Badawi/Morosi Debate

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good afternoon evening welcome to the dividing line

I want to start out the program today by responding to sort of a counter top ten

Those of you who listened to the iron sharpens iron program yesterday when I was on Heard that we had a caller named

Claire and she posted a top ten list on Comments boxes that weren't actually supposed to be activated.

But anyway over on the iron sharpens iron blog site and Want to respond to them and then look at some

Islamic stuff get back to Jimmy Akin, you know Depends on calls and stuff like that. We'll see where we end up going on the program today, but I've you know, we

Have a phrase that I use a lot and it's called theology matters.

In fact, I just ordered a couple those shirts from Carla because Especially in her philosophy class.

I can just I can't wait to see what's going to happen when summer wears her theology matters shirt into her philosophy

Yeah Especially since her professor really doesn't like Christianity at all and it's going to be quite interesting like drawing a target on your forehead but anyway, she's in that kind of thing, but I Got one for myself, too.

The reason being As I have been commenting on Steve Ray's materials

I Have been forced to point out the fact that what you came from on your journey to Rome can greatly influence

What kind of a Roman Catholic you end up being? Steve Ray obviously came from by his own self -profession a form of fundamentalism that is

Rather proud of its ignorance of such things as church history and and the like and He seems to think that anyone who could continue to oppose

Roman Catholic claims must like him be in the same boat that he was in that is ignorant of well all sorts of things and I See that when that kind of a fundamentalist swims the

Tiber and becomes Roman Catholic It's somewhat challenging to try to point out that in essence

You're not asking them or inviting them or challenging them to go back to where they were

You're actually challenging them to go back to something quite different than what they were accustomed to and they want to keep

Assuming that you're saying come back to where you were when in point of fact, I'm not saying that at all I oppose a any kind of Protestant Expression that is sub biblical and unbiblical and laden with traditions, but ignorant of those traditions

I have been quite consistent in opposing that kind of sub biblical expression all along and It comes up in these these top ten questions from from Claire because obviously

Claire came from a very different background than that, which I would be presenting here. For example, here is the first Actually, there were nine questions plus an unnumbered question.

So I guess that's how to add First question now. I have a question How can Protestants live with the fact they believe for all intents and purposes?

That Jesus set up a church which utterly failed within 100 to 300 years depending who you ask Leaving Christians to follow an apostate system for 1 ,200 years all the while making great strides in art science philosophy music, etc

While worshiping the whore of Babylon only to be saved again by God by a disgruntled monk who himself could not keep any sort

Of movement together in short Christianity didn't really start with the Apostles It really started authentically 500 years ago, even though the most saintly people lived in that 1 ,200 year period, huh?

well, I There are Protestants, I guess I'm you know, there are

I have how many times have I said while teaching church history Which I've been teaching since 1990 at least that's when

I first started teaching church history was back in 1990 and I had a bunch of kids come into that class and as far as they were concerned church history wasn't 500 years ago as 50 years ago and For a lot of folks church history is about Billy Graham's about bar back church history to go.

No question about it I don't think that they're the percentage of folks who actually have knowledge of Meaningful church history is much higher amongst

Roman Catholics in general than it is amongst Protestants But certainly amongst amongst fundamentalists

Yeah, there's no knowledge church history at all But the fact that there is great ignorance amongst those people does that mean there's great ignorance amongst all of us

It's pretty obvious Claire has never read Philip Schaaf or any of the other major Protestant works on church history

That so, you know, it's just a little eight -volume thing that demonstrate that Protestants are quite well aware of church history and have thought through many of these issues

And in fact for many of us it is the facts of church history that would forever keep us from ever being able to accept the outrageous claims of the

Roman Catholic Church because we know too much about Church history and we know too much about the development of the papacy and and about what the early

Christians believed to accept ideas about the constant faith the church when it wasn't the constant faith the church and and The things like that and so this view of of the church

That is presented here Maybe that's what what

Claire experienced But it certainly isn't what any meaningful educated Protestant would ever present.

And so it's it's a caricature at its best But it's certainly

Representative of I guess, you know people who just don't know much about church history, but that's not what what scholarly

Protestantism would ever say about church history. Is it? I don't think so.

But anyway, here's here's the next one Why is a Protestant could I never get a straight answer about where we got our

Bible Well again having myself Delivered lectures on the subject of the text and transmission of the

Bible since the mid 1980s I guess the only response

I can give is you didn't ask the right people It's not that the information isn't there.

In fact, I would suggest to you that by far The best information that subject is not available from Roman Catholics And in fact those

Roman Catholic apologists to lecture on these things generally learned what they did from the Protestants not from the

Catholics so The information is there and I think that That the non -catholic gives a significantly stronger defense apologetically of the transmission and text of scriptures and Then the

Roman Catholic does today Especially when you have Roman Catholics like Jerry Maddox running around saying that you have the same warrant to believe in The bodily assumption of Mary as they have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus that pretty well

Slams any meaningful epistemological basis for good apologetics in in that context.

That's that's for certain. So Why is Protestant gonna never get a straight answer about where we got our Bible? You didn't look in the right place number two

Why is a Protestant would I read a church history book and it would gloss over three quarters of church history only discuss primarily

The past 500 especially 100 years don't know which church history books you ever read that certainly isn't my experience that certainly isn't the the representation of the

Church history library that I have in the other room Obviously, there are entire books on various periods of church history

So maybe you picked up a book and didn't realize that it was on a more modern period of church history or something

I don't know but When I was in seminary when I did my first master's degree, I had to read all of Kenneth Scott Lauderette's History the church that's two rather chunky small print volumes about as exciting as chewing on on aluminum foil, but I actually despite the rather Less than scintillating form of the text found it fascinating because I that this is very kind of stuff that I knew was

Necessary to understand and to read and so on so forth. So I'd say that the first two questions indicate that Claire didn't have a good library available or at least people to ask about where to get those books number three

How do Protestants? Think they can be one as Jesus said to stand up against the evil in the world when they don't really believe in any more

Authority than me and Jesus. Okay add your pastor, but who is he reporting to this is anarchy Well again, obviously a

Claire came from a really sub -biblical form of fundaism and Had no ecclesiology whatsoever.

And again, there are people out there who have no ecclesiology. They have no biblical doctrine of the church They've never even bothered to ask the question.

Hey, does the church does the Bible talk about how the church is to be organized? but I would like to introduce

Claire to the fact that there is a Wide and vibrant historical stream of people going back to the

Reformation who actually take the Bible seriously and they take all the Bible seriously and so they take seriously for example, the

Bible says about the fact there there are two offices you have the elders and you have the deacons and We take very seriously what the

Bible says about their responsibilities of those Two offices and what their different responsibilities are even though in many churches today.

You couldn't tell the difference between elder to deacon if you tried But again, the Bible makes differentiation so so do we and I have written a number of times

Little book came out recently called pulpit crimes Starts off with a discussion of the primacy of preaching in the church

And I would be considered rather high church person amongst Baptists anyways in in promoting the fact that the idea of church shopping and church hopping and All the other stuff that we see going on in what is what calls itself

Evangelicalism what I call post evangelicalism today has no biblical basis what so ever and So again

I would more focus upon the idea of how do Protestants think they can be one as Jesus said to stand up against evil in the world

Is that we're supposed to do I thought we were to be one and that we were to be sanctified in the Word of God And we were to be made one in our worship of God.

So we were to be sanctified in the truth It sounds sort of pragmatic here about standing up to evil

Well, you know if God wants to allow the church to have that blessing to be able to do that in a culture a great fine wonderful, we're certainly called to be salt and light, but That seems to be confusing the primary purpose of the church with secondary blessings the church might experience in particular

Situations in history so might want to keep an eye on things like that number four Why do Protestants including non -denominationalists do liturgy when it comes to a day?

That's really important to them their wedding But not when it comes to Sunday worship You exchange rings a symbol you stand for the bride symbol you sit and prescribe places symbol use liturgical vows

The bride wears white a symbol, but Sunday all bets are off. Well again it seems that Claire's experience of Protestantism is extremely narrow They're obviously those who have more

Liturgy than others and I think there's a certain range That is acceptable there, but I do believe that our worship should be circumscribed by what

Scripture says is pleasing to God and I'm not sure if it's this is just a hey in the

Roman Catholic Church We get to do all this stand -up sit -down rah -rah stuff or you know somehow that's meant to be uber important or whatever.

I don't know But Be that as it may I don't see this point here.

Everybody has liturgy some liturgy is more complex and involved than others For me the important thing is is

God pleased and Worshipped by that which we do one of the main problems we have in post evangelicalism today

Is that the whole focus is upon? My felt needs and making me feel good and blah blah blah blah blah blah

Which has absolutely positively nothing to do with biblical worship, which is focused upon God not upon me

I am the worshipper not the one getting some benefit out of out of worshipping if I get a benefit out of worshipping

Thank thank the Lord for that. It's a blessing, but that's not the point of what worship is Which makes me very very much outside the mainstream of what people are doing, but hey and by the way

The the Catholic Church has the exact same issues here and everybody knows it everybody knows you've got

Catholic parishes where you know They're trying to get rid of all the liturgical stuff And you know have clown suits and all the rest that stuff just like you haven't whacked out

Protestantism, so You can't exactly throw stones overly well in that particular situation number five

Why do process to celebrate Christmas and Easter when they fully well know these are pagan holidays the Catholic Church adopted and modified?

But they don't celebrate the rest of the church calendar year Two things you use the term

Catholic Church there you're assuming Roman Catholic Church, which it wasn't and secondly they weren't I'm so sick and tired especially the

Christmas thing there I've talked about this before, but I'm just so sick and tired of people who have just simply capitulated on this

And they don't look at any of the factual evidence in regards to Especially the when you look at quote -unquote

Easter, okay Astaroth that one at least the name, okay? I get the connection there, but clearly the dating of the celebration the resurrection is is established

Biblically without any questions. We can just leave that one off to the side and then the Christmas issue There's all sorts of stuff, and I've blogged about this and mentioned it and linked to it and not to get into it today, but When people just give up and go oh yeah, we're just most been bunch of paganism

I just just want to beat my head against the wall and go um you know what there's really good reason not to believe that But you just you've heard it so many times.

You don't hear the other side You just give up and just go okay. It must be come up with some explanation of it. I I Reject that and and in total number six

Why do Protestants call the platform in their church and altar when there aren't any sacrifices being done on it well?

We don't actually use that terminology, so it's sort of relevant to us but even if you did the Answer would be fairly obvious and that is it has something to do with the fact that we give ourselves as a sacrifice

We don't have to be re -sacrificing Jesus number seven Why would a Protestant stand for a judge the president the

Queen a lady a military officer out of good manners? But when they speak to God any posture will do as opposed to kneeling and standing in the

Roman Catholic Church This strikes me as again. We're getting a little bit on the silly side here It really really really strikes as being silly because any posture will do

What you you're not gonna walk into my church and see folks? You know with their feet up on the on the pews kicking back or laying down the pews or rolling around the floors else during worship

So you know I just don't think it even has any slightest bit of relevance at all Number eight why do most

Protestants allow divorce remarriage when the Bible forbids it well? I'm sorry, but I happen to know the Roman Catholic Church uses just all they do is use another term

It's called an omen and I have no one situation where a marriage of 24 years with three kids was annulled

And you know what I don't care what you call. That's called divorce. Okay. You know you can make all the excuses in world

You want that's called a divorce say it's use different word and do the same thing and you know

I? Applaud you if you say that divorce is a sin, and it's evil and all think that's exactly right.

It was wonderful it is But don't I'm sorry don't don't hide behind that one because it is a it's a sham.

It's a complete and total sham And total number nine Why do process that's it's actually number 10 because we had the first one was a numbered final one

Why do Protestants mainly oppose abortion, but support its gateway drug contraception which turns women into objects?

No Christian support until the Episcopalians allowed it for extreme cases less than 100 years ago only the Catholic Church opposed this disgusting practice

And again, I hear this one all the time, and I get sick and tired of well You know we got this is this is why we join the

Catholic Church well You know if the Catholic Church was actually completely united on that But when the

Catholic Church actually starts getting around to starting to do the mass excommunications of most of the American Church It doesn't believe that and actually goes against that then we can take it seriously but as long as the

Catholic Church keeps taking the American Catholic Church's money and Keeps propping itself up on that while closing their eyes to the rest that stuff and not actually bringing church discipline to bear

Until that happens don't talk to me about it because you don't really mean it seriously, okay, all right there

We go the top 10 list has been Responded to sorry, but that last one is just Okay, so I don't know it actually seemed to be more

Consistent at this point to jump into a little bit of the BAM thing and then

I'm gonna jump out of it I'm not gonna do the rest of the hour just on BAM. Let's actually finish up this hour this hour this hour of the

BAM program Some of you may remember we were listening to the Jimmy Akin which I keep finding people talking

I got an email this morning. I listened to the Jimmy Akin debate Take deep breath and we are still in the first hour which is supposedly on the soul scripture

We started taking some calls I have mentioned that in the second hour which we get into eventually Jimmy Akin had tremendously more time than I did which is probably

Why they want to call this a debate because that's the best way to win one is to actually not Allow the other side to have as much time, but we've been listening to the back and forth with Jimmy Akin and myself from 1995 yes over 12 years ago now is when this this took place and So we will continue where?

Lord willing where we left off last time at least according to my notes. This is where we were let's let's hope that it is

And they are not the most important books of Scripture But according to both the the

Eastern Orthodox and according to Roman Catholics They belong there and that was the position of the early church in fact

But isn't there a distinction there James Akin that that sure in terms of emphasis But but but the

Eastern churches also honor them as Scripture in the fullest sense I mean they are they are the inspired

Word of God just like the proto canonical books are in fact I was joking with your secretary.

I was looking around your bookstore out in the front office, and you had In the bookstore a a set of the complete

Bible on cassette, and I told her well I was looking all the neat books you have here But you've got a little bit of false advertising right here because it doesn't include the seven

Deuterocanonicals Well The problem I have of course is if I don't believe those books are scriptural

And I I would just point out that in the early church It seems to me that as I've stayed this issue the more an early church father

Knew of the Old Testament and the Jewish people The less likely he was to accept the apocryphal books as Scripture Look at Jerome look at origin both knew

Hebrew one of some of the very few early fathers who knew the Hebrew language Neither one of them except in the

Deuterocanonical books the apocrypha as fully scriptural. No, I'm sorry Jerome for example in one of his letters is adamant in defending the

Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel And he specifies the reason why he defends them he says I don't care what the

Jews today Say the Jews have lost their place as far as to as far as being able to recognize revelation Now let me stop right here because I have to wonder if Akin would would take the same stance today

I have been given to understand by James Swan that the new

Matuda book out on the apocrypha basically just throws Jerome under the bus because Jerome's views on this are

Clearly documented and it amazes me that that Jimmy Akin tried to to Present the idea and notice what he's talking about.

He's not talking about all the Deuterocanonicals He's talking there and this is this is a trick a little little warning here a little red flag here

Here's something y 'all need to catch I don't know if they were sitting around in the Catholic answers offices one day many many many years ago and said hey this is this this will work really well because they've pulled on me twice pull it on here and Matitex pulled it on me in Boston College about two years before this

What is it? What you do is when you encounter an early church father in this case

Jerome in the case of Matitex is Athanasius what you do is you find where they said something positive or accepted a canonical status of something other than the freestanding apocryphal books you focus on that and throw that out as a refutation hoping that your audience and listeners are not going to Zero in closely enough to actually find out what you're talking about because I mean

Jerome's argument with Augustine over the Deuterocanonicals is well -known But notice what he said let me let me back it up here just a little bit so you can hear it again

So you can catch this Is adamant in defending the

Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel and he's special to catch that the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel I see what people don't understand is

That you have two Classifications of apocryphal works you have the freestanding books like the

Maccabees But then some of these materials were actually attached to canonical works

Okay There were some portions in Jeremiah here. He's talking about the portions in Daniel, and they were attached to the canonical works now

Athanasius for example in his 39th festal letter when he lists the canon would include the apocryphal what we would identify as the apocryphal additions to The canonical works because in the text which he had it was all just one book

But he rejects the freestanding books, so he knows what the Jewish canon is he knows the 22 letters of the

Jewish canon And so he is trying to adopt the Jewish canon, but since he doesn't have the

Hebrew text available to him He is utilizing what is available to him, which is the Greek which has those

Additions in them see and so while he rejects the freestanding books

He accepts what he is accustomed to in the Greek text now here Jerome Rejects the freestanding books, but here is is a canonical portion

That is that is that he's saying he defended now the obviously

The the most important elements of the apocryphal text are the freestanding books.

We're talking about I've never done a study of it, but what 95 % of the text

Maybe would be in the freestanding books, and that's what's being rejected So what are they doing here? They're defending the 95 % the basis of 5 % as if somehow that that's that's a valid type argument again

You know if your primary purpose is to Wow the people you're trying to keep on your side and And give them a reason for thinking that it's okay to believe what they believe

Then you can get away with this kind of apologetics the only reason that you would even be concerned about doing some other kind of apologetics would be if you actually honor truth and Want to honor the

God of truth, and so you're gonna do a whole different kind of apologetics than then you would otherwise and so That's to want to make sure people caught that maybe a little

Apologetics lesson I really do wonder if they just sat around that office one day and said hey this is how we can do this this is how we can do that and And we've just seen it over because it's very clear to me.

It's one of those meetings They came up with this this one and that is when

You are in a debate on sola scriptura and you want to make

You know you know make hey, or if you're not doing too Well things aren't going the way you want them to go

What you do is you wait to the cross -examination period when you know that your opponent does not even have enough time to lay out

Anything at all because cross -examination isn't supposed to be about new topics It's supposed to be about what has already been said you are actually supposed to be asking questions

That's why in a court of law you can object and say I object this there's no foundation here

And the judge can toss it out In a debate unfortunately unless you had a really active moderator, and this had been discussed beforehand people get to throw out all sorts of wild and wacky things in cross -examination that had nothing to do with the original topic at all and So what they decided a long time ago was you wait to cross -examination, then you throw the cannon question out now

Never ever let on that you actually can't answer the cannon question outside of saying well

Why is the Roman Catholic cannon right because we say so that's why Don't let anybody see that part

But throw that out and and and that'll get your followers all We have certainty about the cannon and you go why because Rome's infallible and you go why?

And okay, you're right back to where we all started, but anyway That that's clear.

They've done it since Jerry's done it and Madrid's done it, and I've heard Keating do it clearly that was there was some meeting way back when that's that is in a a

Notebook someplace that's given to everybody who here. Here's a here's the tactics We advise the reason why he defends them

He says I don't care what the Jews today say the Jews have lost their place as far as to turn as far as being able to recognize revelation

And I will go with the church's judgment What does it matter to me if if modern -day

Jews are saying that the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel don't belong there? Similarly origin, and this is the point that Kelly makes origin regarded the deuterocanonicals as scripture in fact

I have quotations from him to that effect, but he because they are not accepted by Jews He recommended against using them in debate.

That's the same thing. I would do as a Catholic I mean Protestants mostly don't accept them And so I don't cite the deuterocanonicals at least not usually when

I'm debating a Protestant. They're really There isn't almost anything to cite. I mean honestly that these these books are so Vacuous No, they're interesting history, and there's some nice stories, and I'm here there and everywhere

But as far as there's certain one not inerrance Yeah, I've linked to Jimmy Akins attempt to explain

And I've taught my head the names escaping, but one of the books is is is a hundred years off on it

Has Nebuchadnezzar in the wrong city. It's a hundred years off. I mean Historically it is so laughable

And I've actually linked to Jimmy Akins attempt to explain this and to turn it all into allegory and stuff like this

And it's wild stuff obviously about the only thing that people get into is the second Maccabees text in regards to Allegedly about purgatory even that if you actually read it seriously has nothing to do with purgatory because the the men died as idolaters

So praying for them after they're dead so relevant even from Norman Catholic perspective, but pick up The second volume will pick up all three volumes, but look at the second volume

Of the Holy Scripture series the volume that Bill Webster wrote where he deals the apocryphal issues.

There's just a tremendous amount of information Honestly up until the time of the

Reformation you could the most scholarly stream of interpretation and tradition

Rejected these books all the way up to the time of the Reformation It when you actually get a chance to read these things and to look at them

It's it's truly amazing the number of people all the way and again when you look at Athanasius you look at Milito Sardis I think of Milito Sardis and his

Inquiring into Palestine of what the Jewish canon was at the end of the second century there was no apostolic tradition being passed around he inquired and wanted to know what the

Jews believe because That the quotation was just given about you know the Jews have have rejected

Messiah fine but the fact the matter is that the Old Testament was delivered to the Jews not to Rome and As Paul himself said when writing to the

Romans At that particular point in time he said What he referred to them as the people to whom the oracles of God had been?

entrusted to whom the oracles of God had been entrusted

Now what then did they believe they rejected those books there is no question about that That's why they have to even come up with this type of argument

And that was exactly origins position and Kelly makes this point in his book early Christian doctrines I'd just simply refer anyone to Beckwith not to the

Beckwith that we know but another Beckwith work on the the Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church For a full and in -depth and scholarly examination of this issue

Jerry matics And I debated this issue of Boston College if they'd like to hear a debate on the issue It'd be

I think counterproductive in the time. We have left me throwing Apocryphal or quotations one another but the simple fact matter is

I don't believe the New Testament writers the Apostles themselves Treated these books of Scripture, and I I think that we have an example here

Why should we believe that the Council of Trent which I think James would agree is the first ecumenical council?

Well, he's saying no, but most Roman Catholic even though the Catholic Encyclopedia the first ecumenical council to deal with the issue of the canon was the

Council of Florence in 1442 and the issue of the canon I didn't say the issue of the can I meant specifically citing all those books as Well it is that that's dealing with the issue of what belongs in the canon and the

Council of Florence included those But they've been included far earlier than that in 382 at the Council of Rome Vincent I hope we now let me just stop right there is all sorts of problems there that I really wonder if If Aiken would still try to make the claims that he does now because they're a little bit too easy to knock out of the

Ballpark, I mean the wrong the Catholic Encyclopedia itself admits the first dogmatic dogmatic

Definition of the canon is Trent and Florence the Council of Rome is even that there's even question as to where there was a

Council of Rome at all to even go into that particular issue But the point is those would not be quote -unquote ecumenical and even if you went to Florence You're still talking about 1400 years down the road that obviously indicates that you can't you do not need some infallible definitions of canon for the scriptures to exist and to function because they have been existing and functioning long before that and It is rather obvious that even after Florence there were

Roman Catholics in good standing with Rome who rejected the apocryphal books How could

Cardinal Cayetan say what he said in following Jerome and rejecting the apocryphal books in the prologue?

To his New Testament in the 16th century if Jimmy Aiken is right about the

Council of Florence How could how could that be? But again, these are issues that unfortunately in a non -debate radio program

How long how long has this been conversation going on? Let me see. Let me look here sort of the waveform the waveform

There might have been 10 minutes here So we had a quick 10 -minute discussion at most probably more like 7 on the issue of the apocrypha

Now compare that with the value of having the debate at Boston College Jerry Medetich on the apocrypha The value of debate with Gary Machuda on the apocrypha on Long Island that are two and a half hours long that's why this isn't a debate and Anybody who calls it one is just being this up to I'm gonna have to put a comment of the conversation because the clock is

Running out on us Again, we are going to have James White and James Aiken in studio tomorrow right here on the

Bible Answer Man which of course means that what we did is We did three hours in studio on one day whenever I think everybody knows

Obviously that when you listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast and you hear two hours three hours

Those were all done at one time. They tend to become marathons The first time

I was on Bible Answer Man, we did three hours in the King James only controversy This one ended up being three hours. I'm trying to remember if the

Staples ones were two or three hours Themselves, I I think they went pretty long. So there were at least two hours each.

They might have gone three I don't I don't recall but I Know the last time I was on went three hours

And that was with George Bryson and that was still rather memorable. Anyway keeping keeping that out of the way,

I Want to skip over to something else just to throw a bunch of different things your direction keep things fresh

So let's shift out of the Roman Catholic gear that we've been in for the first 34 minutes of the program 35 minutes program here and Go back over to what obviously is going to be taking my attention and I really need to get to this

That's why I need to try to get as much progress as I possibly can on the Steve Ray response get this stuff

Done and out of the way and get focused upon what's coming up in October with the

Shabir Ali on the subject of the atonement Many many many people in Western society the vast majority of people in Western society

Do not understand the mindset of the Islamic world. I was meeting with my new

Arabic tutor and We were having a wonderful conversation he grew up in Syria and Has only been here in the

States for about four years and so very closely connected there understands the the mindset of the

Middle East and And I was bouncing things off him conclusions I'd come to and was very thankful to discover that I'd pretty much come to the right conclusions and had been availing myself of the proper sources of information and one of the main things that he and I discussed was the fact that there are very very few people in the

West who understand the Muslim mindset and One of the things I try to do in doing my debates is to get into that mindset in fact one of the reasons

I've said this many times in the program that I've never written on Eastern Orthodoxy is that I understand how different the mindset is of Eastern Orthodoxy and If you're really talking with a real

Eastern Orthodox person the the questions that we tend to ask as Western thinkers

Just don't have they don't they don't have any traction This is not how real

Eastern Orthodoxy thinks we think in very forensic categories very logical Categories the

East is not thinking in forensic categories. They're they're they're speaking their emphasis on Incarnational theology versus ours upon sacrificial theology.

I mean these are all Things that people recognize and I'm glad to see there finally are some books coming out that I think do a good job on these

Things but that's one of the reason I've done it is because I don't know how you could really in a book I don't think

I have the capacity To to try to get people to understand the Eastern Orthodox mindset

Which you'd have to do before you can even begin to address any of these issues I just besides that I just don't have any desire to do it

And I need to desire to do what I'm writing on if I'm gonna do a decent job The same thing in a slightly different way is is the case with with Islam very very few

Christians and sadly Very very few of people in our government have any idea how

Muslims really think and why they think the way they think And I try to get into the the thought patterns.

That's why I have listened To Shabir Ali's presentations on the Atonement to Jamal Badawi his teachers presentations on the

Atonement sin Sacrifice the cross not just once but frequently two three and four times each

So that I can I can get into that mindset and Think the way that they think if I can think the way that my opponent is going to think in the debate

I have a great opportunity of winning that debate and making it a very clear debate a debate that is going to very clearly assist the church in its in its task of Basically reproducing this debate on the smaller levels of the personal encounters out there

When the Christian worldview encounters the Islamic worldview and so I Was listening again this morning.

I tell you I Mentioned to rich I may have to borrow that is that an ice pack you have on your neck right now

I got a headache. I got something going on. Well, I may have to borrow that to ride. Let me tell you something yeah,

I I need to find something because Folks who don't live in Phoenix right now

This is our hard part of the year Okay, it's been hot for for a long time now and right now.

It's just Living in an oven this would last about oh, maybe five minutes out there

Well, I know I've the season for industrial strength ice pack. I well see you got to realize I freeze to insulated water bottles with Gatorade in them

I freeze them solid the night before and they're underneath my seat in a rack in the back and Depending on how hot it is outside.

They they're melting quick and But I could think they normally last at least 25 miles before they've totally gone to outside temperature but anyway,

I was out this morning and I had to start early because it's 90 degrees at the start and believe it or not with humidity and That's that's the coolest it is before sunrise

So you got to get as many miles in as you can before that Sun starts hitting you because when it starts hitting you You're just if you've never been in a desert climate, you just can't understand what that feels like it's there's

I don't know I don't know how to describe it, but it cooks it. You don't ride with a camel pack. Sure freeze that no no, no,

I put ice in it in water because that'll that'll take too long to It's a file, you know, you know, so that should give people a little concept you finish off a camel pack and two bottles of Gatorade.

Yeah. Oh, yeah, the camel backs the water and then the two bottles of Gatorade are under the seat Yeah, so anyway, oh

Crew bear is saying humidity, please I Keep I guess I can't keep having to document for him the fact that there are there are times when our humidity and New Orleans Humidity are actually the same dewpoint level and he just doesn't want to admit that doesn't understand what a monsoon is

But he's a Cowboys fan and Cowboys fans live in a world of utter fantasy. Anyways, so totally living in the past There it is

Great dynasty. Yeah, I know we need to pray for the deliverance of these people. There's no no no toys about it

But anyway, we've really gotten off track here But yeah

I was listening this morning in the midst of the heat a little 34 mile, right?

To a debate that took place. I don't know when it took place. It was a long time ago and This is

Jamal Badawi and a dr. Morsi who took on Gleason Archer and another gentleman and Listening to dr.

Morsi. I tell you it's about as as as helpful as Listening to the audience questions in the

Hamsa Abdul Malik debate It gives you a real insight into how

Muslims here When people are speaking, all right, here's here.

Let me just give you an example. Let's start off with with dr. Morsi here My first point actually this question is directed to dr.

Archer He went to great length to tell us that human beings are sinners and And they have the tendency to disobey

God they are selfish All these characteristics, of course we agree with him

But my my main question to him actually

What kind of benefit did God Almighty get by either committing suicide on the cross or By sending

Jesus peace be upon him to be tortured killed insulted and crucified

This to me as a Muslim neither improves Nor benefits the majesty of God as a matter of fact

It does not sound to me that this will preserve His qualities as a just and merciful

God To the contrary it puts him in the picture of being a tyrant

Vindictive as a matter of fact, you are trying to tell us that he extracted his pound of flesh

So, how did God Almighty benefit from killing Jesus on the cross so Here you have someone he's gonna say let later that he's been friends with Archer for quite some time

So this is not the first time That he has been in some sort of a dialogue and discussion of these things

But I hope you're hearing what he's saying. Did you did you hear he said? Suicide on the cross.

Why would God commit suicide on the cross? Or why would he send

Jesus to die? So in other words, they're not even making a clear differentiation They've probably run into someone who's

Pentecostals who said it was, you know, the father and the son and blah blah blah Suicide on the cross.

Why would he said? This does not benefit the majesty of God. It makes God look like a tyrant

Vindictive he's extracting his pound of flesh and you you sit back and the very fact that That this is not the kind of objection.

You're you're you're used to hearing Can cause you to sort of stumble and be hesitant in your responses

And so we have to hear these things as uncomfortable as they may be we have to hear these things and So that we've can think through them as to how we would respond to them were they to be presented to us because the tendency if you've never heard an objection before the tendency on The part of the

Christian in an apologetic context and these these are basic Islamic objections to the cross

So, I mean if you're gonna be doing any proclamation of the gospel at all, this is going to come up And so the tendency is to be rather to be rather emotional

To cover over the fact you don't really feel confident in responding to these things

Now if I were to respond to what he had just said I would want to point out a number of things first of all that there seems to be some

Confusion on his part when he talks about committing suicide on the cross Obviously Jamal Badawi and all these gentlemen say well, no one can ever understand the

Trinity and Sadly in all the debates I've heard they never debate anyone who actually could explain it.

Well explain it succinctly Which isn't good but I would

I would want to make sure that that confusion was taken care of and Then I would want to point out the fact that what the

New Testament taken as a whole what all the first century sources say They are harmonious in saying that it was

God the Father's intention and the Son's intention and the Spirit's intention to glorify

God through the sacrifice of Christ the union of an elect people with him and Their resultant glorification is to his glorification.

It's the demonstration of his grace To to all the universe and I guess

I should mention here one of the problems I have had with almost all the debates that I've listened to almost all of them is that the folks who were debating them weren't reformed and So at key points, especially about God's purpose in his own self glorification in the gospel they were sub -biblical and therefore their apologetic became sub -biblical as well and So he would get a response he probably hasn't gotten before But why of course

I would say why is it that a holy God? Who is clearly acting in line with his revealed law in the punishment of sinners?

Why would he look like a tyrant or vindictive if he simply brings to bear as he brought to bear so many times in the

Old Testament as he continues to bring to bear in our own world his wrath against sin I mean, are are you dr.

Morrissey a naturalist? Are you not a supernaturalist? Do you not see in what takes place in the world around us?

God's hand and God's purpose in these things and of course in the Islamic perspective they take this to the point of fatalism

I mean, you know you have the tsunami comes in wipes out who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people well

You know as God wills, you know The idea that there is a purpose here.

No, it just becomes simple fatalism Which is where we part ways the when

God does these things he has a purpose in these things, but Clearly from the Christian perspective.

We see the hand of God in this in this in these situations So why would God look vindictive if he is if as a holy

God he is bringing his wrath to bear? Do you take the same thing and look at the

Quran? Where we're over and over again. We talked about people being chucked into hellfire

Doesn't that make God look vindictive? I've always wondered why it is that Shabir Ali and Jamal bet.

Well, this makes God look like this and therefore I reject it. Well I Could sit there and say well, man a lot doesn't exactly attract me and a lot of things he does in the

Quran Does that somehow give me a grounds for saying that it's not the Word of God? My what I feel is somehow a standard.

I've never understood that one. It's like I'm sorry I don't care what it seems like to you.

You aren't the arbiter of truth. Are you? I'm certainly not. Why would I you know, I've never found those particular arguments to be overly overly compelling.

So a Not overly compelling response was provided that which dr. Morrissey responded to in these words.

I Will try to be as agreeable as I can and I Will even go along with dr.

Archer assertion that Jesus peace be upon him went to the cross willingly Even though that we read in the

Gospels that he said the night before Crying and sweet now what you're gonna hear here.

I let me get set this up and actually I should I should say that wasn't The not overly compelling response.

It was sort of short. I think Archie did a decent job on that Eventually, we're gonna get to where Archer finally gets a little

Hurrah, you know, he finally says look I need to set the record straight here This is getting ridiculous and he gave a pretty strong response.

But anyway What you Love what you got here is basically

Morrissey going well, I'll agree with you even though and now he's gonna give us a litany of standard

Islamic Objections that again you're gonna hear over and over again. This stuff goes back to D dot

D dot through this stuff out This has been in literature for a long time Listen to what he's saying.

These are objections that he's throwing out Without wanting to call them objections, but that's what they are

And so I'll even go along with Jesus willingly gave himself because that was part of Archer's responses

Well someone who willingly gives themselves. It's the how can that be vindictive there? Obviously someone's over but and now he's gonna try to say

Jesus didn't I remember last was it last week sometime? I played a section from Shabir Ali where he likewise was saying well you see

You've got you've got the synoptics and Jesus didn't want to do this But John he does want to do this and so they're trying to present the idea.

There's all these different views Most important thing for the Islamic apologist don't allow the New Testament to speak for itself.

Do not allow it to be unified Divide it up. Don't let anybody do that to Quran Don't let anyone even suggest that there are multiple sources to the

Quran or that there's been Editing that's gone over time, you know, like the addition of the Qibla revelation after Muhammad's already gone

No, no, no, no, no, no, no Reject all that as liberal Orientalists and mock that and things like that but when you approach the

New Testament break it into a million pieces and Make sure it never speaks with one voice because if you do you're sunk.

You just you're not gonna survive it and So what you do is now you now he's saying well

Jesus weeps all night the night before because he doesn't want to do this He wants he's trying to present the idea that Jesus is an unwilling participant, but there's other elements to it

Listening and asking God to pass the cup from him when he was led to the cross

He cares to the people that are leading him to the cross and he said woman of Jerusalem Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves

Even though when he was on the cross, he even asked God to forgive those

Who are doing harm to him for they do not know what they are doing instead of blessing him

But this issue I am not going really to bicker with you My issue is oh, he just did just be honest and say ha ha

I just snuck in all this stuff and you don't say well, I'm not gonna bring that up You just brought it up. You just spent 45 seconds to a minute bring it up They'll say you didn't bring it up if you are trying to convince us

That Jesus peace be upon him Have done that out of love and out of benefit to us as humans

But now to catch that he did that to bring about a benefit to us

Now here is where the Muslim idea that everyone in the

West is a Christian comes into play and This is where again if you're part of a church that is not willing to say this is the gospel and this isn't

You're not to be able to engage Apologetically was with someone like this You're not gonna be able to do it your theology is not strong enough

It's not consistent enough because the mindset is if you're in the West you're a Christian. They're all a bunch of cross -worshippers

Listen to what that then results. I look at the societies that breach this doctrine.

I Really do not see any change to the bitter in any form or shape as a matter of fact

I find the highest rate of rape The highest rate of alcoholism the highest rate of murder

The highest rate of insults the highest rate of abusing woman The highest rate of disintegration of the families so how come all these millions upon millions of people and all these societies

Who have truly believed in these doctrines? Where is the benefit that had been?

inflicted upon them or Where are the benefits that they are enjoying today? Now do you hear you say these societies which have truly believed in these doctrines?

Societies don't believe in doctrines people believe in doctrines and To look at Western societies and to look at the

Western societies that hate God's law that in Europe You you know the one religion you can mock the one worldview you can mock the moral code you can mock

It's the Christian worldview. It is the Christian law It is God's laws revealed in the

Bible that you can you can mock and make fun of and you can't even Mention and that's what people in our society are trying to do.

You can't have the Ten Commandments anywhere You can't say anything about what God says is right or wrong. It's all a hate crime

It's all hate speech And if you think this isn't happening, hey by one vote in in the in England and it's

Tony Blair's vote that defeated it the hate crimes laws that would have in essence Prohibited me from saying a lot of things that I say when

I'm over there Was voted down it's gonna come back over in California. They have tried to bring laws into the state legislature over there

That would make it a crime to to say things that would again So it's always always under the the hate crimes stuff in regards to Islam and the

Quran This stuff is coming Western society is committing suicide on these issues and it's

Christianity that can be suppressed Never anybody else of course once Sharia law is established these folks will realize oops

But by then it will be really really really way too late All that all that type of stuff aside do you see the mindset here these societies

Are all Christian? And they are all believers in this stuff and there's no benefit it hasn't changed anything and so one of the things we have to communicate is

These societies are not Christian That a person who rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ and Does not live a life where Jesus Christ is

Lord is Not a Christian just because he's born in a land that is not under Sharia law

Does not make that person a Christian in fact if we're gonna be consistent here

If we're gonna be consistent here what we need to tell people very clearly is That a vast majority of the people who call themselves

Christians aren't Christians The funny thing is a lot of these Muslims would agree as long as we were talking about Muslims In other words, they don't have any problem recognizing

There's a bunch of countries that call themselves Muslim that they would say are not truly Muslim because they do not fully implement

Sharia law So they recognize the difference between nominal Islam and a really believing

Commitment to the Quran and to Sharia law and things like that, but they won't allow that on our side at all

We can't have just nominal Christians Not at all. In fact, I was gonna play this one later, but let me let me just play you one here oops

It's the minute 59 we'll go just a couple seconds long just so you can see this and you're gonna go As agreeable as I can and I Will even go along with dr.

Archer. Oh, wait a minute. Come on the Jesus. Peace be upon him. Sorry about that It went down here it's way down there it is.

Okay. All right. All right. Here we go panel. I mean Is he

Dr. Archer and myself we come from Chicago We have been great friends for years and I value his friendship and he's a great scholar and even though that we have a different points of view yet, we respect him and Respect his opinion but I'm going to mention some names that That he probably knows of since both of us came from Chicago.

There is a man by the name of John Gacy a great Man that was born and baptized and everything yet he made the national news because he killed 33 young men and buried them in his crawler space under his house

There is a another young man by the name of Jeffrey Dahmer who is again the

Young man that had been baptized and believed and everything and made it his business to kill 20 or 30 young men and Keep parts of their body and his apartment and was experimenting on them

Okay, my point is All these wonderful people

That's that's our to go. Yeah, what is the point had declared that they accept?

Jesus Christ to be the personal savior So John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer.

They were Christians man that disproves the cross and you're just like Wow, I mean he's serious

He's really really serious and you've got to be able to go sir

You do not understand the fact that these scriptures Do not ever present the

Christian faith as something that is passed on societally they call every man every woman to personal repentance and faith in Christ and if you find somebody like a

Jeffrey Dahmer who claims that he's doing this as a Christian what you've found is a liar

What you found is a person who is lying And that's what they need to be told but how many people today are actually shrink back from it

Well, you know, we don't know and you know until they get to heaven, you know, ah

But that's the mindset. There is The mindset that you need to deal with that these people these people have well, hopefully that's of some assistance to you

Gave you more of a headache, didn't it? Yeah, and that great man We will continue on the dividing line next week only one program because Next not this guy weekend with the weekend after this.

I'll be up in Toronto. I'll be speaking at the solo scriptura conference I'll be speaking on Islam. Let's hope

I get back out of Canada and Also speaking to churches up there, too. So Be watching the blog.

Hopefully I get some information up before I head up there as the details. We'll talk to you later Away The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at six. Oh two nine, seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o

Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine. You can also find us on the world wide web at a

Oman org That's a Oman dot o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks