Discussion with Sadiq Abdul Malik

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Program Schedule, Upcoming Travel, and Writing Projects

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line. Don't forget Tomorrow we will be back right here at this time a double portion Because we're not gonna do it on Thursday. We're not gonna do it all next week.

So We just wanted to head off all over the griping and complaining that no one would do of course No one would ever gripe or complain That the program wasn't gonna be here live or anything like that but Just in case anybody was tempted.

So we'll be back again tomorrow taking your phone calls eight seven seven seven five three three three four one and Who knows maybe while I'm writing today? I'll hear something that we can talk about then as well headed to st. Charles, Missouri on Thursday Thursday evening Friday evening and Saturday morning a little bit different.

This is the 10th Year consecutively, I believe that I have been in st. Charles at Covenant Grace Church On the first weekend of December. This is the first time I have not preached on Sunday morning. Because I'll be headed to a Tampa, Florida actually be speaking Just at a Sunday school class on Sunday morning in the Tampa area on The Testament reliability and then I'm gonna be out of pocket for about a week Hopefully get some writing done haven't done a lot of that other than the blog.

Of course as far as stuff that gets published we need to get an expansion finished written really For the Herald camping book we need to get dangerous airwaves back in print. Given that May 22nd 20 May 21st 2011 is not that far away and whether we like it or not the the people in the media are going to pick up on Herald campings weirdness and they are going to be presenting this and Once again reason for people to mock and deride the faith, and I think it's very important that we provide a response To mr. Camping so I'm going to want to put together a web page Where we can have embedded the conference that I did back in when was that 2000 something early 2000 somewhere around there On Harold camping and his teachings on the end of the church age and then also embed the debate At least you know The one hour of debate and then the second hour of non-debate.

Which is exactly I've listened to it twice now since then and it was just amazing to listen to Harold camping Just completely ignoring everything that I was saying he's not there Until he had the last word then he responded the things that I had said knowing I would not have an opportunity to come back don't tell me that the man is Senile or elderly or anything like that at all he may be 88 years old but he thinks just fine, and he is a false teacher just like Joseph Smith and and Mary Baker Eddie and all the rest of them, so That's anyway, so we'll be working on that and we really need to get that response To Frank Beckwith finished up and so I Hopefully we'll find the time during that week to get those writing projects done other than other Reading and things like that that I want to be doing so that's what we'll be doing so We'll be back Lord willing.

I just flipped the calendar here in the studio and So that would be the 15th. I believe will be the the next program and That's very close to when I inch ever closer to the next big birthday, too so That means on the 17th, I can't do my my birthday ride Because I have to do the dividing line.

That's that's I'll have to do it on the 18th. Then we'll do it the next day climb 4 ,700 feet in one day. That's what we need to do 100 feet one for every year of birth. That's sort of been a tradition now since I'm gonna start that 2005.

I think that's 2005. Yeah, that's what we'll do anyhow, so What's this I'm not being politically correct that's I've never been politically correct and it has cost me much. Let me tell you but that's that's okay eight seven seven seven five three three three four one let's take some of our phone calls and let's talk with David yes, David.

How are you?

James White on James 1:1, the Deity of Christ, and the Shema

I'm good. How are you? Mm-hmm. I.

Had no idea whatsoever. I they're probably almost all the first edition, too. Maybe they'll maybe some of those libraries will pick up the the second edition now. Okay. Well, you you you live in the Chicago area so I imagine you have to make every penny count.

Exactly exactly since the government takes most the rest of it away from you. Why. I just just backing up a moment I obviously would challenge the presupposition of the statement as if every Letter and every portion of the New Testament has to contain, you know, the Nicene Creed in or something like that.

I I would just immediately Challenge such a presupposition right up front because that's where you know that the Muslims especially have their there's their Pat Argument that well unless Jesus says these words then then he can't truly be God and this idea that well every every letter has to In and of itself contain a complete summary of all of the Christian faith.

Likewise, I would I would a question as well, but your question is on James 1 1 so go ahead with it. Well you need to Be very careful in attempting to reconstruct texts that don't exist. Okay, we we have a we have a text and very very often I Encounter people who in attempting to Read something into the text we have will make reference to an assumed Aramaic or Hebrew or something else?

You have to be very very careful because there are many different ways in which something could be expressed in one language and translate into another and especially given the Differences between a Semitic language and the Greek language.

There are some fundamental differences that I really think preclude any meaningful cross Translation as far as creating a an original that we we've never even seen before. So I think first of all, you have to be very very careful.

Secondly, I Think there's a very strongly established Utilization of the oz and kudios in the New Testament. So for example James 2 1 my brethren Do not hold you still there. Okay, just sound like you disappeared there a second My brethren do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

Now that's a very interesting construction the faith tame piston to a courier. Hey Mon, yes, who Chris do taste Doc says the the glorious. Really? It's the glorious Messiah. I think the faith of our Lord.

That is Jesus the glorious Messiah I think would be an excellent way of rendering that but the point is you have The faith now they they know the New American standard says translate translates at your faith.

But it could be translated the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the glorious. And I think that's really where I would go with a Muslim who would honestly say to me. Well Look, here is this one epistle in the New Testament and after I've already challenged his idea that this would have to Contain the entirety of the Nicene Creed of the Nicene Creed to be true.

I mean just look at any single Surah of the Quran and there's all sorts of Islamic truths that are not contained in in any single surah. So you it you know, you just have challenging to be consistent at that point.

But once I've dealt with that if versus well, yeah, but but what is the view of Jesus in the epistle of James? I would go here and say how can you use this terminology? When when Yahweh is said in the Old Testament his glory he will not share with another here.

We have this this glorious courteous and I would go through the use of courteous. And I'd go back to you know What what seems to be one of the earliest creedal statements in the New Testament first Corinthians chapter 8 and if you haven't seen Richard Balcom's God crucified or his newest book What was it Christian faith in the God of Israel something along those lines which Includes the same material that was in God crucified.

There's an excellent section on first Corinthians chapter 8 and don't let it turn you off that part of the citation that he gives is From NT Wright because NT Wright's a brilliant guy and sometimes he gets things right and here he did.

Where he demonstrates in first Corinthians chapter 8 verses 5 through 6 you're in essence having the shema Christianized it is being Restated so that the father and the son are taking the roles of the one shema.

That is that is found Deuteronomy 6. It's well worth getting God crucified just simply for that discussion. So yeah, God crucified Richard Balcom. BAUCKham. So I would go to something like this and again challenge.

You see that the Muslim is missing the primary evidence of the deity of Christ and that is the treatment of Christ in such a way that No, merely human prophet could ever be described as doing the things and saying the things and holding the offices that Jesus holds.

In do you have the Lord of Glory by B .B. Warfield? No, I don't we carry. Well, we carry it but since you You Then you should be able to B .B. Warfield put it on your list for interlibrary loan the Lord of Glory by B .B. Warfield.

Or maybe if you have some friends are listening, they recognize your name. But B .B. Warfield's Lord of Glory is one of the best it was absolutely Foundational for me back in Bible College and reading that book in in getting a clear understanding of The doctrine of the deity of Christ and in fact Warfield stuff in the Trinity is still just the best I've read he was brilliant and So if you can get some of his his his work on the Trinity, it's it's excellent stuff.

It's not easy reading but it's excellent stuff son of God Lord of Glory. I'm sorry Lord of Glory just simply Brought together all these strains of evidence and one of the things that really struck me was that most Christians do bypass the clearest evidence for the deity of Christ because they will not force the other side to Explain their view of Jesus in light of the full New Testament evidence.

What simple prophet remember what the Quran says that he was no more than a razzle of Allah. Well, what what razzle of Allah is described in the words of Jesus is right? The things he says the glorious Kurios Jesus the Messiah, I mean, that's not how you describe Moses.

That's not how you describe Abraham. Asked him to show you anywhere where any of these Prophets of old were treated this way and the only thing and come up is well God said to Moses that he'd make him a god to Pharaoh and that's the best thing come up with and it's like yeah.

And how did he do that? He did that through the plagues. You think that was Moses. Does that mean that you know, eventually you have the children of Israel saying about the glory of Moses? Of course not.

So that that's where I go with that because I think it's a much more sustainable consistent approach. Because I'm using the same standards all the way across and it's okay. I think I've not had anyone really provide any meaningful response to it either.

Because I'm not sure if that's just because it's unusual or if it's just they don't really have a response to offer. Right. Right Richard Balcom be a you CK H a .m. He's the Scottish New Testament scholar.

He's the one who wrote another book that you'll want to get by interview in interlibrary alone called Jesus and the eyewitnesses. It came out two years ago and is a groundbreaking Study on The issue of the New Testament that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with everything.

But the point is he is he is considered, you know high up in modern New Testament scholarship and yet he's arguing That the Gospels are considerably more reliable than most New Testament scholars would say to them.

Okay, great. Oh one more quick thing if you don't mind. Sure. I have.

Well, I Don't have anything in front of me right now. I'm not really into. Some of the things I've seen about Pre-adamic races and things like that is is somewhat of a concern to me. And some of the things I've seen.

In fact, I may have at one point written a blog article where I was dealing with something that he said. My concern is a lack of really good exegetical foundation on some of the things that I see. But I have anything in front of me.

So I Get too much more. Okay. Thanks, David. Have a good Night. 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number and. Let's talk. Well, okay. Why am I using the term Lorenzo here? Hi Lorenzo. Hello. How are you?

I'm doing good. Is that really the the name you want me to use? Oh, yes, Lorenzo, you know me. I do. I just don't know why you're using a different name. I don't know I guess.

The name. Why would that. Why would that shut a door here? I mean, I I don't know.

I mean that would seem to me. I mean the name itself if I'm Reading it correctly would have to. Sadiq is the same root as Zedek righteousness. And Abdul Malik servant of a king or one who reigns.

So, you know I'm following Paul's model. Being all things I mean and that he is and I thought that was what most Muslims believe to.

Yeah, a certain amount of perfection. Is that explain that to me because that sounds like a certain amount of pregnancy.

He is presented as the spotless Lamb of God. That's not what.

Creates His eligibility to be the sacrifice. It flows from who he is as the incarnate Logos. It's not like when you see the the Muslim idea of a prophet as I understand it as you just expressed it is that God sees in a particular person whether it be Abraham or Moses or Muhammad a particularly Holy character that then allows him to use that person as The one through whom his word will then be proclaimed to the people.

That's not a biblical perspective. Because God used all sorts of people in the Old Testament, especially. And it was not a matter of their personal holiness. And in fact Isaiah who would seem to be an extremely holy individual when he sees Yahweh sitting upon his throne His first thought is for his own sinfulness.

He is a man of unclean lips and lives amongst people of unclean lips. So but we don't view Jesus as a righteous man who was chosen to do something his his perfection flows from the fact that he is the one who entered into human flesh so as to give himself as a sacrifice and so it it's.

It's not one. It's not that his Sinlessness drew the favor of God. It's the other way around.

Okay, so that is correct. He was tempted in all manner like we are tempted not in every way.

But the term there taxis as I recall refers to the the categories of temptation not in every single way because obviously Sinners are sometimes tempted by their own experience of sin, which would not have been part of his experience.

Okay, so then God crucified. No, not when you understand not when you understand. We believe by that. I mean I if you if you. Yeah, you're you assume with with The major soon. I'm assuming you're Sunni.

Yes.

No, I'm I don't like to call myself any any Denomination of Islam I'm speaking. Really do as the Quran says where it says do not divide amongst yourselves. Hold on to the rope which I extend unto you and do not divide amongst yourselves.

So the prophet said to seek his Sunnah, so I'm in a search. I don't want to call myself any denomination I want to and then to seek.

Let me just ask just and I want to get back to your question. Let's make sure remember what it was about God crucified. But just so I understand where you're coming from. Do you Listen to a particularly a mom.

Do you attend prayers at a particular mosque? I'm not asking which one if you do, but yeah, are you a part of of the Islamic community?

You know, we're there to pray right about the worship of God not to.

Okay, Sidney. Let me let me just ask you really directly. Do you accept the hadith and and the As having an important role in the interpretation of the Quran. You know.

For me to come I'm not talking about right now. I'm just trying to. You're not Quran only are you? But my my, you know knowledge with with the.

I want to get back to your question, but just very very quickly. Do you know who Yasir Qadhi is?

Yes, I've heard the name. Okay. All right.

Just a well-known Sunni scholar that that I listen to a lot. I just didn't know if you're familiar. I just needed to know where you were coming from so that I can. What I was going to say in response to your question about laughing at God crucified was I've I've heard I was listening to recently I did some video responses to Zakir Naik and he was making the same.

Exact argument you just did tall skinny fat man tall short man, etc. Using the exact same language, which probably came from Ahmadi that I would imagine. The point is as I said in regards to Zakir Naik is the same thing I would respond to you is God in his essence is God and God alone and Man is a creature.

What we are saying is not that God in his essence Ceased to be God and became a man who was crucified. We are not saying that Jesus was 50 God and 50 man. What we're saying is that God who created all things is able to enter into his own creation should he choose to do so for his own purposes and that the sacrifice of Christ is a Voluntary giving in John chapter 10.

He says I give my life of my own accord. I have the authority to lay it down. I have the authority to take it up again this commandment. I received from my father. It was not Which many Muslims think a Something to where here you have this great prophet who's being abused the hands of men and God would never allow this to happen.

No, this is something that is is purposeful on his part. It's voluntary.

Parts, so I don't see. Jesus Christ is being so voluntary and so wanting to be crucified. He says oh my lord, but if you would. But.

But you're only but you're isolating text. I'd be happy to look at everything what I'm preaching through Hebrews right now. But you just quoted from the synoptic Gospels in the garden and yet those very same synoptic Gospels prior to the garden encounter of prayer have Jesus not only predicting his Sacrifice.

I remember when the woman broke the the alabaster bottle of perfume. She has done this for my burial. He knows this is coming. He's predicting this. He says it is necessary for him to go to Jerusalem be betrayed in the hands of the Jews be crucified and rising in a third day these are prophecies that come before that so you can't read the encounter in the garden and Take it away from everything that Jesus has said about this and then think you're actually handling the text, right?

Yes. But let me explain the one that you cited before you go to Hebrews because believe me, I hope you go to I'm believe me. I I do listen to what your side has to say, but every time I find them Isolating texts without allowing the text speak for themselves something.

I Specifically try not to do with your text. That's one of the major differences. That's one of the major differences If you can provide as reasoned and exegetical and contextual defense of what you just said as I'm giving you for what you're Twisting and abusing in the Bible.

Well then fine do so so far your Representatives in debate have not been able to demonstrate that but back to Jesus in the garden. When Jesus is praying to the father when the sinless Son of God is about to take on the sin of humanity.

Do you how you think he would respond to that you do you think this would be just a walk in the park? Just a do you think that he had a fear of the actual physical experience or was it actually his? Becoming sin that is part and parcel of his words right there in the garden.

And does that not itself demonstrate that the understanding that Muslims have of Jesus experience in his nature is Completely contradictory even to the text you're citing right now.

You know, I got.

Well, there's. Colossians 2 9 says for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. They are they toss, right? Okay in passions one. He's the creator of all things in heaven and earth previsible or invisible.

Yeah. That was that argument. How did Isaiah was using that God, okay, so where is Moses or Abraham described as having. And I'm using the criteria that you use in that manner I can describe and choose any one of the prophets beyond those of mortal men, right?

Okay, so.

Okay now do that. Show us with Moses that Moses is described as the I am the creator of all things in heaven and earth to have eternally existed. To be called by the name of Yahweh. Could you do that?

Okay, here I go Moses now, this is Moses, right? Okay. Okay.

So obviously he knew Moses he knew me, you know you you knew all of us and we were there and. So they were pre-existent. Well, according to the Bible said no in God's knowledge.

Okay, so you think you think the New Testament's description of Jesus is just a God that God knew that Jesus was going to exist. How about the fact that in John 1 1 John 17 and Philippians chapter 2? Jesus is active prior to his birth and eternity past.

He does things that only a person can do.

Can you show me where Moses John's belief in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ? Not that you see John did not believe it looks to our real you up it may yet. But not that Jesus Christ was God because when you see all the verses of John when you see the so you so you're assuming.

So you're assuming Unitarianism identifying the Father only as God and Therefore when Jesus is identified as God in John 1 1 John 1 18 and John 20 28. When he is identified as the I am when he is said to have had the glory of the Father Prior to creation itself in John 17 5.

You just Rearrange that on the basis of your assumption of Unitarianism and say well, he must be some pre-existent glorious creature.

But he's not really good according to according to when you read John and you see what John what John was thinking and when you see.

That was his belief. But so deep is that is drawn right or wrong? Excuse me. Is that is John right or wrong from the Muslim perspective? Jesus didn't pre-exist as a as a person. Did he what only a lot a lot knew that he would exist a lot.

No, you would exist. So you knew that about him. This was the word to be so sadiq. Was John right or wrong.

Excuse me was John right or wrong. And the pre-existence of Jesus Christ from an Islamic perspective. Well.

He wasn't. So John's God had no because God very naturally very logically your Bible says no and he always was no.

No, no, no, no, no. You just you just made an assert. You've just now made two assertions.

Actually the incarnation of Jesus the man.

In my I'm putting you on hold now. You're if you're talking nobody can hear you right now because you're not a lot up to this point. We've we've had exchange, but now you're you're you're trying to take over and I'm not gonna let that happen because when you have your own show then If I try to take over your show you can put me on hold so you're on hold for a moment.

And I'm gonna I'm gonna respond to and refute what you just said then we can go back to your question. That'll be fine. But you're you're getting a little bit hot under the collar. So take a deep breath.

Well, I respond to what you just said. It's interesting what you just pointed out and it's important to see what you just pointed out because you said Jesus as a man and yes, Jesus is. Entrance into humanity took place at a point in time in John 114.

We are told the word became flesh. That was a point in time. But see what you're doing is you're missing the distinction that is right there in the original language in John 1 1 because up. Until verse 14 in the prologue of John when when John talks about the logos He uses a particular verbal form.

It is the imperfect form of I mean and it does not as you just insisted. It did it does not and I would challenge you to prove this if you're gonna say otherwise. It does not refer to a point of creation.

It does not say he came into existence the imperfect form by me refers to Continuous action in the past. So when it says in the beginning was the word it's not saying the word came into existence. It's saying however far back you want to push the word the word the beginning the word is already in existence.

Then When he gets to verse 14, he changes from the imperfect form of I mean ain To the heiress of Ginnomai again. It's how the word became flesh at a point in time because he entered into human history at a point in time.

So yours you you are a smart man. You see the distinction, but you're missing the biblical truth. That is there and that is that the writer himself Makes the very distinction that would have to be there for your point to be not true.

Okay, you're back on the air.

Did you understand what I just said? Yeah, I'm a very. Mind, I guess it's for my Latin roots. So he can't. Of the logos which came before that of John is not the same and what you have is. You know all the aspects that we're not.

Well, of course, I don't accept anything. You just said there is no question. There's.

No, do you really expect to be able to sit here on a program and say that John was slavishly following Philo his mentor? Me not challenge you.

Opposite James, I'm saying John took not only John but he. And we agree on that that very clearly. John is.

Utilizing language that has a Greek philosophical meaning. But he clearly utilizes it within the context of an Old Testament fulfillment and so it is and we need to Well think about what what he says and the word became flesh and what Tabernacled amongst us.

What's the term tabernacle there comes straight out of the Old Testament in the tabernacle? That is not something that the phylo would would phylo has an impersonal logos. John has a very personal logos who is active in eternity past as the creator Connected with the wisdom motifs of the Old Testament as well.

So he's taking all this stuff but remember when you say influenced by influenced by does not mean determined by. If I use for example in my Debates with with my Muslim friends. I have learned to use I've learned to use your Terminology to make reference to things.

Does that mean that my theology has been Influenced by Islam or that I am simply speaking to communicate in such a way that a Muslim will better Understand what it is that I'm saying when I talk about shirk I'm trying to communicate to people who've been taught that what I believe is shirk.

And so I'm going to take the time to know what you believe makes a person a Muslim team. Okay, does that mean that my theology which of course was very clearly formed long before I really started studying?

Islam has been determined by Islam or that I'm simply using your language in such a way as to try to Communicate more clearly with you. You got to keep that in mind as a possibility as to what John's doing.

Do you know?

You know, like I said, we won't have time. Hopefully someday I'm getting ready to that phone calls and I'm sure you're not going to let me. You're gonna cut me off before I start. For your benefit.

Actually, I think we've had a good conversation. I think the listeners have found it to be very useful. And it probably maybe we would show wisdom if we actually went ahead and moved on to other things because Generally, what happens is when you start rushing toward the end of a program.

That's when the emotions get inflamed and things get said that don't necessarily, you know need to get said. But I think we've demonstrated that you can have a good conversation on these things. Without yelling and screaming James.

Am I a nice guy or what? It sounded like you were not. I've got to ask you a question though. Yeah, my friend David Wood says you can get pretty radical.

You know what? I and you are asking that. Yes.

All right. Do I listen to everything they post? Well, I mean the ones that that's David's been posting on his website, you know, and.

This is my opinion. Did they use.

You're not the one who called about major Hassan, are you. That's right. You and you were just and you were defending what he did. Yeah, you know, I Was not allowed even again. Oh, no. Wait a minute. I listened to at least ten minutes.

Let me ask you something it. How much time would I get on an Islamic station to give my money? Would I get ten minutes? You know, I really don't know. Come on.

Give me an Islamic station not put you on it.

Well, let's hey, come on Sadiq. You got it. You got to admit one thing you and I could not have this conversation in an Islamic country.

And I'm the disease no you see around it. Would be with the monks of St. Catherine's. I Believe I have many years later, but Sadiq. Let me let me suggest something to you for just for you to think about.

There was a time when Islam created a Society that created beautiful architecture Advancements in mathematics and science and that culture Was destroyed from within. Yeah, and I would suggest to you that it was destroyed by forces that we now see very operational in our world today and I I Would love to see my moderate Islamic friends prevail in producing a defensible form of Islam that does not threaten the lives of Non-muslims, but I don't know if given the foundational Documents and especially the hadith if it can be done.

I just don't know. That's my concern.

And you invite you see very calm today, but Sadiq there's two problems with what you're saying.

I hear what you're saying and and we'll try to wrap it up here because we're sort of straying off the subject. But there's two things first of all it wasn't Externally the external environment around that great Islamic culture that developed that that caused the problem.

It was the rising within the culture of the very forms of conservative Sharia driven Perspectives that Demanded uniformity to that very narrow interpretation that ended up destroying that society. It wasn't you can't blame it on the people outside of the Islamic society at that point.

So I would say a that's the first problem I have what you said and then secondly in regards to what it means to be a true patriot. Look, I have I have said on this program. I don't know if you how often you listen to it.

How does it the first time? Okay. Well, I have said on this program many many many times that because Western culture as a whole has spit in God's face tramples God's law loves its sin and its things far more than righteousness that God's judgment is coming upon Western cultures and I Believe that it is Appropriate for me as a Christian.

It is my obligation to proclaim God's judgment upon sin. That's what Paul does in Romans 1 Romans 3. It isn't as it isn't a necessity to be a prophetic voice Amongst a people who are not a Christian people I certainly hope you recognize that the vast majority of people in this nation are not Christian people.

They do not if you can go through your day without ever thinking about Christ and what his will for your life would be. I suggest You you're not a Christian. Just as you would probably say that a large portion of people in Islamic countries are only nominally Muslim that they they they are they their lives are not changed by The Quran or by following Muhammad's example or anything of the kind so I'm not arguing that a true patriot cannot call for his nation to repent but what my concern is is That there's a vast difference between How the Muslim and how the Christian views how God would bring repentance to a nation.