November 14, 2008

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 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.

Live from London and Technical Difficulties

Well greetings from the City of London. I am understanding that in all probability This is not going to work at least from what I am hearing Of what's coming back to me. I could barely Understand anything but the introduction.

I certainly will not be able to take phone calls because I I cannot I Can't hear anything at all as far as what's on the other end, so I'm sort of waiting to see what kind of Response we get from the chat channel and as long as you can understand me, then we'll we'll press on but if not, then we'll we'll Pull the plug, but everyone's saying it sounds okay so far.

Maybe it's just coming in. So well, we'll see how that works. So we'll attempt to make something make something work. And you know, we might try a call later on. We'll see see how that works. So anyway Real quickly a catching you up on where we are here in London right now.

Had two debates so far and This weekend I will be speaking at Trinity Road Chapel.

I will be.

Speaking in the Sunday morning and Sunday evening services I'll also be speaking tomorrow morning to a men's group at Trinity Road Chapel. Beautiful church. I've got to try to get a picture. This church was started during the days of Spurgeon and There is a pew in this church.

I've got to take a picture of this Where there is a very clear Indentation in the pew of a German incendiary device that came through and Thankfully cyclist a person on ice go through the roof broke into the church and put the fire out before it could burn the church down and The pew is still there with the very clear indentation of the German incendiary device.

I've got to remember to get a picture of that when I'm there tomorrow because I find that just fascinating. But anyway We had it's a beautiful church and we had a great time there last evening.

With.

The debate with Sammy Zafari on the subject of the deity of Christ. Still upcoming then on Monday Will be the debate with the two-part debate with Shabir Ali on the subject of whether Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible, then we fly back to the United States and Then I have to get my my mind wrapped around what's could be going on in Durham and then back to Phoenix and so we're sort of about halfway through the trip right now and Let me go back and give you some reports on what has happened as far as the debates go.

Trinity, Shirk, and the Muslim Debate Context

The first debate was with Adnan Rashid on the subject of The Trinity. Does belief in the Trinity necessitate shirk. Now, I enjoyed getting a chance to meet Adnan and.

I.

Did in both situations both debates? Note that both of my opponents proclaimed themselves the victors of the debate. Before I ever had an opportunity to actually even Speak so in their opening statements, they were declaring themselves the victors.

You've been refuted if you just study more closely. Both of my opponents seen it does seem honestly.

That.

In the Muslim mindset the audience to whom you seem to be speaking is primarily your own people and You are primarily concerned about impressing your own people and not so much Concerned at all to try to reach the Christians in the audience now.

I Want to edify the Christians in my audience, I want to encourage them in the faith All of those things but I want to reach the Muslims as well. And so I need to be very careful that To the best of my ability my argumentations are sound biblical Orthodox.

And at the same time then I need to study Islam. I need to understand Where the Muslims are coming from. I need to try to use their language to speak to them in ways it's understandable to them.

And.

So I tried to do both. And I really do try to reach out to the Muslims and to communicate to the Muslims and to bring the gospel to the Muslims. And these in these debates, but it just does not seem like my Muslim opponents have any concern whatsoever about about reaching individuals like myself because they engage in debate tactics that from any rational point of view.

Automatically puts them sort of behind the behind the curve a bit. When you start off literally wasting your time talking about how well you're refuted by this and and So I'm the victor here and and I mean it's just rhetoric and and maybe your your followers like that.

But does that really assist in any way shape or form in Performing in a true debate. And so I was a little interested to note that Adnan made his presentation when I Responded to that presentation. He got back up and repeated his presentation.

He did not engage Any of the questions that I asked any of the challenges that I raised he just went back and in fact everyone At least all the Christians and I I think probably a fair number of Muslims likewise recognized that for different times in that debate I Had to correct his Misapprehension of what I had said in my opening statement in my opening statement.

I pointed out that by the time by the year 600 hundred by beginning of time of Muhammad Muhammad to beginning his prophethood around ad 610. That by that period of time The Doctrine of the Trinity was very well known there was you couldn't say well you know that the Quran doesn't understand the Doctrine of Trinity because Things were still up in the air and there was there was a lot of confusion and no one Really knew what was going on and so on and so forth.

That just isn't true. As I pointed out you had Nicaea you had Chalcedon you had the councils that had Spoken very clearly you had the Athanasian Creed you even had the material from. I'm hearing a beeping sound someplace.

I'm not sure where it's coming from. Very odd. Anyways, I have hope that's not a fire alarm. Believe me. I heard a fire alarm last night, so I'd know what it was.

So.

Bit as it may. I Basically was pointing out that Augustine had had written on the subject and It was well known. So so one excuse that cannot be made in reference to the subject of.

The.

Quran not understanding the Doctrine the Trinity would be that. Well, no one understood what the Trinity was at this point in time so I Made that statement and Adnan gets up and he says look James White has admitted that nobody knew what the Trinity was until 600 years after Jesus and so what about all those Christians who for all those years for 600 years had Not believed in the Trinity because it wasn't known until the AD 600.

The days all go to hell and. So when I get up, I correct him. I said that that's not what I said. What I said was the Trinity was well known in 600. Therefore the Quran has no Reason to miss where I never said.

I said this beginning and I quoted Ignatius and I quote biblical text. It just didn't matter how many times I said it it just it just didn't matter. He just kept repeating over and over and over again.

This idea that I had somehow claimed.

That.

The Christians did not know the Trinity until 600 four.

Times.

Until finally when he said the last time I could hear the audience. At that point just going. Oh, come on. How many times does the guy have to get up and say and so finally the fourth time when I got up? I said I'm.

I've given up on attempting to communicate to Adnan this fact, but very very clearly.

I.

Not said that you all can hear that and I I can't force Adnan.

To to hear me at.

This particular point in time. This is this is called live webcasting if anything did. There's something Beeping in my computer bag, but I can't find it. If there's a sudden loud explosion.

Well, we'll know what it is.

I'm sort of wondering if it's my if it's my timer. You know my debate timer, but I don't I can't find it in there and I can I can I can hear the bag beeping. Figure out what it is. So hey, this is this is called professional webcasting this is we are the Rush Limbaugh of Webcasting.

Oh my. Okay, well anyway that was that that's interesting so I I put it in the bathroom so Whatever it is, hopefully we'll have run out of Battery power.

But.

Programs over oh man, you can tell we just do this. This is just how we do things. Anyways Back to the Adnan Rashid debate. Well well attended and After I made my opening presentation and I and I heard that Adnan just basically sort of repeated the same points in response.

And and kept you know Kept going with this, you know, I don't know unnecessary a rhetoric that is just sort of I don't know. It's just has no no place in a debate in the rebuttal I I really started pressing forward the claims of who Jesus and and What the doctrine of Trinity is.

I really had an opportunity to press upon the Muslims in the audience. Where I was coming from on this matter and and really had about 15 minutes to really present my case in a strong way and And I thought it was one very well.

There was one disappointing part. When we got there Adnan and the moderator insisted that the cross-examination period the quote-unquote crossfire period Would be taken up with audience questions and I said no.

Audience questions are almost never on the subject of the debate. This is supposed to be in exchange between myself and I'm not. No no. We have to we have to have audience questions. They they absolutely insisted on it.

So I've not managed to get away without having to undergo a cross-examination or even the crossfire format and of course the audience questions were by and large irrelevant to the topic as I said, they would be and So that was disappointing.

So I need to make sure in the future That even when setting up multiple debates and all the difficulties we had in communication things like that to emphasize that from the start if there's not going to be meaningful interaction or at least a crossfire section that we're just not even going to bother because that's.

Just.

You know, you. It's not worth attempting to do a debate if there's not going to be interaction. So again Tuesday night went very very well. I did manage to get that one videotaped on my little camera and of course it was professionally videotaped as well and that those tapes we made available to people as as.

They're edited and made available. Then on Wednesday, I I had mentioned everyone that I had a wonderful opportunity but I did not want to mention what it was and Since it's now finished. I guess it's I've been told by those involved.

Go ahead mention exactly what you did and No reason not to now clearly. But on Wednesday of this week There is a something called RE here in UK religious Education that it is a part of the public school system.

You are supposed to learn what religions other than your own believe.

And.

This was time for a group of Muslim students to learn about Christianity and specifically the doctrine of the Trinity and so I was asked to present the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and then answer questions from an entire group of Muslim high school students, and so I did.

I gave my presentation using my PowerPoint or a keynote presentation of the doctrine the Trinity and then they started with their questions and They were great questions. And about the fourth or sixth if you get one was a question was isn't Muhammad prophesied in the Bible and There was a young man sitting down front Who had I would say 20 sheets of handwritten notes and he was ready for a debate and So I started to respond to the question on Muhammad and he started quoting Ahmed D dot.

Almost word-for-word and.

When I said to him you're quoting Ahmed D dot you could you could see all of them looking at me going you know who Ahmed D dot is and.

And.

You know the young man even read a whole section from Isaiah 42 and I continued on and Isaiah to demonstrate who the suffering servant Really is and and all these other wonderful things and it was a great time.

They respected me and I respected them and we had great exchange and even when it was over with the guys especially. Stayed around and we're going. Oh, we love to see you debate soccer night. That would be great.

Oh, that'd be wonderful. And and it was it was great. And so it was it was a great opportunity to have you know speak with those young folks and and to do so with with freedom and and To explain the faith to them and things like that.

It was a really neat opportunity. So That's what we we did on on Wednesday. And then of course yesterday Thursday. In fact, I should have queued this up. I apologize. Maybe I could still actually do it.

As long as the computer doesn't give me a problem here. I have a lot of programs running on it right now. But I'll see if I can't pull this up and see if we can't make this work.

Premier Radio, the Trinity, and Scripture

Yesterday morning I.

I.

Roger Brazier the pastor here in London. First pastor here in London that brought me over back in 2005. Went with me into downtown London to.

Premier radio.

Which is a Christian radio network and.

We.

Did a debate sort of a discussion anyways, I'm not sure if you'd actually call it a bait. With Justin Briarley on the unbelievable radio program which aired today aired just a few hours ago here in the London area and.

My.

Opponent was Abdullah the same Abdullah that you've seen on YouTube. Who? Dresses very well, shall we say as I told him my best addressed Islamic opponent and We also went after the doctrine of the Trinity in essence and Discussed it for two 26-minute segments basically an hour-long program that aired today on The unbelievable radio program and I have brought it up here.

I'm not sure how well it's going to work but let's let me see if I can at least play you a short segment of Of the discussion here, I don't really see a dividing place anywhere here, but.

The DDD.

When you're looking at nothing but video clips trying to figure out where things are. It's it's interesting to try to figure out. I don't want to come into the middle of something. That isn't going to make a whole lot of sense.

All right, all right, this is probably you'll probably be hearing Justin Briarley, let me see if this is even going to play for you.

Was in response to these what he saw as polytheistic beliefs wasn't it. In Mecca he saw Polytheism both in as it were pagan religions and in this Mason Christian religion and said this this has taken us away from the worship of the one true God and hence in many ways It is the Trinity if you like that is partially Accountable in some ways for the growth of Islam from the very answer.

Well, there's a lot of question as to exactly what's Muhammad's knowledge. The doctrine the Trinity was what kind of Christians he had encountered. There's a lot of question as to. Did he only encountered a story in Christians or or even Christians had any knowledge whatsoever of the doctrine itself or have a solid knowledge.

It's it's hard to say.

But I think it's important to emphasize that the reason that I believe in the doctrine of Trinity is because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I Believe as Jesus said that the scriptures cannot be broken as Paul said that all scriptures they ought to stop is God breathed.

Or as Peter put it men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. And so when I read those scriptures, I see three foundational truths that are clearly presented in those texts. First of all, there is only one true God in the Old Testament the tetragrammaton Yahweh, which we slaughter in English as Jehovah.

But Yahweh is the one true God. He is the creator of all things. He is owes his existence to none. He is timeless. There is nothing that exists outside of his will and yet that same name. When we come in a New Testament, though, the Greek New Testament does not contain the name Yahweh.

Those texts that talk about him are applied to three persons the Father the Son the Holy Spirit. And so we have biblical monotheism. There is only one true God. All the gods the people's are idols. Psalm 96 5 before me.

There is not no God formed. Thou shalt be not after me. Isaiah 43 10. But then we have the introduction in the New Testament of these three divine persons. Clearly distinguished from one another the Father is not the Son of the Son is not the Spirit.

In John 14 Jesus says refers to the Father. He talks about the love that exists between he and the Father. In John 17 he says he shared glory with the Father before creation itself came into existence and.

Then he speaks about sending another come through the Holy Spirit. Who proceeds forth from the Father. So we have these three persons and then they're described as possessing The attributes and nature of God the Father clearly so the Son is described as the creator.

He is described as having eternal existence. In John 1 1 he is described as God and numerous passages. Thomas after the resurrection. When he sees Jesus that cries out to him. The text cannot be taken in any other way other than saying my Lord and my God to Jesus.

Jesus does not rebuke him. He accepts. This is a confession of faith. And then we have the Spirit. When Ananias and Sapphira Lie to the Spirit of God you have not lied to men but to God. He's identified as God.

He gives the gifts to the church as he wills so he's personal. In first Corinthians 12 and so we have these three persons, but then we have the question. Well, could it be that that we are somehow violating our Old Testament monotheism?

No.

Every person that writes in the New Testament was a monotheistic Jew would say the Shema every morning from Deuteronomy 6 for here Israel Lord our God the Lord is one and.

So.

We have the equality of those persons presented to us in Scripture not identity. Because clearly the scriptures differentiate between the Father Son and Spirit was not it was not the father who became flesh.

It's not the son or the father who indwells us now. They instead have sent the Holy Spirit and by means of that spirit and dwell believers. And so you have these three foundations. Absolute biblical monotheism the teaching the existence of three divine persons and then the equality of those persons.

Which is the reason why if you accept sola scriptura scripture alone's the sole rule of faith for the church and Toto scripts are all the scripture. You are forced to the doctrine of the Trinity by taking all that information together.

Do you see the Trinity is something that we only really find though in the New Testament?

Or do you believe it exists in the Old Testament the concept the the doctrine of the Trinity is actually Revealed in the coming of the Son in flesh and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and all of that takes place Between Malachi and Matthew the New Testament then becomes the record of that Revelation of the Trinity.

Each of the writers the New Testament is an experiential Trinitarian think of someone like Peter. Peter stands upon the Mount of Transfiguration. He sees Jesus transfigured. He sees the glory of Christ.

He hears the Father speaking from heaven. He's now indwelled by the Holy Spirit. He is an experiential Trinitarian and that is why the language of the New Testament is soaked in Trinitarian terminology.

Why it's so easy for example for the New Testament writers to speak of the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ In the same passage going back and forth between the two because there's no there's no conflict in their understanding.

And so The the revelation is it prophesied in the Old Testament? I believe it clearly is Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6. We have this prophecy of this one who is to come and There we are told that a child will be born to us and the term born.

There is a standard term in the Hebrew language for natural birth of a child. But then it says a son will be given to us. The government will be upon his shoulders in English shall be called wonderful counselor mighty God everlasting Father Prince of Peace.

Who is this? Who is this one? Who is who is to come that such exalted language could be used of him that is only used of Yahweh. So while I don't think that the Old Testament is quote-unquote Trinitarian in that sense because the revelation hasn't taken place.

The prophecies of that coming one psalm 2 Speaks of one that we are to kiss the Sun lest he be angry. He rules over the nations and so we can see in this fulfillment in the New Testament That the one who's to come is not merely Just a prophet but is in fact divine knowledge.

Abdullah.

I mean, I would say my comment to that is I find it highly conspicuous that the whole of the the Old Testament or the Jews and Judaism, there's no no revelation of the issue of Trinity and now if the Mean regardless of the Christian interpretation of New Testament, which I think we can go into it doesn't really matter.

What what to petition you have the the natural doctrine itself when you think about it rationally? Why is it that if we're we are required to believe in a doctrine which the Jews they know about for thousands of years?

In you know in the Old Testament why it took the New Testament had this revelation and so on which itself is disputed among between different Christian factions, but. And so on and also other I mean other issues such as obviously the total scripture and so on that we have to take that all the scriptures again.

Where's your your your basis for taking all these scriptures. What scriptures. What all the scriptures are you taking. What goes into the you know? What did you just give a contents page about which books are going to be the everything you're going to be you can accept?

So I think that it brings up a lot of questions about the the origins of the issue of the Trinity and. Just very conspicuous for to anyone which I would say so so you'd say just into it firstly.

There is no Trinitarian conception that obviously springs out of a reading of Jewish. You know the Jewish history, but on top of that for you There's simply a logical problem of the idea of three gods, but one or three persons, but one God.

I mean that view is a Central you know whatever Interpretation you make of the New Testament that's still going to be a problem.

Yeah, I mean when the perhaps when when certain Christians during the history of Christianity encountered What they wanted the need to basically say Jesus divine, but the problem is it was brought up.

Well, he was praying to a father and so how do you reconcile that we want to make him divine? But who's this other person? He's praying to and when we see what Kathy the Holy Spirit might be put on there on or so, but whatever the case.

In order to reconcile these contradictory things you believe in one God because you said you know one God. But at the same time you want to make you as divine. And I think it's a human phenomenon that you want to make a God.

You can see someone you can personally interact with for example in India right now. Sai Baba Who is currently living is revealed as a God as a God incarnate by by Hindus. Haile Selassie was a bit of the God Rastafarians, and there's been many Human beings who've been revealed as God incarnate for the history of humanity from from Hercules to.

Krishna.

And even more contemporary ones, so that's okay. So I would say that the the main the problem that I had the history or at least just looking at the actual the conception. You want to have three things which you want to make into one?

So how do you reconcile this. Well the Christians came up with an interesting play of words instead of saying three gods. Three gods in an alliance. They said no, we'll say one God, but three persons, but I want to know and it's a sign.

I mean, I know I've read Augustine's book on the Trinity and I read in a Few contemporary explanation of Trinity and I think doesn't make sense is what is a person? How do you define these these person?

It's just the name to that was brought up. It's a semantical word game to justify free. Whereas if you actually dig into it when you ask for example, you say right if Jesus is eternal fine Jesus was not created fine.

So he wasn't Made by anything. So if he wasn't made by anything, then he's independent. He doesn't need anything. He's not dependent being like we are so if he's not dependent.

Then what need does he have of the father and so on when he prays to the father? How does that make sense? I mean so I'm Christians have tried sometimes James to Sort of define the Trinity in ways that might be helpful.

They've maybe talked about. Well water comes in the form of ice.

Steam.

Liquids and or think of a Block, you know, which has in a sense two-dimensional faces, but as a whole is a three-dimensional object. I mean did do it. Are those helpful or do they kind of. Are they red herrings?

No, I don't.

Obviously that we believe that God exists in an absolute unique fashion. Therefore any type of analogy to the created order is going to fail at some point and so I in my book I have discussed the various failures of the The three-leaf clover and all the rest of stuff that people have attempted to use over time obviously, we believe that God exists in a unique fashion and Again, we come back to the issue of whether this is a divine revelation or whether it's something that man comes to in some rational Thought process and we need to be consistent.

For example of villages to a raise. Well, well, how do we know what the scriptures are? Well, how do we know what the what the Islamic scriptures are? I mean, we know that sir al-baqarah Existed as a separate book in some people's minds even outside the Quran in the early years.

There are all sorts of questions that we can ask about Uthman's revision and all those types of things. Every religion has to answer those questions. The fact that people ask those questions does not mean there's not an answer those things.

That's the first thing. Secondly I said we do have to look at what the New Testament says and the New Testament writers are monotheists. They are not saying well we have three gods. How do we figure out how to make them one God in any way shape or form the fact that there is one divine name?

We're baptized in a single name. The fact there's one divine name that monotheistic Jews are going to recognize in the Old Testament the Greek translation the Old Testament. The name Yahweh was rendered by the Greek term kudios, which means Lord.

It's interesting to me that that's Jesus's normative term throughout the New Testament. It's he is kudios only by the Holy Spirit. Can we say Jesus kudios. Jesus is Lord. And so it's not a matter of us trying to quote-unquote figure this out.

We have a divine text. In this divine text Jesus says unless you believe that I am using the very same terminology Yahweh uses of himself in the Old Testament you will die in your sins. So it wasn't generations later someone trying to go.

Well, we want to make Jesus a God because we want to have a God that we can see no. They have these inspired texts and they are attempting to do with them. What the faithful Muslim attempts to do with the Quran?

When I interpret the Quran I try to look at all the Quran has to say. I think it's unfair to pull one part out and say well I'm going to isolate this out and the Muslim agrees with that. But when it comes a New Testament, they operate on a different standard instead when we come to the New Testament.

It's very very clear. John says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Here you have in three phrases the description the fact that the law goss the word who becomes flesh in John 1 14 has Eternally existed.

He did not come into existence at a point in time in the past. Secondly that there's been an eternal relationship between he and the father as John 18 says the gods being spoken I fear is the front and that he is as to his nature deity now if that's in your inspired text.

Along with the assertion. There's only one true God. Then you have to accept what that text says. It's not it's not some. Well, we just have to we want to change things after the revelation is taking place.

This is an inherent part of the revelation itself. There can be no question of that.

The Trinity, the Old Testament, and Divine Revelation

Before we get a response from Abdullah if you're listening you're listening to a discussion on whether the Christian doctrine of the Trinity leads to policies and that's what many Muslims believe and Abdullah al-yusufi is one of them.

He's with me here in studio along with Christian apologist James White. Don't forget you can give us your comments on the debate today by emailing unbelievable at the premier dot org dot UK. Or you can phone me your phone response to this discussion on oh eight four five six fifty two fifty two fifty two and Select option five.

You can do that whether you're listening live this Saturday afternoon or you're listening to the podcast. I can pick it up and play it out on next week's program and indeed pass on any relevant pieces of information to my guests.

Your so. Let's just get back into this discussion because Abdullah James is saying look. We're not trying to make You know sense of something after the event this this stuff about the Trinity is inherent in in the original stuff.

You know that this isn't something that a later accounts will try to kind of force onto the text in some way. I mean, what do you make of that?

Well, the Bible is not a diary. It's not a personal a personal account of someone thinking who I want to go. You know make free goes to one. How do I do this? Okay, I'll do it like this. No, it's the finished document.

It is they you know produced work I mean and no one's going to say we're going to put free goes into one. They're going to give a spin on it. For example pro-lifers. I'm no doubt. I think James would be against their position.

They don't call abortion killing of children. They call abortion abortion just like, you know abortion the choice the woman to to basically choose what happens.

So what do you pro-choice. Rather pro-life you said pro-life?

You said I'd be against pro-life.

So yeah pro-choice the so the deal people use euphemisms to you know, and word games to change the actual, you know, meaning of To give a different spin to a to what essentially is something else. They're doing good.

So I believe in calling a spade a spade and so on if you know in terms of the actual Text, I mean, obviously we're not here to To say right. Well, you know this this text and Where did it come from and so on so forth?

Yes, this question can be asked and this is very interesting question where that can lead but I think in the case is that God gave us a mind and God is not all for confusion and He gave us a mind to you know, choose between and be able to kind of tell between falsehood and truth.

So if something doesn't make sense Regardless of which book it comes from I would say I mean If the Quran says something which is irrational. And obviously speaking of Muslim I have no compunction about saying this but likewise I would like the Christians to approach their Bible in the same way or their interpretation of Bible.

However, wherever they derived their belief from I'd like to them to approach this because end of the day the sign that we all agree On which is that we all have minds and we all agree on obviously we can see the universe in Europe and existence around us.