the

New Testament. In most of the conversations we end up having between myself and my Muslim friends, the assumption is that you can create contradiction between the

New Testament writers rather than stepping back and going, is there a consistent way of hearing everything that the

New Testament writers are saying? I say to you that there is. It's the concept of fulfillment.

So for example, he brought up the issue of the rich young ruler and says, see, here's what we

Muslims believe. You do the law and you're gonna be right with God, but that misses what happened, isn't it?

Doesn't that miss it? The man walks away sad. Why?

Because he had many possessions. And you see, Jesus had known when he quoted the law to this man, he knows that as the prophet

Jeremiah says over and over again, he knows the heart of man. And my friends, this evening,

I'll just be perfectly honest with you. The only way for us really to come to any kind of agreement, understanding on this issue is for each one of us in the light of God's word to look at our own heart and ask the question, if it's up to me, if it's up to me, if I'm the one that has to bring repentance out of my own heart, if I'm the one that has to keep that law, am

I going to fail or am I going to succeed? One of the things we're gonna need to talk about as we get into this conversation more is when you say that that's the

Muslim position, well, what about, for example, the salvation of the man who killed 99 people and killed 100th person and Allah takes him to heaven?

Over against some of the Sahaba who wept at their death because they were uncertain whether they were going to enter into Allah's presence.

There is no objective means of knowing which you're going to be facing. And the real question comes down to, as I look into my own heart, don't

I realize that if it is up to me, I'm not gonna make it? I need a powerful mediator to stand between me and that holy

God. That's what Job said, I need a mediator. And we have that mediator. And in Islam, you don't have that mediator.

That's really where the issue is. Is the law a matter of fulfillment? Christ has done it and now by his spirit, he's working that within us.

Is the cross necessary? Yes, when we recognize the power of God seen in it.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. White. We now have a 10 minute rebuttal from Mr.

Rashid. So I was talking about James and Paul.

Dr. White came back and he talked about the sacrifice again and what

Paul had said and I don't understand Paul's theology. I understand Paul's theology perfectly well. I simply don't have the time to go through Paul's evolving theology in his epistles.

What I need to do is to show that Paul's theology of the cross was not consistent with the

Old Testament primarily and then the synoptic tradition because the synoptic authors,

Matthew, Mark and Luke are clearly not interested in what Paul had to say later on.

No doubt, scholars believe that Paul wrote before the three gospels or the four gospels.

There's no doubt about that. This is why some people believe that Paul actually influenced some of the redactors of these gospels.

Now, James said there is no evidence for, you know, textual variations of certain passages

I quoted. Most textual scholars believe that majority of the changes or alterations into the manuscripts of the

New Testament were made before the second century. They were made before the second century and most of our manuscripts come from the second century onwards.

So by the time these manuscripts we have today in international libraries around the world, by the time they were penned, all the alterations had already been made into these manuscripts.

We simply cannot reach the original text. That venture is already over.

The scholars of textual criticism or the textual history of the Bible have already declared that we are no longer looking for the original text of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John because we simply cannot find it.

It is impossible to reach it in the 21st century or to reconstruct a book that was written in the first century

CE. Coming back to the topic again, James versus Paul. I still believe that James was a very important figure who is ignored, generally speaking, in the

Christian circles because there is a lot of stress on Paul's doctrine of salvation through the cross.

It's a beautiful idea. Someone was killed on the cross, Jesus Christ, all be a

Jesus Christ, and he freed you from sin. He freed you from the wrath of God.

You have the redemption, right? He died for your sins, so you have the salvation. It's a beautiful idea.

If I didn't know what I know today or what I have known for years,

I would be a Christian. It's a beautiful idea, but I cannot simply come around to overcome these troubling issues we are discussing today.

So James was an important figure. According to Paul, even Paul acknowledged in his writings that James is a very important figure.

In fact, we have been told by later historians such as Eusebius and others that James was the leader of the

Jerusalem church. James was the successor of Jesus Christ. WHC friend, another historian, patristic historian, states that James was the actual leader of the church, the man who decided many of the matters concerning the flock of Jesus Christ after his departure.

So in the book of Acts, we are told about these discussions where Paul is having these discussions with James and the council of the disciples of Jesus Christ.

And lo and behold, guess what? What are they actually discussing? They are discussing the matter of the law.

Paul is adamant that the Gentiles don't have to follow the law of the Jewish people.

On the other hand, we have James the just or the brother of Jesus Christ insisting that they have to follow some law such as abstaining from meat that is sacrificed for the idols.

The issue of circumcision is being discussed. So if Jesus has died on the cross for our sins, he has redeemed us.

Why are these discussions taking place in Jerusalem between Paul and the disciples of Jesus Christ?

What is the point? Why can't Paul simply tell them it's over? We don't need to discuss the matter of law.

You know Jesus died for our sins. They certainly didn't believe what Paul believed in. That's why there was a conflict between James and Paul.

That's why Martin Luther in the 16th century had trouble in reconciling

James with Paul and he made the statement that you can see on the screen. Many sweat hard at reconciling

James with Paul, but unsuccessfully, faith justifies Paul's stance in flat contradiction to faith does not justify alone

James 2 .24. If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I'll put my doctor's cap on him and let him call me a fool,

Martin Luther. So it is clear that James and Paul are both standing on opposite sides of the fence and James was definitely an authoritative figure.

He was very close to Jesus Christ. He spent time with Jesus Christ. He was one of those people who spent months with Jesus Christ and learned directly from Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, we have Paul who appears to have received this revelation after Jesus Christ and his revelation seems to abrogate everything

Jesus did, such as teaching the importance of the law. Jesus telling his followers that you will not have salvation, you will not have eternal life until your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of Pharisees and the scribes.

What does that mean? Why is Jesus telling them that? If he is going to die for the sins of his disciples primarily and the rest of the world, this is the point to tell his disciples, don't worry about it.

Don't worry about the law. I'm going to die soon for your sins. There's nothing to worry about. But he keeps on telling them, do not break the law.

Observe the law, follow the Jewish law. This is a messianic figure, a Jewish prophet teaching

Jews. And in fact, some people even claim that he only came for the Jews as he himself stated in the book of Matthew 15, verse 24, that I did not come for anyone but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Then in chapter 28, verse 19, in the book of Matthew, we are told that he said to his disciples, they're going to the nations to baptize them in the name of the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Right? And some of the scholars, current scholars today, conservative scholars, not liberals or someone who rejects supernaturalism, people like Bram Stanton, he states that this passage is a later development because in the book of Acts, we are told that the disciples were baptizing in the name of Jesus, not in the name of a

Trinity. In the book of Matthew, we are told that Jesus said to his disciples to baptize in the name of three persons.

So are the Christians guaranteed salvation? Let's assume for a second that Jesus did die on the cross for our sins.

But when we read some of the passages in the

New Testament, in fact, writings of Paul, we come to realize that actually salvation is not guaranteed.

It is not guaranteed at all. Why? Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

None of these people. Then who did Jesus die for is the question. If Jesus died for his sins, then how does that sacrifice actually benefit?

Here, Paul seems to be saying that if you do these things, then you do not have the kingdom of heaven.

You do not inherit it. And another passage in Galatians 5, 19, everyone seems to be doomed.

Why? Think about it. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, you name it.

Now if we read this list and think about it, then the question

I ask is who is safe? Who is safe? Every single one of us is doomed.

Every single one of us. And we don't know to what extent, what is the magnitude of these sins? How much or how many do we have to commit in order to lose salvation, to lose the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven?

How many? To what exact extent is Paul referring here? Is just one transgression enough?

Is it repetitive sinning? If so, how regular are these various sins hierarchical?

In other words, are all the sins weighed equally or are some worse than others?

Don't all Christians, all of humanity even have selfish ambitions and jealousies? Do we not drink, some of us?

I don't. But do people not drink? Christians who believe in the cross, do they not drink?

So do you have salvation according to the writings of Paul? Do you?

Is the question. So there are problems. And in this passage in front of me, the time is up, so I will have to come back to some of these issues in the next rebuttal.

Thank you so much for listening. Thank you, Mr. Rashid. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're now gonna give you a 10 -minute break before we start our cross -examination period.

Also during this time, if you'd like to be able to take some pieces of paper and bring one question per person up here, we would like to have one question for Dr.

White and one question for Adnan Rashid as well. And so we can take a look at those.

I will pick the best three for each man at the end, okay? Thank you so much.

We'll see you in 10 minutes. Okay, ladies and gentlemen. First of all,

I want to take time to recognize and to thank Josh Bice and the

G3 Conference and all of their volunteers for really allowing us to put this debate on.

Once again, we had a great time last year. And once again, this year, we are really delving deep into some things.

And the cross -examination is always, I think, the most scintillating of the times that we have.

But it is great that, unlike many of the debates that I've moderated over the past 20 years, that these two gentlemen do respect each other.

So what I don't believe what you're gonna be hearing is any game -playing, which, sadly, that's something that you see quite often in cross -examination periods.

So a lot of this, I believe, will be quite easy for me. Now, one thing that I want to ask of you,

I know that we have many people that are in our audience that are apologists, that many of you are brilliant scholars in your own right and so forth.

I would ask, please, though, that you refrain from commenting out loud during the debate and holding your own debate or your responses to Adenon or to Dr.

White. If you could, please, I would ask, please keep the chatter down during the debate, please.

I've already had many people come up to me and complain about some of these things. We're all Christians. Let's just say that even during, well, not all of us are

Christians, of course. Sorry. Yes, I know. Yes, we do have a mixed audience, which is what we wanted, anyway, yes.

We all do want to respect each other, and if you are able to, although I was not able to keep my mouth shut during the last

Star Wars film, throwing my popcorn at the screen and nearly getting kicked out, I would just hope that you could respect the event itself.

Other people have paid and have taken pains to be here. I would imagine many of you that are here are not native

Floridians or Georgians, that you're able to drive through the snow to get here. But if you could please just respect those that are around you that are here to listen to each one of the apologists and to be able to then formulate those things in their own minds.

And with that, we are going to start the cross -examination period.

Dr. White cross -examining Adnan Rashid, and then Mr. Rashid will be cross -examining

Dr. White. All right. I have a timer, so we're good.

Okay, Adnan, before everyone forgets what you were just saying, well, everyone already has, but we'll assume that they haven't.

You just quoted from 1 Corinthians chapter six, verses nine through 10.

And you basically said, well, then for whom did Christ die? Was that what

I understood you were saying? Yeah. Okay. Do you have a Bible program up or could you use that really nice ESV study

Bible I gave you or whatever, however? Could you read the very next verse after the one you quoted?

You want me to read now? Well, I can read it for you if you like. Go ahead, please. Go ahead, yeah. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit of our God. So the statement that Paul is making is all those things, the idolaters, fornicators, thieves, covetous, drunkards, swindlers, such were some of you, but there was a radical change, but you were washed, but you were sanctified.

The only way you could be washed is in the blood of Christ. So doesn't the text actually answer the question?

And that is anyone who can turn in faith, anyone who turns in faith to Jesus Christ, even these people are listed here.

We'll find him to be the one who is able to bring about their sanctification and justification. Isn't that what the very next verse says?

Yes, it does, but you have to read Paul holistically, right? This is what I've learned from you. Paul. You have to read

Paul holistically. Holistically, yes. Right? And when you read Paul, I mean, for example,

Hebrews 6, 4, 6, it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the

Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away to be brought back to repentance.

So here Paul is talking about someone who has had the Holy Spirit, someone who has been enlightened, someone who has believed in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And if someone goes away, it is impossible to bring such a person back. So there is no salvation if you have believed in the cross and somehow break the rules of the cross, whatever they are, you cannot be brought back according to this passage.

This is how I understand it. Guess what the passage of the sermon from last

Sunday that I preached was? Okay. Hebrews chapter six. Right. So if you have it up.

And how do you respond to that then? Well, it's my turn to ask you questions. I'd love to do that, but if you have it up, you could look at verses nine and 10 and you'll notice that Paul says, well, and we're not sure that Paul wrote

Hebrews. You directly said that he was, but I theoretically think that he did, but that's another issue.

The writer specifically states, but we are convinced of better things concerning you, things which accompany salvation.

So I think that is a misapplication of Hebrews six, first of all, especially with what comes afterwards at the end of the chapter.

But going back to first Corinthians chapter six, the point is, and you said reading him holistically, well, first you got to read him in his initial context.

He is saying that all of these kinds of people can be saved because of the cross. Would you at least say that that's what's being said in first Corinthians chapter six?

Okay, let's assume that's true. Let's assume for a second that's true. Does that mean that anyone who believes in the cross can do all those things?

I'm not saying they wouldn't. I'm not asking whether they would. If someone who believes in the cross and continues to commit adultery and drink, fornicate, lie, cheat, steal.

Right, are you familiar with Paul's words in the book of Romans when he says, shall we continue in sin that grace may increase?

May it never be. How shall we who died to sin still live in it? I know of that. I'm not asking whether they would.

I'm asking if they would, if they did. Let's say someone who believes in the cross, who believes in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who died for our sins.

Okay. If someone was to commit those sins, what would you say about that?

That would be a good question for you to ask me during your time to ask me questions. We're trying to be focused on something here.

Okay, you have stated a number of times that you believe that the apostle

Paul is opposed to the law. That he teaches somehow in a way that is completely opposed to Jesus and the apostles on the issue of the law.

Could I direct your attention to Romans chapter three for a second, assuming that you would agree with me that Paul -

I don't believe Paul was opposed to the law. I don't believe that. I believe he contradicted the

Old Testament as well as the Jesus tradition. And James.

Okay, he contradicted it by stating it was not God's law or what?

He simply stated that you have to believe in the cross or you have to believe in Jesus Christ and you don't need to follow the law or do good deeds.

There are plenty of passages I can quote in this regard. Okay, but good, when you say you don't have to do good deeds so your understanding is he was saying that your good deeds cannot save you.

No, my understanding is that you do not have to do good deeds for salvation. To gain it or that it's the purpose of God?

To have salvation, simply to have salvation. Paul is saying you just have to believe in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice and you have salvation without works.

And so when he - You want me to read some passages? Well, believe me, I'm just asking you to explicate why then does he say that it is

God's purpose that we walk in good works? Walking in or doing good works -

Do you want me to give the text? I'm sorry, I forgot to give you the text. Do you want me to read the text to you? No, no, it's okay, it's fine.

Doing good deeds is one thing. I'm not saying Paul is telling people not to do good deeds.

I never claimed that. I never claimed that and I never will claim that. I'm saying Paul's view was that you just have to believe in Jesus Christ's sacrifice and you have salvation.

And when we read others, they're contradicting him. People like James, in chapter two,

James is simply, in fact, calling someone a fool for believing that. I don't know, some people claim that James, like for example, do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?

Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

Right. Now this is from Genesis 15, right? It is, well, no, Genesis 22. No, 15,

Genesis 15, this is from Genesis 15. Not when he offers his sacrifice, no. No, this passage is from Genesis 15, six, if I don't -

Well, that's, if you're talking about offering, are you talking about the offering of Isaac? Yes.

That's not Genesis 15. I'm talking about Abraham's righteousness. Initial justification? Yeah, yeah, that's right.

That's Genesis 15, six. Yeah, yeah, that's it. So James is quoting that, so is

Paul. Paul takes a completely different view of that passage, that very verse, or that passage, from James.

So - Have you read my 24 -page chapter on James chapter two, which deals with this in depth?

Right. But does it clarify, does it justify it, or does it reconcile it? I certainly think it did.

That's why I wrote it. If Luther couldn't, or others like Luther, couldn't reconcile

James and Paul, I don't know how we can do it today. I'll try to fit it into my closing to explain why that is, but the point is, it sounds like you think that James is saying that you, that faith in Christ is not enough, and that that's only part of it, and that your good works have merit that add to what

Christ did. No, what I understand from James is James is saying that your faith alone, without works, is not enough.

That means - Alone. Faith accompanied by works is real faith.

That's real faith. And what was that faith in? That faith is in Jesus Christ, of course.

Which you don't believe in. Which, who? You don't believe that faith in Jesus Christ is gonna save you. I believe in Jesus Christ.

I mean, this is part - I know you believe he's the Jewish messiah and prophet. I don't believe in Jesus Christ like Christians do today.

No, I don't. Or as James would have? I believe, I mean, look, that's another issue now.

Do we have what James might have written completely? Do we have,

I mean, the epistle of James was problematic, right? I'm trying to help you here. Problematic? Yeah, it was considered non -canonical by many church fathers, as you are well aware of it.

It is missing in the list of many church fathers. And Luther, actually, in his writings, alludes to that point, that James was not even considered canonical by many church fathers for the reasons he stated, that it contradicts

Paul. And it lacks apostolic authority.

These are the words of Luther, and I have the quotes here with me. I can read them if you want. So, James was a contested book.

Right, the time is up. Mr. Rashid's time to ask Dr. White questions. And we'll just go ahead and repeat again is that we do want to make sure that one person is asking questions and the other person is answering.

We're trying, we're trying. Okay. Maybe I'm too imposing. Not at all.

Okay, James, question number one. We read the

Old Testament and we find passages all over the place that Israelites simply repent and God forgives them.

We have similar passages in the New Testament where we are asked to repent and we will be forgiven.

So, why does God have to kill his son to forgive us?

Why can't he simply, like in Islam, we believe that you simply turn to God and ask for repentance and you will have your forgiveness.

Why can't simply, God simply forgive us? Well, if you read all of the

Old Testament and allow all of it to speak, there's this huge swath called the

Mosaic Law. And that law has a function. That function is to show us our sin and to bring conviction of that sin.

And you have this incredible thing called Yom Kippurim, the Day of Atonement. You have high priests, you have sacrifices.

And this theme is found in all of the prophets and in all of the historical works.

And so, when I see God calling Israel to repent and he will forgive,

I don't interpret that outside the light of the fact that God has established this law.

And when I look at that law, Adnan, it demands the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin.

And it does provide for other kinds of sacrifices, Thanksgiving sacrifices, oil sacrifices, et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, but when it comes to, it's sometimes called Yom Kippur, but it's really Yom Kippurim.

It's their multiple atonements were made on that day. Leviticus chapter 16. There is the necessity of the shedding of blood.

And the highest point in the Jewish religious year is when the high priest enters into the holy place with the sacrifice, right?

James, when you claim necessity. I'm sorry? When you claim necessity, what is that necessity for?

The reason I'm looking back, I can hear you better back here than over there. Necessity of what?

When you said the necessity of blood sacrifice. Yes, it's specifically laid out in the law as part of the covenant documents, the relationship that God has with his people.

So what happened to all those Israelites who couldn't do that? The temple was destroyed and they were in exile.

And what happened then? Which time of the destruction? The first time? The first and the second.

Okay, well, after the first time of the destruction, you have God having the temple rebuilt.

So you have Nehemiah. Not immediately, as we know. Well, there's a period of exile, but when he brings the people back in the land.

In that period of exile, what are the Israelites doing for their salvation, for their forgiveness?

Well, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't believe that it was the doing of those actions of the law that brought salvation.

It's when you look at what those actions were, they were pointing to something more. They were prophetic.

And in fact, I'm not sure that a Muslim is consistent in arguing against this.

And here's why. You believe in prophetic utterances.

Yes, we do. The Quran itself, I wasn't asking, I'm sorry. I'm just making a statement there. But for example, the

Quran says that the people of the book find prophecies of Muhammad in their scriptures.

Yes. So we see, and the New Testament plainly teaches, for example, in the book of Hebrews, the fulfillment of what is found in the types and shadows, in the sacrifices that point to a greater sacrifice, and that is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So when I read the Psalter, and I read David pouring out his heart in repentance toward God, and God grants forgiveness,

I recognize that there must be a grounds upon which God can give that forgiveness.

And that's where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. But then - Would you agree?

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Go ahead. If that is the case, James, if these are prophetic passages or prophetic ideas, in the

Old Testament, where blood sacrifice has something to say for the future, why didn't

Jesus simply explain that to his disciples?

Why didn't he say, look at these examples, all these examples in the past. I am the fulfillment.

I will die for your sins on the cross. Like he did in Luke 24, 44? Sorry? Luke 24, 44 through 45?

Right, what does it say? After the resurrection, he meets with his disciples, and he says, everything that is written about me in the law of Moses, the

Psalms, and the prophets must be fulfilled. No, atonement is the issue here. Atonement, where does he tell them that I am that atonement,

I am that redemption? Okay, the only way that we can know, because we have two verses that tell us that Jesus did all this talking to disciples.

We're not told what he said. You know how we can find out what he said? The sermons and the writings of the people that followed and spread his message.

And so when we look at how the Old Testament is used in the preaching and acts,

Acts 2, 24, Acts 4 quotes directly from the Old Testament. What's it about?

The suffering of the Messiah. You see Isaiah 53 being brought in. Where'd they get these ideas? I would say they got them from Jesus.

Isaiah 53 is a very interesting passage. I know Christians believe that it is a prophecy for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

You know, Jewish rabbis have disagreed with you for centuries, right? Well aware of it. But there is something

I have come across in Isaiah 53, which is very interesting. When you were reading the passage, you actually talked about, or you mentioned the word progeny.

I didn't read the entire chapter. I didn't read the entire chapter. No, you read the part I'm concerned about.

Oh, okay, good. Where it simply states that he will see his offspring. And then you said, this is the offspring.

You had to stop there and you had to explain what offspring actually means. Why is that?

Because when we go to Hebrew, there is this word zira, right, which means offspring.

And according to Hebrew lexicons, we are told that this actually means semen. Literally, the substance that produces offspring.

And it is very similar to the Arabic term zuriya. I'm aware of the Arabic language.

So Hebrew and Arabic languages are sister languages. They're very similar to each other.

So here, the Jewish rabbis, this is why the Jews find it very difficult to believe that this is about Jesus, because it simply states that he will see his offspring.

Now, and we cannot blame the Jews for holding this view because they have their linguistic tradition and they interpret this passage, or this particular verse, in the light of that linguistic tradition and prolong his days.

Is there a question in here somewhere? Yeah, that's a question, yeah. So how can you ignore that, the linguistic side of?

I didn't ignore it because the seed of Abraham is as the stars of the sky. So obviously, this is not meant to be taken in a literal fashion.

This is a poetic section. You'll notice it says right before that, if he would render himself as a guilt offering.

Well, how can someone be rendered as a guilt offering under the Old Testament law? This is obviously poetic, and when you look at it, you have to ask the questions, well, what does this mean?

When it says he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days. That doesn't mean he's gonna have a bunch of kids. What it, when you look at everything that it says, my servant will justify the many as he will bear their iniquities.

So you choose to interpret certain verses literally and others metaphorically?

This is a prophecy. Yes. And so prophecy has to be taken in such a fashion as to have a fulfillment.

Right. And when you look at all of this and say, okay, what one thing can fulfill all of this?

There's only one thing that can. There is no place where the nation of Israel, for example, the normal rabbinic interpretation of this, could ever fulfill all of these things.

And in fact, there's a number of places where the nation itself is in view as the object of the redemption. He will bear their iniquities.

Who will bear their iniquities? The people of Israel will bear the people's iniquities? That doesn't make any sense.

Well, Jewish rabbis and Jewish scholars have written books on this topic. But, yes they have, and we've written books in response.

And I think, I point people to the debates that have been done on that. I think they're actually conclusive. But from a

Muslim perspective, I am confused by your criticism of the text because the

Quran identifies Jesus as the Mashiach. Yes. How were the

Jews supposed to know Jesus was the Messiah if these are not the very prophetic texts that would have held them accountable for knowing that?

One of the reasons why. I'm sorry, I was not supposed to ask that question. It's okay, I'm just gonna respond to that very quickly. One of the reasons why Jewish priests at the time rejected

Jesus was that he was killed on the cross, allegedly. And they had this view that the

Messiah cannot be killed. Psalms 91, where it is clearly stated that he will be saved,

God will protect him. And that's one of the problems we can discuss in due course. So, that's why the

Quran confirms that, that he was not killed on the cross. He was the Messiah promised to the Jews. Jesus was not killed on the cross.

He was saved, he was lifted up, he was raised high, he ascended to the heavens, and that's it. Okay, so now

I'm asking questions of you for 10. Continuing with what you just said, though, it struck me.

You said one of the reasons that the Jews rejected Jesus was because he died on the cross.

How do you make that fit with Surah 4, verse 157 and its denial of the historical reality of the crucifixion of Jesus?

I mean, we're not debating that, but it's obviously central to this issue.

You can't even really seriously consider what the New Testament says about the death of Christ, because you don't believe it actually took place.

I accept that the four Gospels are unanimous. All the historical record we have at our disposal tells us that Jesus was crucified.

However, the Quran tells us that he was not crucified. And the

Old Testament also agrees with that, according to what we understand.

For example, I mean, this is something I would like to highlight very quickly. When we go to the book of Psalms, sorry,

Psalms 91, and we see the book of Matthew actually referred to this passage, where when we read the entire book, sorry, let me find the passages

I'm talking about. They seem to have lost. 9111, for he will give his angels charge concerning you to guard you in all ways.

He'll bury you up in your hands that you don't strike your foot against stone. Right, one second, yeah. Basically, in the book of Luke, chapter four, verse 10, and Matthew four, chapter four, verse five, six, there is a dialogue between the devil and Jesus Christ, right, and the devil tells

Jesus Christ that you will be saved, right? And there are striking similarities between what the wording devil uses and what we find in Psalms 91.

And Psalms 91 is entirely about someone being saved. Verse three, for example, surely he will save you.

Verse four, he will cover you. Verse five, you will not fear. Verse eight, you will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.

Verse 10, then no harm will befall you. Verse 11, for he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

They will lift you up in their hands. And this is very much in agreement with the Quran. The Quran says that he was saved from crucifixion and he was lifted up.

He was simply lifted up, he was raised above so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

This is the point. This is where it agrees word by word with Matthew four, chapter four, verse five, six.

So Jesus doesn't actually deny the passage. He doesn't say, it's not me that passage is talking about.

Rather, Jesus says, it also states in the scripture. He confirms what the devil says and then he also states in the scripture, do not tempt

God, right? So book of Matthew clearly states that Psalms 91 refers to Jesus Christ.

When we read Psalms 91, we see he is being saved. He's not killed.

How do you respond to that? What do we do with that? Well, it's actually my turn to ask you questions but wouldn't you understand that the fact that Jesus is resurrected from the dead as the ultimate form of salvation is how

I answer that question by asking you a question. But that's not quite answering it. That's not quite answering it. Wouldn't you recognize, however, that any type of shadow cannot be as clear as its fulfillment?

So in other words, prophecy in the Old Covenant has to be by nature less than its fulfillment.

So if you're saying that the Old Testament prophecies have to be identical to what happens in the

New Testament, then you can't have a greater mediator or a greater covenant or any of those things.

You're limited only to Old Testament categories. So how do you answer the question, how were the

Jews supposed to know Jesus was the Messiah? By his works. It's very simple.

By him claiming to be the Messiah based upon what he read from the

Old Testament, right? So Jesus could make reference to the

Old Testament and say, this proves that I'm the Messiah. Yes, yes, absolutely. So where is there any place in the

Old Testament where there is a prophecy that could possibly live up to the level of clarity that you just demanded from Psalm 91?

By the way, it's Psalm 91. Psalms 91, yes. It's not Psalms, it's Psalm. Right, okay.

You don't say songs 91. That's my, okay, right. Psalm 91. When I say

Psalms, the book of Psalms, chapter 91. Just one of my little pet peeves, sorry. It was like you were pulling your fingernails down a chalkboard.

Yeah. Right, so when we read this chapter, it is very clear that it's talking about a

Messianic figure who will be saved, right? And then the book of Matthew tells us that this passage is talking about Jesus.

It's very, very perplexing that then Matthew, Luke, and Mark go on to claim that Jesus died on the cross.

So your assumption is that dying on the cross is not being saved, even though Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also say he is then resurrected and exalted at the right hand of the

Father, which is the greatest form of salvation that could ever be. No, but if you read the chapter 91, it clearly states that he will not suffer.

He will not suffer. You will not fear. Jesus was clearly in a state of fear, right?

We know the passages where he fell on his face and he prayed to God in the garden of Gethsemane, right?

And there are other passages here. Okay, all right, we're gonna have to disagree on how you can even come up with these issues, but you said that Paul originated the atonement theory.

Was that your direct statement? Yeah, atonement by a human sacrifice. Yeah, in the form of Jesus Christ dying on the cross.

There are some theories that Paul had to come up with that because the

Jewish people had rejected the killed Messiah. They simply couldn't believe in a

Messiah who was killed on the cross or who was hung on a tree. And as the

Old Testament is very clear about that, that would be a curse, right? And Paul refers to that curse and turns that curse into a positive thing, right?

Yeah. So if that's the case though, and James is actually writing against Paul, why is there no condemnation of atonement theology in the

Epistle of James? Well, that's what it is. When James is telling whoever he's telling what he's telling that you cannot have faith alone without works.

That's not atonement theology. In other words, if in fact this radical thing does not find its origination in Psalm 22 and in Isaiah 53, but Paul came up with it, then wouldn't that be the central aspect of the book of James?

No, that is the atonement theology of Paul. Paul talks about the law no longer being necessary because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Law has become unnecessary because Jesus died on the cross for us.

I have passages here I can quote. Does James ever use the term atonement and say? No, he doesn't.

He doesn't have to. Because I don't think the term was even invented at that time or was even known to everyone.

Well, propitiation, there's all sorts of terms to be used, but when you actually read

James, it's an epistle exhorting people to live the

Christian life. This idea that it's some corrective. I don't even know where it comes from, but there's nothing in the epistle that even addresses the idea of denying substitutionary atonement, the sacrifice of Christ.

And in fact, let me just ask you to look at one text and tell me if it doesn't seem to sound just like Paul.

James 1, verse 18. In the exercise of his will, he brought us forth by the word of truth so that we would be a kind of first fruits among his creatures.

I mean, that sounds like Romans chapter eight. So why is he using Pauline language if he's actually trying to correct

Paul? That actually proves my point. That's a point in my favor, because when people refuse to accept that James is actually talking to Paul when he says you foolish man, you senseless man, people say he's not talking to Paul.

But if you're claiming that he's talking, he's using Paul's language, that means he's actually talking to Paul. But in agreement.

No, all the apostles would use this language. Right. No, but you're missing the point.

I'm saying if you're claiming that James was using Paul's language, that means he knew Paul's language.

If that's the case, he's talking to Paul and he's calling him a foolish man. Well, in James 2, 14, it specifically says can a faith that has no evidence of his existence save?

Do you think that's actually what Paul was teaching? Paul was teaching that, like, for example, let's read them.

Sorry. If everyone could please silence their cell phones. The time elapsed and I didn't get to it fast enough.

Right, okay, my turn. I hit cancel, it's supposed to stop.

I don't know why it doesn't. So this is the last 10 minutes, right?

All right, it's all yours. Right, so as we're talking about James and Paul, look,

James is talking about, and let's see what he has to say. What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works?

Can faith save you? Okay, you're starting way too far into the passage. I'm reading

James 2, 14, which is what you referred to. Right. Yeah, that's what it states. And then it goes on in verse 20, same chapter.

Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, or in some translations, you foolish man, that faith apart from works is barren?

Yes. Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son

Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works and faith was brought to completion by the works.

I'm gonna ask if we have a copy of the God who justifies in the back.

And if we do, I'm going to personally pay for it and ask that it be given, thank you, to brother, can you bring that up, brother?

Another present. Another present for you because I can't summarize a 24 -page exegesis right now, but let me just do this for you.

Okay. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works, can that faith save him?

Pistis has the Greek article there. It is functioning to say this kind of faith, it is a faith that cannot give evidence of its existence.

That is the faith that is being eschewed and condemned throughout this text.

And it is never, ever Paul's teaching that the faith that is produced by the spirit of God in the hearts of the elect of God's people is that kind of faith.

Okay, I'll stop you there because you're doing now exegesis, right? Yes. Okay. That's what we have to do with James.

Let's go to the book of Acts where the discussion is taking place on the issue of law, this very issue we're talking about.

This is where the problem was. Paul was in Jerusalem to justify himself for what he was doing.

You're talking about Acts 15? Yes, I'm talking about the book of Acts. This is a long, you know, discussion.

Yeah, but the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 15. Yes, exactly. So why are they discussing law?

Why are they even discussing it when Paul himself is clearly preaching to people that it is not necessary to follow the law anymore because Jesus died for our sins?

So, and Paul was, according to the book of Acts, accused of that very thing, that very idea.

Actually, if you look at Acts chapter 15, Adnan, Paul does give testimony concerning his ministry amongst the

Gentiles, but who gets up after him? So, sorry? But who gets up after him? Peter. Right.

And Peter then testifies in support of what Paul is saying.

Right. And then James concludes by saying what?

We're to write this letter to the Gentiles, and these are the things that are necessary to maintain unity amongst the believers, but there is no condemnation of Paul.

They agree with the message that we are justified by faith just as the

Gentiles are. So what was the conclusion of James? And there are two issues there. James is sitting in judgment, do you agree?

In Acts 15? Yes. Well, he is the person in charge of the council.

Thank you. But that does not mean that he was a pope or he was... No, I didn't claim that.

No, but he is running the show, shall we say. We have plenty of evidence to claim that James was the leader of the flock or the community or the

Christians, if you wanna call them that, although they weren't called Christians at this stage. As we know, the book of Acts tells us that the word

Christian was used in Antioch. He's one of the bishops of the Jerusalem church, yes. I don't even know if the term bishop is the right term to use for James at that time because James is still going to the temple, he's busy observing the law, he's arguing for the law, he's a zealot for the law.

These are the words, I'm using biblical words here, biblical terms to describe James as he's described in the

Bible. So when James gives his judgment, he talks about certain rules and laws to be followed by the

Gentiles, right? Avoiding things strangled, drinking blood. Thank you, why? None of those things were for justification, they were for the fellowship of the saints.

No, but why? So that the church would remain one church. The greatest fear, Adnan, that all of the apostles had was that there would be a split in the early community into a

Gentile Christian church and a Jewish Christian church. Paul had great fear of that. To be honest with you, every early movement has that great fear of a fundamental split.

Even Islam had the same concern, as you know. And so that is his concern, that is

Peter's concern, that is Paul's concern, and they recognize that if there is not a concern about having

Jewish believers they're not gonna be able to have the table fellowship and the unity that they need to have in the church.

But that specific text in Acts 15 specifically verifies that the

Gentiles are not to be put under the law to be able to gain justification.

They do not have to be circumcised, they do not have to enter into that covenant before they can enter in the new covenant.

There is unity between Paul and James and Peter. Right, so why does Paul, how does the unity come about?

Because Paul simply submits to what James. No, there is no, there is no, since Peter verifies what

Paul said, there is no rejection on James's part. Why would you read it that way? I have no idea why.

When James decided that certain rules and laws and regulations are to be followed by the Gentiles. Not for justification.

Right, I mean it doesn't say, does it say that in the text? Yeah, because when you look at what the rules are, they would never have been for how you make,

No, it's getting hot. It's getting heated now, right? No, no,

I think you're, I really honestly, I've dealt with Acts chapter 15 rather in depth because it is utilized by my

Roman Catholic friends in another context. So I've done a lot of work on it and I don't,

I really, really, really honestly believe. I'm gonna challenge you, I'm gonna ask you honestly to look carefully at what

I did with James chapter two. We left James chapter two. I will definitely do so. Because I honestly believe that the reason that Luther said, you quoted

Luther. Yes. You know why Luther said that? Because Luther was in a battle for his life with Roman Catholicism.

Yes. And as a result, and you've seen this in the history of Islam, there will be battles that go on and some people become somewhat imbalanced because they're fighting against a particular position.

You can, and I think must recognize that Acts 15 is consistent with a proper reading of James chapter two.

And this whole idea that you have that there is this loggerhead between them. I know lots of people who want to introduce problems in the

Bible want to make that argument. There is no reason for it. And I don't think it's consistent for you as a

Muslim who has your own book of revelation to begin with a presupposition in examining someone else's that I can simply take it apart and make it contradictory to itself.

One of the things that I did in my book on the Quran is I attempted to let the Quran speak for the

Quran first. If you allow James and Paul to speak for themselves first, you will discover that they are friends, not enemies.

I never claimed they were enemies. Theologically. I'm speaking allegorically there.

They are not theological enemies. I am aware of reconciliations or attempted reconciliations between James and Paul and I don't accept them as valid.

But you haven't read mine. Convincing, sorry? Have you read mine? I will have to read yours. You're gonna have to read mine, that's right. And see if it changes my mind.

Coming to another question. It is claimed that Jesus died willingly on the cross.

Yes. And there are some disturbing passages which I would like to hear your response on where it simply states that Jesus was simply not willing to die.

And again, it goes back to Psalms 91. Psalms chapter 91, right?

Okay. So in the book of Matthew, chapter 21, verse 22, we're told you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Right, Jesus is basically telling people that you will receive, if you pray for it, you will receive it. Then we are told he prayed in the

Gospel of Mark, chapter 14, 36. Father, he said, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me.

Right? Then Luke 22, 42. Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me.

Then Matthew 26, 39. My father, if it is possible, lay this cup. I'm gonna run out of time here.

Right, so go ahead. Okay, very, very quickly. When Jesus says, if you ask anything, he very clearly makes a part of his teaching that this must be in accordance with God's will.

He doesn't simply say to us, shut up.

Thank you. Sorry. He does not simply say, you can go and pray for a

Ferrari and I'm automatically gonna give it to you. It has to be in accordance with God's will because that makes your prayer, you're not forcing

God to do something. In the same way, in each one of those texts you just read, Jesus said, not my will, but yours.

Correct. So to really get to the normal Muslim objection to this as quickly as I can, when you say

Jesus did not want to die, what you really need to understand is what you're seeing in those words of Jesus is the sinless son of God.

This is not a fear of death. He recognizes he is going to become sin on the cross.

You don't believe that happened, but it's the only way to explain it because you believe Jesus was a prophet.

A prophet would not have mere fear of death. So why did Jesus say these things?

Because he knew he was going to be made sin upon the cross and that is how our salvation would take place.

Okay, gentlemen, we are now gonna move into the closing statements. Dr. White will close first.

He has 10 minutes and then Mr. Rashid will close after him.

Then we will go into some chosen audience questions at that time. Once again,

I thank all of you for being here, braving the cold and the snow. And of course, I thank

Adnan, 15 hour flights. You need to thank somebody for surviving something like that and coming all the way here.

Indeed, I have been very severely criticized by many for the fact that I openly profess my respect for and love for Muslim people such as Adnan.

I think Adnan would be the first person to say that he is not confused about what

James White believes, that James White is not trying to compromise with Islam, that James White is a critic of Islam, but that he recognizes that I criticize seeking to be fair and honest and truthful in what

I'm saying. And I think that's simply what it means to be a Christian. We serve him who is the truth and therefore we have to be truthful.

And that means there are some arguments that we cannot use because some arguments just aren't all that good. This evening, our subject is, is the cross necessary for salvation?

And I said in my opening, I demonstrate the centrality of the cross across the

New Testament, I would argue for everyone, all of the New Testament writers. The fulfillment of the prophetic stream from Isaiah and from Psalm 22.

And there's so many other places we could have gone to see that and to see the richness from which the apostles drew their own understanding of those

Old Testament texts, which I believe they received from Jesus through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and things like that.

We saw all of that, but then I closed by stating that really when you think about it, why is the cross necessary?

And you've heard Adnan and I speaking and we didn't get a chance to get into this. I wanted to get into some of the

Hadith. I wanted to talk about the Hadith where the man kills 99 people and then he kills the 100th person and yet he's ushered into paradise because he was going to a city to find out about repentance.

And we should have spent some more time, I think, talking about how God's law is fulfilled and the fact from the

Christian perspective, atonement is necessary so that his law is fulfilled. So God's not just simply saying, well, you've killed 100 people,

I'm gonna let you in anyways because you're one cubit closer to a city you were going to. From the Christian perspective, that simply doesn't make any sense.

And then right in that same section in Sahih Muslim, and that Hadith actually is one of the Hadith could see.

I wanted to ask you whether you gave that more weight and we can't get into that now, but in that same section in Sahih Muslim is our three

Hadith that talk about how on the day of judgment, there could be certain Muslims that have come to judgment that have a pile of sins and their sins would be placed upon a

Jew or a Christian. It's in the exact same section of Sahih Muslim. I don't know, maybe Adnan will take the time to comment as whether he accepts those

Hadith as being valid or not. But there are so many of the things we could have been talking about that all come back to the issue that is found in the thesis statement, which is a little bit different than arguing about James chapter two.

I'll argue about James chapter two. But is the cross necessary?

Why is it necessary? From the Christian perspective, it's because we recognize the deadness of man in sin and the darkness of his heart.

This is not Paul. Read Jeremiah. Spend some serious time with the prophet

Jeremiah and he will tell you, you cannot trust the heart of man. It is desperately wicked and sick.

And so if that heart cannot be fundamentally changed, then how can any one of us ever do sufficient works that could cause us to stand before a holy

God? I believe when the scripture says that nothing unclean will dwell in his presence, nothing.

And then I look at Isaiah chapter six and I see that vision of Yahweh exalted and sitting upon his throne.

And yeah, John tells us that was Jesus, but the holiness of God illustrated because the angels surround the throne and they say, holy, holy, holy, nothing unclean.

There is no gonna be grating on a curve. And so I have to ask the question, that man that killed a hundred people, how does he stand before God?

What righteousness does he have? Because not only has he broken

God's law, he's a mass murderer, but there's all these positive things he never did. He has no righteousness.

He has no positive righteousness. So how's he going to dwell in the presence of a holy

God? The Christian has an answer. And I'll be perfectly honest with you,

Adnan, I've read the Quran many times. I've read all of Sahih al -Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, most of Ibn Kathir.

And my conclusion is that the writer of the Quran, the early

Muslims did not have any idea what the book of Hebrews taught.

They just didn't know. There's no references to it. There's no responses to it. There's no rebuttal of it. They did not know the message of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Or if they heard somebody talking about it, they thought that someone was saying, oh, you don't have to worry about what you do. Somebody else does everything for you.

They don't recognize the nature of the great exchange. Now, you've had to learn that because you're a modern

Muslim and you have to interact with Christianity. But in those early, early centuries,

I see no evidence that there was understanding of these things. It's that great exchange that answers the question.

My sin imputed to him, which is why Jesus says, take this cup from me. He's not a coward.

He's not afraid of death. He is going to be made sin for us.

He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The great exchange. And how can the great exchange take place? How can

God justly look at me, knowing my sin, knowing the things that even this day

I've left undone, knowing that I have not treated people the way they should have been treated, knowing that the greatest commandment is to love the

Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And I stand before you today to say, I have not done that this day.

So how am I supposed to stand before a holy God? How am I supposed to actually pretend that I have peace with God?

Romans 5, one says, therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Where does that peace come from?

It's because I am in possession of a righteousness that is not my own. It's a righteousness of another because I have been joined to Jesus Christ, and he did love the

Father perfectly every day. He has a positive righteousness that is imputed to me.

And he is able as the God -man to bear not only my sins, the multitude of them that there are, but the sins of all of God's elect people.

And that's why the cross is absolutely necessary. And so what

I say to Adnan, what I say to all the Muslim people, for whom

God has given me a love so that I pray for them, I listen to them,

I hear them. I feel badly when my fellow Christians refuse to do that.

But what I say to all of them is, this is the message of the gospel that has been kept from you.

Because of 40 Arabic words in the Quran in Surah 4, 157, you don't have a mediator, you don't have the

God -man who can stand in the gap. You don't have the one that can give you that righteousness. You have a zeal, and I appreciate that.

I appreciate this man's zeal. I appreciate his willingness to come here and to, he's sort of in the minority here, you might say, on many different levels.

Even though you'll notice, a lot of the Calvinists here have beards, so you actually can sort of sneak in a little bit better that way.

But he's come to this place, and he knows he's gonna be the minority person. I appreciate that zeal, but he knows in his heart,

I hope he knows in his heart, that my greatest desire for him is to come to understand.

There's unity in what this Bible says about what Jesus Christ did. And what he did is enough.

It's not just simply a tipping your hat toward God. It is casting yourself completely and totally upon Jesus Christ and saying, if I'm gonna be saved, it's gonna be because of what you've done for me.

And then recognizing the result of that in the New Testament is that God wants to make me more like Christ, which means

I'm gonna love God, and I'm gonna love others, and I'm gonna hate my sin, and he's gonna bring all those good works out of me as a changed person, not to add to what

Christ has done, but because that's what glorifies him. That's the beautiful message, and it's consistent across the

New Testament. That's the message I have for the Muslim people. I hope that in hearing it in dialogue, you will be able to hear it with clarity.

That is truly my heart's desire. Thank you for being here this evening. Thank you, sir. God bless you all.

Thank you, Dr. White. Thank you, James. Mr. Rashid has 10 minutes for his closing statements.

Right, thank you, James, for that passionate ending.

I would like to thank all my hosts who have done an amazing job in receiving me, accommodating me, and making my stay very comfortable, especially

Michael O 'Fallon, is that correct pronunciation, and his team,

Kathy, Larry, and all the other brothers who have been working very, very hard to make my stay comfortable.

They picked me up from the airport. They waited for three hours nearly outside, and then brought me to the hotel and made sure that I have a very comfortable stay.

So I would, from the depth of my heart, like to thank James as well for flying in and taking part in this debate.

Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you. With regards to this discussion, I would like to say that this is to be cherished.

It is to be encouraged, Muslims and Christians coming together as brothers and sisters in humanity to discuss and talk and share values that are dear to us, and most importantly, demonstrate the beauty of our faiths by talking to each other respectfully and honoring each other in front of God.

So that's very important. A lot of people don't agree with us. A lot of people would like to spread hatred.

They would rather throw accusations and promote mistrust, but that's not what you're going to find with myself and Dr.

James White. We have deep respect for each other in this regard. With regards to the topic,

I think it is very clear to myself and to possibly some of you that Paul was the man who was responsible for this atonement theory.

He was the one who forwarded this theory. He broke away from the Jewish tradition and the followers of Jesus Christ as clearly demonstrated that he was having debates with the disciples of Jesus Christ who spent a lot of time with him.

And don't forget that the Gospel of Luke is thought to have been written by a physician of Paul, a man who was a physician to Paul.

And if the book of Acts is written by him, then you expect him to be little biased towards the man he knows.

And despite that, there are details in the book of Acts that highlight the tension between Paul and the disciples of Jesus Christ discussing the importance of law to an extent where James is actually insisting that law must be followed even by the

Gentiles, even by the Gentiles. And by this time, Jesus has already been crucified allegedly as the

Gospel state. He has been crucified. The sacrifice has been done. Paul is already preaching.

This is a time for Paul to say to the disciples, you know the sacrifice, you believe in it, you know about it, the atonement, why are they still discussing the law is the question.

So I know James has talked about it. I'll talk about the Islamic solution now. James has raised the question about the man who killed 99 people and then ended up killing 100 people and still had forgiveness.

If we look at the details, the man was on his way to seek repentance. He was sincerely seeking repentance from this way.

He went to a man who made him hopeless and he ended up killing that man as well.

And he died on the way. And in Islam, we are taught by the

Quran and we believe the Quran was revealed by God Almighty. And it is a continuation of the old tradition to be found in the

Old Testament and in the teachings of Jesus Christ. We firmly believe that Prophet Muhammad was a true messenger of God who did not break away from that tradition.

Rather, he confirmed it. If we look at the teachings of Prophet Muhammad and Jesus, they were very, very similar.

In the book of Matthew chapter 19, verse 18 to 19, we are told, and Jesus said, you shall not murder, telling this man who asked him about the first commandment or a way to salvation, to eternal life.

And Jesus responds, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Similarly, Prophet Muhammad, it is narrated in Sahih al -Bukhari, one of the most authentic sources of Islam.

His companion, Obada bin Samit narrated that Allah's apostle said, while a group of his companions were around him, like they were disciples around Jesus Christ.

And he said to them, swear allegiance to me for number one, not to join anything in worship along with Allah, God Almighty, not steal, not to commit illegal sexual intercourse, which is adultery, not to kill your children, not to accuse an innocent person of unchastity, not to be disobedient in good deeds.

So if you look at the similarity between the teachings, it seems that Muhammad is more like Jesus than Paul.

Jesus is teaching from the law. He's telling one of his followers to follow the law, you will have eternal life.

Muhammad is teaching the same law to his followers that you want to succeed, you want to have success, follow the law.

And this is exactly what the Quran taught. When you read the book of James, or some passages

I quoted in my opening statement from the Old Testament, as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ, this is what you find.

But those who believe and do righteous deeds, we shall admit them to the gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever.

Allah's promise is the truth and whose words can be truer than those of Allah. Allah is by the way, the same

God who was worshiped by Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The word stated allegedly by Jesus Christ from the cross word, ilahi ilahi lama sabakhtani, which is

Aramaic, ilahi, Allah, ilohim, come from the same root word. A lot of people think

Allah is some alien God invented by Muslims or the Arabs. No, Allah is the same God worshiped by the

Israelites referred to by a different name. Not so different, if you look at the root words of the word ilahi, ilohim and Allah, you will see the same root word.

Another verse in the Quran, chapter five, verse nine states, Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds that for them there is forgiveness and great reward.

So in other words, when you read the book of James, James is talking about the same things. James was a very close follower of Jesus Christ.

Just like Jesus, James is saying, believe and do good deeds, believe and do good deeds, believe and do good deeds.

Without good deeds, there is no belief. This is what James is saying effectively in his book.

And this is exactly what the Quran is teaching. This is exactly what the prophet of Islam taught. And then we have the concept of repentance in the

Quran very clearly stated. God, as we Muslims believe, stated in the Quran, chapter 39, verse 53,

Say, O my servants who have transgressed against themselves by committing evil deeds and sins, despair not from the mercy of Allah.

Verily, Allah forgives sins collectively. Truly, He is Oft -Forgiving, Most Merciful.

So if you have committed sins, then simply repent and Allah will forgive.

God will forgive. If you do not repent, you still have a promise of salvation.

A lot of people assume and they think that the Muslims do not have a guarantee of salvation.

They simply do not know whether they are going to paradise or whether they will have eternal life or not.

As James alluded to the point in his presentation, that we don't know what's going to happen.

The Muslims don't know. To the contrary, we have been promised that we will have salvation so long as we die as Muslims.

And it is narrated in the book of Bukhari, Sayyih al -Bukhari, which is again the most authentic book after the

Quran itself, in Kitab al -Iman, the book of faith. And one of the companions of the

Prophet Muhammad, he narrates, the Prophet said, whoever said none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good faith equal to the weight of a barley grain will be taken out of hell.

And whoever said, none has the right to be worshipped by Allah but Allah and has in his heart good faith equal to the weight of a wheat grain will be taken out of hell.

And whoever said, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good faith equal to the weight of an atom will be taken out of hell.

In other words, those who did not repent and died in a state of sinfulness and had faith, they will eventually be taken out of hellfire and they will have eternal life.

So we as Muslims have an absolute guarantee, a promise, so long as we die

Muslim, so long as we do not apostatize and worship other gods besides Allah, God that was worshipped by Abraham, Moses and Jesus, we will have salvation.

This is exactly what Jesus taught, this is exactly what the Old Testament prophets taught, this is exactly what the

New Testament preachers such as James taught and even in the

Synoptic Gospels we find such teachings. So ladies and gentlemen, finally to summarize the presentation, we do not need the cross for salvation because we find plenty of evidence in the scriptures that the cross is not the way to salvation, rather believing in God and doing good works and repenting is the way to salvation, that is the way to eternal life, not the cross as taught by Paul against all the prophets of the

Old Testament and Jesus Christ and Muhammad. Thank you so much, thank you so much and God bless you all.

Thank you Mr. Rashid. Okay, now we're going to go into a quick rapid fire round and my attempt is to try to have us finish up by 10 p .m.

and ensure that everybody including staff can go home for the evening. Okay, each person that I ask the question of, whether it be

Dr. White or Mr. Rashid, what will happen is that I will ask them a question, they will have one minute to respond.

Then their opponent will have 30 seconds for a rebuttal. Okay, and then we'll go to the next one.

The first question is for Dr. White. Dr. White, without the originals, how do we know that the

New Testament, what the New Testament actually says? Well, we didn't have an opportunity to get into the argument.

It was stated that all scholars have given up on finding the original text. It's simply not true.

Show up on Friday, Dr. Michael Kruger from Reform Theological Seminary will be here. We'll be addressing issues like that.

The reality is that even unbelieving scholars recognize that today we're just tinkering with the text, that we have an incredibly accurate

New Testament manuscript tradition. And it just simply is not true that everyone has given up on finding what the originals are.

The reality is that we're dealing with a small percentage of the text as far as variation is concerned.

And we do continue to find new manuscripts. So the reality is we have an embarrassment of information to be dealing with much more than in other religions, shall we say, but I'm out of time.

Thank you, Dr. White. Mr. Sheen. Thank you, Dr. White for that. I simply want to ask everyone to read

Bruce Metzger's work, The Text of the New Testament, its reception, corruption, and restoration.

The fact that the title is worded like that shows you that the text of the

New Testament was received, it was corrupted, and then there is a process of restoration which is going on to this day.

Okay, this is a question for Mr. Rashid. James 210 says, for whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

The question is, have you kept the whole law? If not, how are your sins forgiven since you are guilty?

Thank you for that question. That's a very good question. I have answered that question in my final statement that anyone who is not able to fulfill the law completely or follow the law completely rather, simply has the promise that you repent, you do your best to follow the law, follow the instructions of God and his prophets, and if you slack, which you will, there's no doubt that there's no perfection in this world as clearly acknowledged by God and his prophets, including

Prophet Muhammad. In one of the reports, he stated that all the children of Adam are sinners, all of them, not because of the original sin, because they are by nature weak.

They are tempted, they sin, and the best of sinners are those who repent, those who repent because repentance definitely, immediately wipes away your sins.

This is how we are taught, this is what we believe in. So anyone who fails to follow certain injunctions can simply repent and will be forgiven.

Thank you, sir. Dr. White? However, repentance is not a meritorious thing. Repentance is a necessary thing, but repentance does not actually provide the grounds for forgiveness.

That's why there was a sacrificial system that pointed away from itself to a greater fulfillment, and certainly it was the intention of James to point out that God does not grade on a curve and that there needs to be a mechanism whereby the guilt of that sin is removed.

That mechanism is not any longer the blood of goats and calves and bulls. That was all pointing forward to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Question for Dr. White. Why can't God just forgive us? Why must he require

Christ's sacrifice? Central point of this debate, and that is that God's law in Christianity represents his nature and his being.

It is not just simply, well, I'm just gonna come up with this form of law because this sort of pleases me. It represents who he is in himself.

His holiness is innate to his being, and therefore there is no possibility for God to simply go, well,

I know that my law states that this is abhorrent to me, but I'm going to suspend that and forgive this person without the law being fulfilled, without the penalty of the law being fulfilled, and I'm going to just simply allow this contradiction to exist in my nature.

This is the real issue that we have here is that that Hadith really introduces for me a substantial contradiction in the very nature of God that does not exist in the

Old and New Testaments because of the sacrificial system and its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

Mr. Rashid. I think the question should be why do we need the sacrifice of a righteous, innocent person?

Why does God need to kill an innocent person to save guilty people? That's injustice.

It's like James commits a crime and I take Michael by the hand and crucify him. Doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense. And God doesn't need to do this, I mean, I don't like to use this word, but this drama, because if Jesus is

God, he's not actually suffering because he's God. Okay, Mr. Rashid, how can God accept an imperfect man without impinging on his justice?

How can God? How can God accept an imperfect man without impinging on his own justice?

God has created us and he knows that we are imperfect because that's the way he has created us.

He knows that he has given us temptations. He has told us what is good, what is bad. And he has given us a free will.

And God knows that many, if not all, will be tempted by the devil and they will commit bad deeds.

And for that reason, they will need to repent. Otherwise, we are all doomed. We are all doomed.

If there is no repentance, if there's no forgiveness, if there's no mercy, the fact that God is so merciful makes him even holier in my eyes.

He's bigger than simply taking someone innocent and killing him on the cross instead of forgiving them simply.

So the Old Testament system was a lot better than what Paul had to tell us. Simply repent to God and God will forgive you.

It is as simple as that. Repent and you will be forgiven. Dr. White?

Jesus Christ freely gave himself. It's not the idea that you take some innocent person and unwillingly place them upon the cross.

Jesus Christ gave his life voluntarily upon the cross of Calvary.

This was the agreed plan of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from eternity past.

And so it's not some unjust action. It is a merciful action. And since Jesus is the

God man, it is the action of God whereby he provides the solution to the problem that mankind faces.

For Dr. White, if I read 1 Corinthians 16 .9 and see within myself that I am guilty of these sins, then what hope or resolution does

Christianity offer? 1 Corinthians what? Six. It says 16 .9.

I have a feeling it's six, nine, and 10 because I don't think there is a 1 Corinthians 16.

This is not an infallible document. All right, I'm going to assume that we're talking about the text that came up in the discussion, which is 1

Corinthians 6, verses nine and 10, and the list that is provided there of sins.

And then what I pointed out is Paul's statement is, such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of Jesus Christ.

You were baptized in the spirit of our God. So the point is that when you are redeemed by God, when you are born again, you are given a new nature, you are indwelt by the

Holy Spirit of God, and therefore it is God's work within our lives to conform us to the image of Christ that causes us to desire the things that God would have us to desire and to do the things that would glorify him.

And so it is not that by doing those things I'm adding to what Christ did, but is that I am acting consistently with the spirit of God that he has placed within me.

Right, the time's still finishing. Yes. What really perplexes me is the fact that if Jesus died for our sins, as Paul claimed, then whatever sins we commit are paid for.

It might be a license to simply go on an orgy, for that matter, you know?

You can have your beach parties, you can go and, you know, abuse children, you can have, you know,

I don't want to go into the details, grim details. People are doing all kinds of things in the world today. So if one believes in the sacrifice, then all of this is paid for.

Okay, this is a question for Adnan Rashid. What saved Abraham, his faith because it faltered or his obedience because it was imperfect?

I believe Abraham was saved simply due to his obedience to God. He believed primarily.

First of all, he had to believe. And after believing, he was very diligent in following God's teachings.

And he was a sincere man. And it was because of his obedience to God, he was saved.

And not only he was saved, his entire progeny was promised great things in the form of the

Israelite prophets and eventually Muhammad. I believe Muhammad was actually foretold in very powerful words.

Isaiah 53, if it's a prophecy about Jesus, then Isaiah 42 is more so about Muhammad foretelling an

Arabian prophet who will come with all these qualities foretold in that particular passage.

So if Isaiah 53 is foretelling Jesus, then there's no problem in accepting Isaiah 42 as a prophecy for Muhammad.

So I think Abraham was the cause of all this that happened in his progeny.

Abraham was saved by his faith in the promise that was given to him in Genesis chapter 15 of the covenant that God provided to him.

It wasn't, there was no merit in his goodness. He wasn't the most holy man, and therefore he was chosen because he was the most holy man.

God was free in choosing him, but the basis of his salvation, the same basis of all the rest of us, is faith in the fulfillment of the promises that Yahweh provided to him in the covenant.

Last two questions. For Dr. White, as a Muslim, how can I be saved? That's the question?

Okay. If the question is, if you're asking as a Muslim, how can you be saved?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Not a

Jesus who is a mere prophet. Not a Jesus who is just one prophet amongst many prophets, but the

Jesus of the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ, who himself said he came down from heaven.

Belief and faith in him is trusting in him completely, casting all of your sin upon him, and trusting that his sacrifice, the fact that he gave his life and rose again on the third day to sit at the right hand of the

Father, that he is able to save completely those who flee unto him for salvation.

But editing him down to someone you're a little bit more comfortable with, Jesus said that was not a possibility.

Mr. Rasheed. That's my turn to respond. Yes. Yeah, but you have to answer the exact question.

I don't think Jesus was simply a mere prophet, and I don't think he ever died for our sins.

I don't think that's true, and I don't think he was God in any shape or form. If he was

God, then he didn't do a good job telling us that he was God. He had plenty of opportunities.

He had time to curse the Pharisees. He had time to curse the tree. He had time to talk to people about things.

Didn't he have time to just state one sentence? I am God, worship me. So salvation is through following the law

Jesus followed. Okay, last question for Mr. Rasheed. In your presentation, you said that Mark and Matthew copy from Luke.

I believe you used the word plagiarism. Would you please provide evidence for this?

All scholars of the New Testament, when I say all, I am very confident that all scholars believe because there are passages in Luke and Matthew that have been copied word by word from Mark.

James will confirm that. I hope he will when it's time to speak. There are passages in Matthew and Luke copied word by word from Mark.

And of course, Luke and Matthew added more information and then comes along John with a lot more information, a lot more interpretation.

That's why scholars believe that John has this high Christology. He came up with a lot of ideas that cannot be found in the synoptic tradition.

Even conservative scholars like F .F. Bruce and Richard Bolkamp have clearly stated that the gospel of John is a lot more interpretive and a lot more extensive in extending on details than the synoptic tradition.

So there's plenty of evidence that these gospels took ideas and words from each other, especially

Mark. Dr. White. Just a second, okay. The assumption being made, of course, is what's called literary dependence.

I do not believe in literary dependence. I'm not sure why Muslims push this so hard because there's all sorts of things in the

Quran where there are repetitions of stories that differ from one another that raises questions as to why one author would be doing that.

But the reality is you have the tradition of Jesus and it is recorded for us by Mark, by Matthew, by Luke, and by John much later on.

It's one consistent tradition and the consistencies come from the fact they're teaching one truth.

Ladies and gentlemen, would you please thank these two gentlemen for their time and for this great debate this evening.