Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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.
And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon a little bit early today going for a jumbo edition just a jumbo edition for People like Ralph who can just never be satisfied no matter how much extra we do but just one of the crosses we have to bear and You know, we know that eternity is coming when there will be no disappointments whatsoever.
Anyway three subjects to get to today if That is if my audio program decides not to crash as it did just a few moments ago right before the beginning the program I mentioned on Twitter and I also mentioned Mmm, did I mention on the blog?
I guess I mentioned on the blog. Who knows? Yeah, I mentioned it in an electronic way That I was sent over an email from Referencing a phone call on the pastors perspective program and I went ahead and took the time to Download it on iTunes and Take a look at what was there? and I did find it rather rather intriguing and Worthy of a a quick listen.
I don't know that we're gonna spend too much time on it But I think it's rather illustrative of the kinds of responses being offered to reform theology out there so we'll do that and Then we will get back to Harry Knox and we will also get back to Abdullah Kunda and we will make little noises as we are trying to find the locations where everything is and Well, we'll get there eventually so I think I've got everything queued up again Even though I did it only in the past last like, you know, 90 seconds or something like that.
But hopefully everything is is there so we're gonna start off. This was a program from the 21st of May of this past month, so it wasn't all that long ago and Let's just let's dive in take Listen to what what happened on how are you?
I'm fine. How you doing today? Good. Thank you.
Okay, I I had a question designed with for both Chuck and you but I'm just gonna go ahead and fill with the question. In 1st Corinthians 126. Now I'm having an extended and exhaustive discussion with a brother in the Lord who? in simple terms basically says that the gospel is.
You know God has done what he's done right now. It's your choice. You choose heaven or hell. Basically, you know your salvation is up in the air and it's your choice. Are you going to accept it? And I think you you have that view that if that man is Making the decision Whether he will be saved or not.
Yeah.
Well, well God well, yes, and no God the Holy Spirit convicts. That's the job of the Holy Spirit. John 14 through 16 Jesus said I'm going away. It's necessary I go away the Holy Spirit the Comforter will come in my place and John 16 Roy tells us he will convict the world of sin.
So no one can come to the Father except for the conviction of the Holy Spirit unless the Holy Spirit draws him. That's very clear but we believe God in a sovereign choice and a sovereign will has given human beings the responsibility of Responding to that call and so yeah, we've got both things going on.
God certainly has to call the person. God certainly has to woo them, but we have to respond to that. There's a personal Responsibility there. So yes, we do believe that.
Well, that's interesting that you would put it that way. I mean I understand what he's saying. But we just had calling and wooing made identical things so. That almost sounds like general call and effectual call the same thing as the Southern Baptist statement.
And I wish we didn't call it. The traditionalist Southern Baptist statement put it that we talked about last week. And the people continue to talk about even Roger Olsen keeps talking about it. But the the confusion of the specific call and the general call that was a part of that document Sounds like is present here as well, and I think the caller is going to bring that up.
Okay, so you believe he gave that equal calling to everybody. Well. He got. Well. He gave the calling to everyone. Yes.
So now to see that the caller said an equal calling and Then Stuart says well the calling yes. Well, is that I? Would love for someone to ask the question Does God try equally? with every person because I think everybody I don't care how Advanced or non advanced you are in your theological thinking if you if you're familiar at all With the narrative of the Bible as a whole.
You're gonna go. Well obviously not. I mean clearly the the Jews had advantages that The Babylonians did not that the Egyptians did not that the Nigerians did not and Even today there are certain nations in the world where?
There is much more Opportunity to hear the gospel than in others. So It's obvious that if God's trying equally with everybody that's not working out real well and So upon what basis does he distinguish.
And I think one of the reasons that maybe they don't want to go there is because no matter what you end up with God having to choose and. And once that's introduced if that has anything to do with the final result That that doesn't work.
Well for the synergist. Okay, so going down to the scripture then I.
First first. Corinthians 126. I'm looking at it. Mm-hmm. Okay, Paul says for you see your calling brethren. How that not many wise men after the flesh? Many mighty not many noble are called but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty.
Right face things of the world and the things which are despised has God chosen. Yes, and the things which are not to bring to naught the things that are right now what I'm seeing in that verse now.
I would have suggested to the caller To continue on even though it becomes a long section especially on a radio program. So that no one No one may boast before the Lord. Literally, it's no flesh so that no one living may boast before the Lord because X out to day who mice este en Cristo because it is out of him or by him.
That you are in Christ Jesus who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and Redemption or the justice has been written. Let him who boasts boast in the Lord. So this is very very clearly in Context talking about being in Christ Jesus and it's very very clearly in context talking about how this is.
This is why we cannot boast of anyone but the Lord because it's by his doing that we are in him who has become to us wisdom from God and Righteousness and Sanctification redemption. These are all obviously salvation words and that's the context.
But if you don't get that far Then you leave yourself open for well, what happens is that found the wise has particularly chosen to save the weak and the foolish ones and not many of the wise and the mighty so that indicates to me that this is God's sovereign choice of Choosing who is going to be saved.
Do you see what I'm seeing in this passage that there is not a You know a random roll of the dice in the composition of what the church is, but God seems to Look, you know singularly be choosing here.
Do you see what I'm saying?
I see what you're saying Roy, but I don't see that all in the passage. God has based basically Paul saying this look. He's talking to the Corinthians there. Let's remember who they are. They are the crummy Corinthians.
They are the chiefs of sinners there. You look at the composition of the church. They have come to Christ and what we're reading here is that look you people he has chosen. You don't see the Kings many of them and didn't say not any it said not many.
Let's make that distinction. They're not many of noble birth that born into privileged positions. Have as he chosen to do that and that's just been been the thing throughout history right now. Why is that the issue?
It's because of pride first. Proverbs 6 16 six things the Lord hates seven things are an abomination to him. A proud look is numera uno number one. And so basically where God gets his glory Roy is using simple people not that you know, not the Kings the leaders the presidents.
They're not the ones for the most part now there have been exceptions to that and we thank God for them. But part of the problem is the position these people are in now. It says nothing electing to salvation.
It says to confound the wise the wisdom of the world in other words the world system is looking to people who are in leadership looking to people who are in positions of Authority and What God has chosen what God has placed in the churches?
Anybody can come to him anybody any lowly people people who have basically no educational background. They can know Christ in a personal way and they can you know. Turn it like the 12 Apostles turn the world upside down as it were now as we saw.
That that that is not an exegesis. That's an excuse because he's ignored what follows immediately thereafter. It's just just just a matter of reading and context once again demonstrates the synergism.
Synergists don't read in context, but anyway, but even then he's still forced even though he says where's nothing here about election to salvation. He then talks about what? Election to salvation. They're they're all these, you know people that are not in in great positions and all the rest that stuff.
So he's even not not consistent at that point and Again if he just if they just gone on. So that no flesh may boast before God and and it's just because of pride. Wait a minute. Pride isn't a part of the sinners.
But this is God's action. Look to your calling brethren. Look look just look at verse 27. But the foolish things of the word of the world God has chosen. That's God's action. God is the subject. He's the one.
Performing the action of the verb. So are you saying that God's action was dependent upon the pride of men? That God can only do what the pride of men allowed him to do. I mean it always ends up turning the text on its head.
That's what synergism does. It always turns the text on its head and turns it upside down and makes the message.
The exact opposite of what it's actually seeking to communicate and so that that's what he's arguing here in first Corinthians because we got it again.
Keep reading the whole thing in context what came before what came afterwards what came what came afterwards, right. That that talks about justification sanctification. That's it comes very next part of the of the text.
He's rebuking a church. That's in sin.
And he's he's making an observation here. You know, you guys aren't the cream of the crop as it were. God's. God's using you to get his word out. You're preaching Christ in Christ alone. But it's not because of any great noble stature that you have.
So that's is his argument there in chapter one. Not, you know choosing for salvation and ignoring the other seat.
You got some huge problems Roy if he's not choosing for salvation, but the very next two verses said for by him X out to by means of him You are in Christ Jesus who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.
It's right there. I mean The the the blinders of tradition that are on the the faces of the synergists is it's just absolutely positively an.
Amazing thing to observe. If you say that God selected certain people then Salvation wouldn't be by grace through faith as Paul says in Ephesians to it be by God's decree, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't that be the case now the catch that? Did you catch that? I had never heard anyone use this objection before. I mean, it's totally vacuous. It's purely based on semantic games. But I never heard anyone if if what you're saying is true, then salvation wouldn't be by grace.
It would be by decree. Now think through that for just a moment. What does what is that supposed to mean what what is the what is the fundamental flawed Presupposition that is being smuggled in here that needs to be challenged that there's somehow a contradiction between God's having a decree To save by his grace or some other kind of decree or no decree at all.
I Mean, it really makes me wonder does does does the synergistic God have any decree? Does he have well? He's got a plan it but it's a very vague plan. He's just got a general plan. Well, so if he has a plan then salvation is by plan not by grace.
No, that's ridiculous. Obviously salvation by grace means that God Extends his gracious love and mercy To those who not only do not deserve that love and mercy But actually demerit that love and mercy they actually merit his wrath properly and justly but that is Descriptive of what God has chosen to do the means by which he has chosen to act Towards creation to his own glory.
But there is no contradiction. It's not well, it's either by decree or it's by grace. Well, do you believe God has a plan? Yes God. Oh, so you're contradicting it too because you think God has a plan but he has to be by a plan or by grace.
Well, no, his plan is for oh, so your presupposition doesn't actually follow through for yourself, right? These kinds of trite answers are Are met are not meant to clarify the truth of the gospel. They are meant to confuse it.
That's what bothers me when people say well, you know, this really isn't an important issue. We just need to put over to one side and we can all just get along. The problem is this is foundational it absolutely Defines how you're going to view God how you're going to view evangelism how you're going to view the church how you're going to view worship how you're going to view life and death and Callings in the church and the inspiration of the body.
It's at the ground of everything. It really does Touch on everything and you you see it right here.
Well, it's by means of but that doesn't negate the possibility that God Can still make the choice. Everybody knows and agrees we all. Be that repentance and faith is the action that brings us into into salvation.
Then why does he say whosoever will may come I?
Didn't and The caller is going to try to explain to to the gentleman What's the term whosoever means he's gonna go to John 3? But again As we have said so many many times before The emphasis upon the biblical text and he doesn't give us a he doesn't give us a Specific text even examined in context here.
The caller assumes John 3 16. I'm not really sure that that's what he was assuming. But he tries to explain it and it's it's sort of look it's hard to do when you're calling into a radio show. That's why you don't.
I almost never do that because look I'm normally on this end of things and I know that the caller is at the disadvantage no matter what and So, you know, it's much better to be on a program or something like that, you know that I understand that.
But anyhow, let's listen to how that went. There's everyone. Yeah whoever will. Everyone Believing in him did not perish but have everlasting life. There seems to be. I read it all my life the way you're talking about but I see the particularity side of that passage.
So, okay. Well, no, okay. Let me see if I get it straight. So you believe and you know a lot of people out there believe the same way that before this world was formed before was created God chose certain people for salvation and others for damnation.
Is that now here here again.
You hear you you get the air of equal ultimacy that you would think and I you know, we've talked about these folks before and They've made comments about things. I've said so you'd think that they might do some reading or you know At least listen a little bit, but it seems that synergists are content to read Well Secondary sources primarily let's put it that way and As a result, maybe they just don't hear you know, what we're actually saying.
I suppose that's a possibility. But we have corrected this error many many many times, but we'll correct it again the concept of equal ultimacy is the error that the positive decree to graciously save a people in Christ Jesus is Is Identical in nature and identical in Content to the decree of reprobation.
When they these are that's obviously not the case. There is no extension of the powerful mercy and grace of God Involved in the second act it is an act of pure justice. Whereas the other is an act of pure mercy and grace they are two completely different things and Obviously mercy and grace transcends justice but the synergists and and you know, the Calvary Chapel struggling with this they It's very very hard for them to deal with this because they're caught between a rock and a hard place the more they talk about it The more people read books about it The more they realize that their answers don't hold any water and that they're they're burning straw men.
So if they try to ignore it Then people still listen to the radio and they hear R .C. Sproul and people like that And if they talk about it, then people listen to the radio. They hear people I see so there you know, and since they don't have any meaningful.
They don't have a solid biblical response they have to come up with these straw men and that is a little bit of a Part of the problem that they're they're facing. Is that correct?
Better than memorize it. We're out to give thanks for you brethren for God has from the beginning Chosen you unto salvation. Forgive me. I need to quote script. That's that's okay.
Well now just just as an adjuster, right? The point is simply this. So why then would he say 2nd Peter 3 9? It's his sincere desire that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. Why did the Lord say that if these people have no chance?
Why did Jesus say over the city of Jerusalem? How often I wanted to gather you as a mother. Hen gathers her chicks or her brood under her under her wings.
But you were not willing catch it. There it is again. Yes folks I am starting to come to the conclusion that there is a new Calvary Chapel edition of the Bible. That has a major textual variant in it.
How often I would have gathered your children at that parts gone. Evidently at least in the Bibles found in the studio of pastors perspective. The actual text of Matthew 23 37 is not actually available because they can never actually quote it correctly.
And I laugh but it's sad, isn't it how many times in During the course of radio free Geneva's have we documented over and over and over again? Synergists Miss sighting Matthew 23 37 because their tradition has told them what it means not the words of the text.
They never exegete it. They just say it means this same thing with 2nd Peter 3 9. I mean we have and here you have one of the Leaders of the Calvary Chapel movement one of the top dogs one of the most one of the most recognized names and clearly he's never read the chapter in the Potter's Freedom dealing with the big three and You go.
Well, you're certainly thinking a lot about yourself that somebody should be reading your book. Do you have any idea? How many people today are in reformed churches that used to be in Calvary Chapel and they did read the Potter's Freedom.
I would just think I Would just think on a basic level that if your movement is losing people in One particular direction all the time, you know, you might want to familiarize yourself just just a little bit with why?
But we don't see that. We don't see that and I remember the other thing I wanted to get to on the program. They had it queued up just in a different a different window and it's gonna be the same type of thing.
We're gonna take a look briefly at some comments from Catholic answers forums. It's the same thing. It's the same mindset sadly that we're hearing here, you know, you just give keep giving the same answers and don't in any way shape or form press forward and Sharpen your answers and engage in what's being said it no.
No, you don't want to you don't want to do that that that just leads to more problems.
Why did he say something like that if they had no choice in the first place?
Well to the the those that are well studied on the other side. You gave two passages or the first one answered. Is that? The God is not willing that any of the election perish. I didn't say wait. Wait, wait, hang on.
He doesn't say that this is anyone should perish now. The elect is there's no qualification there.
Okay. Well, I could argue then Christ would never come back if God is not willing that any should perish that all should come to repent. And so never come back to give everybody.
That I'm sorry the caller missed that one. The the response of second Peter 3 9 is to point out what the context is. He is patient toward you not wishing any of you should perish. Who is the you in the context.
Follow the pronouns back? He changes from second to third person. They are mocking the promise of the coming you. The you he's addressing is not mocking the promise of the coming you. Follow the context.
You know if if this was some other subject if this was a subject about the resurrection. This subject with the deity of Christ these these Calvary Chapel guys would do that. They know how to do it. They know how to do exegesis.
I've heard Chuck Smith and other people do a good job on Orthodox issues, but when it comes to where their traditions are. They're as bad as the Roman Catholics. They have a tradition. But since they don't see it's a tradition because they're a non-denominational denomination.
Then that tradition can never be examined and boy if you want to get yourself in trouble. Be a Calvary Chapel pastor and say that openly. So you know what we really have traditions, and you know what I think if we're gonna be consistent ourselves.
We need to examine our traditions. We need to look really closely at our traditions. But oh that'll get you into a lot of trouble.
Yeah, there are people actually that argue that to it. In fact some Calvinists argue universalism because God's will none should perish all will eventually be Saving it. And you've got a Calvinistic universalism to that.
Everyone won't be saying I got a Calvinistic universalism.
Well if you can come up with moderate Calvinism, which is nothing but our minion ism. Why not just you know put two words that are completely kind of dictated to one another together.
I gotta go. I gotta go to some more calls. Nope. They don't like to know you're welcome, and no we appreciate your perspective. We can discuss this. I'm glad we can discuss this. Nicely you know. Admirably.
And that kind of thing. We don't want to argue and yell at each other something like that. We just have a different perspective on this. We believe that you know Christ died for the whole world. People are human.
God into sovereignty made us humanly responsible in other words. You know at the end of the day we have a choice. And we're gonna be judged on that particular choice. Christ died for sinners. The Holy Spirit woos us to come to him.
But at the end of the day we can choose whether to accept him or reject him. Whosoever will may come.
That is the gospel message. That's what we preach and so so everybody has the capacity. Everybody has the ability. Even though. None of those texts, and he didn't even cite any text. I mean where is that what.
What. Give us give us a context here, so we can actually look at it. Are we talking about John 3 16 or what are we talking about? We're not told. But everybody has that ability despite the fact that Jesus plainly said no man has the ability.
So we preach every man has the ability. Jesus taught that no man has the ability. Okay there you go.
It's so we're not telling people out there. Sorry you know God did not choose you before eternity passed you ah. There goes the straw man.
As If anyone is telling anybody that Nobody's telling on that because what you would you have to be able to do you'd have to be able to say I have knowledge Of who the elect are. So there's there's a huge straw man gross misrepresentation of the other side.
Always comes out eventually though we give a message for everyone to come to Christ. Anyone can come if you're listening to my voice right now. And you haven't believed in Jesus. The good news is you can believe right now and become a Christian.
You can have faith in Christ even today by trusting him as your Savior. That is showing how you are indeed one of the elect one of the chosen by you choosing him, okay?
After after saying that there really isn't a show and any elect now. Basically, I think what he was saying is by your choice you enter into the chosen you Determine who the elect are not God as if there is any text of scripture that even begins to suggest.
Such a wild and crazy thing. Well there you go. It's it's disturbing to me. It really is disturbing to me that These guys will continue to say what they say. But they will not take the time to actually listen to the other side as I said.
That's not unusual. But what it's more disturbing to me to see it amongst people that I would identify as Christians and upon people that I identify as being a part of a false religion and that's the perfect transition into a thread that appeared on the Catholic answers forums and Someone by the name of Arizona Samson.
I have a feeling I know who that probably is. Um. Posted my challenge evidently taking turrets and fans. He typed out what I said last week in Challenging the call to confusion guys to debate the issue of the bodily assumption of Mary and posted it and.
The responses were very very interesting. It didn't take long before the responses were almost all just completely ad hominem. Just how mean and terrible and nasty I am and and one guy. Let me see which which page it was on.
One guy said that. He saw me debating two Jewish guys, and I was rude rude rude. I needed a an attitude adjustment is. Is what he said yeah here? It is. This is Nicaea 325 says precisely why I stopped listening to mr. White.
He is rude, and I once saw him debating two Jewish men. Same attitude rude. The guy needs an attitude adjustment. I'm sitting here going to Jewish men. I've never debated two Jewish men, and then I realized what it was he was talking about this Jewish voice broadcast.
It was me and Michael Brown. Versus Anthony buzzard and the other fellow whose name I can never remember because he really didn't really didn't show up in the debate. But um there was one little problem there.
Neither one of them were Jewish. The only Jewish guy in the panel was Michael Brown for crying out. That's it, and if we weren't debating Judaism. We were debating Unitarianism. I was defending the Trinity, but you know these these these guys are just so massively biased well the terms bigoted I mean the Catholic answers forums are filled with bigots.
I mean there, what is a bigot a bigot is a person who has an irrational incapacity to fairly listen to or deal with someone because of their prejudices, and that is a perfect description of Almost everybody in the Catholic answers forums.
I've ever seen they're willing to believe anything. You know they went after my doctorate in Columbia and all of us this stuff once again. That's all I can do. They can't respond to the argumentation, and I think it's funny.
Let's see that was 19 1998 and so it's been 14 years isn't it amazing that all these people who run around Calling Columbia a degree mill in 14 years. No one's plunked down what they call their 75 bucks to get a degree from there.
You know why because not a one of these people could pass the first class. They couldn't do it. And it's it was thousands of dollars and numbers of years of work. And they couldn't do it, and they they don't know that because they don't they don't care enough about that.
But there was a fascinating statement. There was all sorts of stuff about well. You know all he wants to do is debate. Just a just a word of remembrance. How did I get into debating? How did I get into debating.
I was challenged by Catholic answers to debate for the first time in August of 1990 and my first debates were with Catholic answers and all my first debates were on the subject of Roman Catholicism, I'm not the one that started it they challenged me.
And now they don't seem to be doing any debates at all in fact isn't weird. I've debated Tim Staples. Work it where do you find the Tim Staples debates on solo scriptura or papal infallibility or purgatory.
Only here you don't find them from st. Joseph's communications that record the first two of them. They don't make those available for some odd strange reason and It wasn't all that long ago that I debated Tim Staples in a formal format right here on the dividing line and Nobody on Catholic listens to Catholic answers has ever heard of that.
Oh, they've heard about a lot of Tim's debates, but for some strange reason that one No one ever makes mention of just in case they may have lost the audio.
I'd be more than happy to send them a copy.
You know what I'll make that offer. You know in case they cuz maybe they just lost our email address and haven't been able to ask how to get hold of it. Again, that must be the only reason that they would not even mention the debate on purgatory.
Because I mean everyone Everybody in this thread Would believe that it would be impossible For Tim Staples to have lost a debate on first Corinthians chapter 3 and purgatory. I mean that that just couldn't happen, especially since I'm such a rude hack, right?
Yeah, okay, but. Yeah, you know then you had a few folks but here Biz cath canter Regular member prayer warrior and forum supporter. Dun-dun-dun. Isn't my imagination or are these sola scriptura types getting more militant by the day.
Frankly there is no need for debate if you read the challenge rant. It is clear that it is ego and not zeal for truth that drives this individual. We pray for his soul. So when when Jerry Matics and Catholic answers first contacted me, I wonder oh, never mind that's.
That's looking for consistency. So we don't want to go there. But here was the line here was the line on This listen this on this specific subject. I would only say that he who denies the mother Also denies the son and leave it at that Again we pray for his soul.
So listen to that. Listen to that I challenge men who are subverting the faith of individuals by a not-so-subtle attack upon the perspicuity Authority and sufficiency of the inspired Word of God the very word that Jesus directed us to.
I challenge them to debate The dogmatic Assertions of the Roman Catholic Church the infallible Dogmatic assertions now I can just now just sitting here thinking, you know, I bet you they get around that the only part of What's that?
What's it munificent of us deus was that what was that name? I don't have it up in front of me, but I was trying to remember the Latin. But I think that's what it is. I think I was the name of the definition of the bodily assumption I'll bet you what they'll say is the only part of that decree that is infallible is The actual definition and Not the statements leading up to it which included the lies and they are it's just there's no other way to put it.
I Mean, it's a lie on the level of saying Lee won at Gettysburg. Okay. The lie and there's some people in the audience good. Well, baby. Well, wait a minute. Uh-uh. Assuming knowledge of History here might not be a good idea.
We majors. It's a check. He's that old. I Thought we fixed him. It wasn't either six billion dollar man or something like that. Never mind. And Turretin fans saying Lee did win again at Gettysburg and it was it was Corporal Lee on the northern side, I guess what no, no, no be careful.
No eyes.
You see you went too far. Back the people listening who would have a problem thing. You Lee majors. I think the bionic ear. Yes.
Yeah, let's see. It's I know anyway, it's a lie to say that This has been the belief of Christians from the most ancient times. It's a lie to say this dogma is grounded in Scripture. It's just not true and You would have to be completely unprepared and Not be a student of Scripture or history at all to lose a debate like that.
Which is why it's not going to be accepted now. There was some guy in this in this thread is I'll do it as it's like who's that? I have no idea who in the world the guy is but if you'd like to you know send us some information as to Who he is and why he would be a worthwhile person to debate.
But anyway Here I am addressing that challenging them to debate on a simple factual matter really and Here is a Byzantine Catholic cantor who in response that says He who denies the mother also denies the son.
Now why is that phraseology sound familiar to us. Because it's actually based upon first John if you deny the son you do not have the father and That's a vitally Important assertion. It's it's vitally important in how we evaluate Judaism today, it's vitally important to how we evaluate oneness theology.
It's vitally important to our understanding of the centrality of the doctrine the Trinity and the fact that Trinity is not Some secondary thing that she is a sort of tacked on later on in history. But that it's part and parcel of divine revelation and the object of our faith Has been revealed clearly enough in Scripture for us to know who it is.
We believe in but to take that and pervert it and my friends it is nothing but a perversion a Blasphemous perversion To take the words of Scripture profane The Virgin Mary By elevating her to a position that as I've said so many times before I guarantee you she has no idea.
She has no idea that there are millions of people on this planet Mumbling her name. She has no idea. It would break her heart and to take That precious scriptural truth and to pervert it in this way. So that to to question the clearly a historical unbiblical teachings of Roman Catholicism is to Actually deny the mother is to demonstrate that there is a part of Roman Catholicism that has a completely different God.
You may be Trinitarians, but for many Roman Catholics Mary has been made a part of the Trinity. She really has not the official teaching of course not but functionally. Anybody who has ever read? Alphonsus de Liguri's the glories of Mary knows knows That a person who could write that and a person that could pray like that and a person that could believe like that Is a person has another God.
And I've read you some of those Amazingly disgusting quotations That are found all through Liguri and so it's amazing to me to see this kind of. It's just I I don't know do I even have to do I even have to repeat Some of these statements that have been Said down through the years.
Especially some of the the Liguri quotes I Suppose I'll just read one of them on this account. It was the st. Bernard that the Eternal Father wishing to show all the mercy. Possibly besides with giving us Jesus Christ our principal advocate with him was pleased also to give us Mary as our advocate with Jesus Christ.
There is no doubt the st. As Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between God and men. That by virtue of his own merits and promises he will and can obtain us pardon in the divine favors. But because men acknowledge and fear the divine majesty Which is in him as God for this reason was necessary to assign us another Advocate to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence and this advent and more confidence cats that and more confidence.
Less fear and more confidence than coming to Jesus and this advocate is Mary. Then whom we cannot find one more powerful with his divine majesty or one more merciful towards ourselves. The st Says Christ a faithful and powerful mediator between God and men.
But in him men fear the majesty of God. A mediator then was needed with the mediator himself. Nor could a more fitting one be found than Mary. I submit to you anyone who could believe that is not saved.
Does not know the gospel does not know Christ does not know grace and I say to any person who has ever stood before a Congregation and proclaim the truth the Word of God and now you have decided to join this group if you believe that sir, or ma 'am.
You are an apostate as described in Hebrews chapter 6. People keep telling me You'll never ever Get the big speaking engagements. Because you talk like that. And my response to you is If I ever ever get to the point where I will not speak that truth with that clarity.
You don't want me speaking at your function. Anyways, so I Want to comment on that thread and I saved all the pages here in my browser because I figured it's probably been closed down by now. But it is it may All right with that.
We're sort of halfway through right now. Right. We're halfway through the program, aren't we? So you could probably queue up a quick break. Couldn't you and we will Go on to two other subjects. Oh how people ponder what I just got done saying and Then we'll be able to move on from there.
How's that sound? So we're going to be looking at. I want to make sure this Is That's closing opening and closing sound files so quickly. That's uh, yeah, this is this is the right one. So I know I know where I am here.
Which one do we want to go to do we want to we want to go want to go back to Abdullah or do? Want to go to Harry Knox is the question. We will make the decision during the break and Keep you sitting on pins and needles.
So we'll be right back right after this.
More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.
This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language.
James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.
They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen.
Org. Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.
In Their book the same-sex controversy James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.
Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.
The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about Homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen dot org.
And welcome back to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon jumbo edition got 45 minutes left in the program. Well, not quite that now. This is interesting. I've got I've got I've got people in Twitter Telling me to go both different directions.
I've got the fellow who debated Abdullah saying go to Abdullah and I've got my daughter saying go to go to Harry Knox and that really puts me in a rough rough Situation here, but during the during the break I had actually queued this up.
And so I've got to go with what I've queued up. So I'm sorry my dear daughter, but so we're going to Abdullah. She can take that out on me when we have dinner or something tomorrow evening and. But this is very dangerous because as I've mentioned I'm hopefully gonna be a grandpa come December.
So I don't want to cause anybody any problems there. We are in the middle of a section a very important section where Abdullah is doing his rebuttal and He's basically saying look Chalcedonian orthodoxy is a later development.
It's not primitive and I Started last time to argue directly against that and let me once again remind us of just some of the early citations and and Abdullah Argues that the citations that we provide.
Oh, my son just said let me be the tiebreaker whatever summer said so both my kids say I should go the opposite direction I'm going it's sorry I didn't see those before I queued up what I queued up. So we're we're going this direction, but what Abdullah is is gonna be saying is well Why don't you have anything, you know 20 30 40 years after Jesus?
Well, what do you have 20 30 40 years after Jesus? It's called the New Testament. It's called the Carmen Christi, it's called Philippians 2 5 through 11, it's called Paul saying they would have crucified the Lord of Glory.
It's that that's all you have. You don't have anything outside of the New Testament at that time period. So it's it's it doesn't make any sense to be saying well I want stuff outside. I don't want to deal the New Testament.
I want stuff outside the New Testament, but only the time frame where the only thing you have is a New Testament. That's historically I think stacking the deck but Ignatius. Clearly is well Ignatius is within the first century of the Christian faith.
Not the first century from the time of the birth of Christ. Actually be really close because you know, you're talking his death in 107 108 AD. So you're talking about the first. He's closer to the first to the first century than we are to the last millennium.
Okay, and most of us can remember very very well 2000 and Y2K and all that rest that kind of stuff, right? So that gives you an idea. He's even closer. So Ignatius is writing and he writes to Polycarp.
And it says await the one who is above every season the eternal the invisible the one who for our sake became visible. The untouched the impassable who for our sake suffered who endured in every way for our sake.
There is one physician he writes the Ephesians of flesh and of spirit. Generate and in generate God and man true life and death both from Mary and from God first passable and then impassable Jesus Christ our Lord.
I mean that is incredibly elevated Christology and Yet it is in the very earliest post apostolic writings. So what does that tell you it tells you that this belief? Is very very primitive and is therefore consistent with the biblical narrative.
It's it's right there. So that's what we were talking about. We go back to.
Abdullah's rebuttal see as Jason said. That it does. In fact, I would say that even the gospel accounts themselves particularly the sign optics repeatedly say that the disciples of Jesus did not understand.
They did not understand many of the things that Jesus said. But those very same synoptic Gospels record for us the promise of the Spirit and then we have the New Testament recording of the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Spirit and Jesus's promise in John 14 was that the Spirit would guide them into all truth.
So you have to recognize that there is a progressive nature to not only the revelation of all of Scripture. But especially a progressive nature to Jesus's revelation to the disciples of who he was and what his purposes were.
And part of that progression Was due the fact they had many traditions which got in the way of their having a proper understanding of what the Messiah was to be and what the Messiah was to do and So it was necessary.
I Mean, I'm glad that we educate our children in a progressive fashion. You don't you don't take your kindergartner and throw them into a high school level math class. There they don't have the foundation.
It takes time to build those things up. The same thing during the ministry of Jesus. The early evidence comes from the New Testament, I really think that Abdullah needs to deal with the depth of the New Testament revelation on these particular subjects and We we got into.
And we'll get into more and I just realized I don't have this up unfortunately, but I gave the reference before so The I am statements of Jesus. Clear vital information that I Just I just don't get the feeling that Abdullah is dealing with this type of information or is maybe not familiar with this type of information or or something along those lines.
I I don't know, but the information is definitely there and I would would suggest that he needs to take a look at it and And consider that. But anyway, I go back to his comments here.
The second question or I guess Challenge that I put forward is that ultimately the whole idea relies on a reduplicative argument. Okay, the idea that we're affirming two separate things about one thing or one person.
So I could for example say that I am a licensed driver and I'm a brother. Now this takes us back to Abdullah's.
Confusion on the subject of the person of Christ and Our assertion and it's really just that it's Brought about by the fundamental fact that the Muslim says God Cannot take on a human nature. Period and discussion.
Therefore. I refuse to allow for any categories that will allow for this. That's that's all there is to it and so What he's gonna be saying is you're you're affirming Contradictory things about one person you're saying is infinite, but you're also saying he's temporal.
We are because he has two natures and we recognize that the two natures are not the same nature. They differ from one another. We are saying he's one person with two natures and You're saying that's impossible.
Well that takes us back to the presuppositional nature of the Islamic argument, but that is not a argument. For the Islamic argument, it's just a restatement of the Islamic argument. Why is it that God can't do that when we examined Abdullah's argumentations that in our debate?
It was based upon equivocation. He said well God can't take on anything. It's imperfect. I said it's a perfect human nature. Well anything. It's not God is Imperfect and so what's what's the final result God can only be God?
He can't take on anything else because we define anything else as imperfect and therefore it be imperfection and We say God can create a perfect human nature, and if he wants to redeem human nature He can take on that perfect nature, so it's not an argument.
It doesn't it just doesn't carry any water. Because it all goes back to just the presuppositional nature of God wouldn't do that or couldn't do that one of the two.
Okay, I hold both of these attributes now. I don't get to drive a car legally because I'm a brother. Okay, and I don't have siblings. Because I am a licensed driver right. These are mutually exclusive attributes, okay?
The problem with using that in the case of Jesus and his divinity that style of argument is that the attributes themselves are contradictory.
Okay, so to say that you survive the attributes themselves are not contradictory. The only way they could be contradictory is if we were saying that the divine nature is both Eternal and non-eternal.
We're not saying that we're not saying that the human nature is eternal and non-eternal. We are saying that one person with two natures has natures that are distinguishable from one another and are not identical.
That is not illogical. That is not irrational. But do you accept it or not you can't say that it's a contradiction because it's not. Which is not contradictory. We're not saying that the divine nature is a human nature or the human nature is a divine nature.
We're talking about one person with two natures, and we distinguish between the two. We do not mix them together. We you know the hypostatic union. It's a term that Abdullah Uses but refuses to allow it to have its actual meaning the way we define it.
There's a reason why there's no mixture between the two because then these things would be true because we'd be creating a demigod. A. And in between being that's neither of it's not fully divine or fully human, and that's the very thing that we are denying.
Yes, they're separate attributes, but they don't contradict one another. But I can be a brother of your license driver. Simultaneously, okay, so this reliance on reduplicative argument. It's not only quite false in the end because it's not correctly using the style of argument.
But it means that ultimately the whole concept of God comes down to affirming mutually exclusive things.
We are not affirming mutually exclusive things about one nature. One person. Yes, because that person has two natures. We make the differentiations. Why. Because the scriptures made those differentiations?
Okay, which I think is a little bit Difficult for Christians to maintain, but I'll be very interested in what Jason has to say about that now. Jason also said that If indeed the Quranic understanding of Jesus I that he was purely human Divine attributes is true.
Well, then he was one of the most failed and unsuccessful teachers in all of Humanity's history. Well, I think some of the lecturers here would beg to differ or at least their students would anyway but Having said that the reality is as I said the Gospels themselves affirm that the disciples did not understand.
Now this is a statement that's made once or twice and in one gospel account and not in the others. It's made in all four gospel accounts.
I think this is just a misapprehension on Abdullah's part because while the gospel accounts do say that the disciples did not understand a Number of things they did not understand the nature nature of Jesus's mission.
They did not understand the necessity of his death. They did not understand the nature of the Messiah because they already had all these traditions all the rest of stuff. It does not say they stayed in that position of confusion.
It says the Holy Spirit came and opened their minds. In fact, Jesus opened their minds to understand the scriptures and and it's a it's it's taking only one part. It's sort of like when when Muslims take the one statement of Jesus.
I'm not sent but the last lost sheep of the house of Israel and Take that and Come up with the idea that that Jesus is only the Messiah for the Jews ignoring Everything else that those very Gospels those very writers said.
That's not how you deal with the Quran. Is it? So why would you do that with with the New Testament again? It's a it's an inconsistency. Okay, now that's this is just this level and I Like Abdullah, but this level goes to this argument goes a level of bogus because the very same texts Go on to say That that confusion was temporary until the coming of the Holy Spirit and the opening of their minds to understand the things of God.
So, I mean I'm sorry, but to say well, I don't care what their disciples even from an Islamic viewpoint. That doesn't make any sense. Because doesn't the Quran say that God would make the true followers of that Allah would make the true followers of Jesus victorious until the end so I'm sorry, but that that is not a meaningful argument.
You know what was being taught that. Likewise just because the teaching does not carry on does not mean that the teacher themselves fight. It means that the students fight. All right, when I get up and Lecture some kids on basic HSC chemistry.
If they all they go and file the HSC exam. That's not my fault. Okay, if they didn't put in the study.
Unless of course the teacher also says my purpose for being here is to cause you to pass that exam. Whatever that exam is they're talking about. And what did Jesus say? I am going to build my church. My gospel is going to abide with you.
I'm going to send the Holy Spirit. He will lead you into all truth. If Jesus taught these things and then that didn't happen. Then it would follow that he failed.
Not my father. So again, I'd say that linking this idea of Failure Jesus because the disciples allegedly and the followers of them didn't get that he was purely human. Is a fallacy now coming back to the Quran and why this is a false exegesis now.
This is the problem in in doing it. You know, we try to we try to tackle some some big stuff in short periods of time on on the program and. At this point you just need to go back to the last time that I commented on the subject of surah 5 and Listen to what I said at that particular point in time.
I cannot repeat it here, but the The the key issue the key text to remind you once again for people who are not writing books on the subject of the Quran right now, which is probably pretty much everybody in the audience.
But not for me. I was writing about Zainab bin Josh today all afternoon and Let the people of the gospel Surah 547 and let the people the gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein and whoever does not judge but Allah has revealed then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient and.
The question that had been raised in the context of the debate was fairly simple. And that is how are the people the gospel to judge? How are they to judge but was by what of Allah has revealed therein the only therein is the gospel?
They must possess the gospel to be able to fulfill the command if we don't want to be called Those who are the defiantly disobedient. Then there must be a way for us to avoid that right. Okay then that means that the people of the gospel in the day of Muhammad Possessed the gospel or these words are meaningless.
Absolutely meaningless. Okay, so Note something because this is gonna come up I think at this point. We read it last time. But what it says is it does not say let the people the gospel judge by a book.
It says let the people judge by what Allah with the people the gospel judge, but what Allah has revealed therein and That is in the gospel. Okay so with that in mind. Then we listen to What Abdullah says the Koran refers to?
Concepts.
In multiple ways and I guess in simple terms the idea that we have of the brain is of the Koran explains itself. Okay, so for example the Koran Will refer to the death of the Pharaoh of Moses peace be upon him and It then also refers to the body the Pharaoh being saved.
Okay. Now people say well, this is a contradiction. Well, no, it's one verse explaining the concept.
Okay, so the con. I just wonder again Abdullah if if you if you're allowed to do this with the Quran How come you won't do this with the synoptic Gospels? Is it only because you believe the Quran tells you that the Gospels have been corrupted.
I.
Think that's got to be the only reason. And then the verse about Pharaoh's body his physical body being saved is then explaining more detail about the concept. So we believe that the Koran explains itself.
So yes, there is a verse in the Koran that says Oh people of the book look to the scripture that you have between your. Okay, there's also a verse that says the people of the book change the words from their places.
Okay, meaning that the script has changed. And there's also another verse. Which states that the Koran is more hanging that it is the witness the protector of the earlier scriptures and that the way that you?
Work out what it's protecting is to see what in the earlier scriptures still corresponds to the Koran.
Okay, so now I wish you would tell us what these texts are because I mean I'm familiar with texts similar to that. But the one that had been brought up in the debate that's not what it says and There seemed to be some some confusion here.
Jason Sabalo had specifically brought up surah 5 and I've read you surah 5 and surah 5 doesn't say look to the book between your hands. There is the text before that. It says we sent and we sent following the footsteps Jesus Son of Mary confirming that which came before him in the Torah.
But when it addresses the people of the gospel, it doesn't say anything about Between your hands. It talks about the gospel and says we're to judge but what is contained therein. And then. Even when it does use the term hymen and we revealed to you o Muhammad the book and truth.
Confirming that which preceded of the scripture and as a criterion over it. Well, there's some questions as to exactly what the hymen means. But that's the text is being referred to there. But there was a little bit of an expansion I think in in Abdullah's rendering of that time.
Okay, the equivalent of that would be me quoting Jesus when he's saying in a parable that a king said bring those who do not recognize my Kingship before me and I'll kill them or kill them before me. Okay.
Now I could put that one line and say see Jesus said who doesn't believe in him.
He wants to kill and I've had many a Muslim make that very argument. I have to take that sound file. Stick it on my computer. And the next time someone like Osama Abdullah makes that type of argument. I'll just play that and and He won't care.
Okay, I Perfectly agree at this point. You have to allow the Quran to interpret the crap, but look on the previous portion of discussing this particular debate, that's exactly what he did and. And this raises the issue of what is exegesis.
How do you do exegesis of the Quran. Do the words have meaning. Does context have meaning. Is there flow of thought? There are some portions of the Quran. I don't think you can exegete. I Mean, there's the sections.
I think it's surah 96. I don't think anybody has a clue what it's about. It just it just does not make a lick of sense. And I just don't know how you could I could even begin to exegete it. One things are certain we're on a very very very very different level.
When we're exegeting Romans then when you're exegeting the Quran. Now I think if I recall correctly and Jason can correct me on this I think because I know he's listening but I think More of the surah 5 thing came out during the cross-examination because I think Jason actually asked him a question to try to say hey.
Could you clarify this? Where do you think I was wrong and what I said, and I think that's where. Some of the really to me Confusing statements from Abdullah came out. Because I have all the texts in The Quran I'm probably most familiar with in the original languages language, excuse me surah 5 and Surah 4 157 the surah 4 and 5 together contain some of the key texts when it comes to the Christian faith.
Yeah, he says he asked several questions on that point and that that's what I that's what that was my recollection. So I think we're gonna get to more of this and we get into the cross-examination period.
And be able to dive a little bit more into it. I just was surprised at what Abdullah said in response to some of the some of the questions, but now we get into the Egoimy stuff.
Now to link this to the quotes in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Is a very big stretching thing and I'm quite surprised that.
Christians continue to do it because well what what's really surprising indeed to me is The fact that we sent across the ocean a book called the Forgotten Trinity. Which has an entire chapter called I am he in it beginning on page 95 of this little book and one of the things that I Specifically there's here's a subtitle.
The subtitle is Old Testament background of Egoimy and let me just read what it says in the book. It happens all the time. We were in a hurry to make a point so we jump from one point to another quickly skipping a few necessary points in between.
There's always that one person in the bunch who stops you and makes you go back and trace your argument step-by-step rather than allowing You to condense things a bit and make better speed. When dealing with theological issues we often condense things and make connections that in reality take a little more proof than we have offered.
This is nowhere better illustrated than the connection that is alleged to exist between Jesus words John 8 58 and the words of Yahweh in Exodus 3 14. I am that I am. You will find references to Exodus 3 14 and most commentaries on John 8 58.
Yet those who deny the deed of Christ cry foul and argue that such an immediate connection can't be made. The strongest argument that can they can present is that the Egoimy portion of Exodus 3 14 isn't really the assertion of divinity.
The ha-on portion is ha-on being translated as the being or the one existing. And as far as the argument goes, this is true. However, the claim that Jesus words of John 8 58 and the other passages should be connected to Exodus 3 14 does not exist in A vacuum there is a line of argumentation a very solid one that leads us from John 8 back through Isaiah to Exodus 3.
We need to trace that path before we can make the statement that Jesus is in fact Using a name of deity of himself in John's gospel, and then I go through and I make that argumentation and in fact in Just a few months ago or back in what was a December November November when I Debated Unitarian on this subject we went into great depth and I posted a great deal of material on the blog from the Greek Septuagint Demonstrating that there is even more that I could have crammed into the footnotes of that particular section of that chapter Demonstrating that Egoimy is used as the name of God in the book of Isaiah numbers of times and That Jesus purposefully draws from this in for example John chapter 13 and so Abdullah says I'm surprised Christians keep doing this and Yet one Christian who he's debated and has sent him this information has argued in his published works a much more serious and in-depth Presentation on this that specifically doesn't make the leap.
That he's now accusing Christians of making. So I I found that odd and and strange That he would ignore that argumentation. I I'm not sure if he's assuming that Jason has not read my book I'd be willing to ask since again.
He's listening and I'll have a 45 second to one minute delay, but Jason did you read the Forgotten Trinity prior to your debate with Abdullah Kunda? And I'll I'll see how fast Twitter gets me response that particular that particular question but it does strike me as a as a strange argument to say I'm surprised Christians keep arguing this when when it's a real stretch and Yet my book says that is a stretch and where you don't need to stretch because there's a very strong connection That is to be found by going to Isaiah and some of the minor prophets and that's what stands behind.
What we have in in the New Testament usage. The reality is that you're combining a Septuagint Translation that is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Hebrew original Hebrew of the Hebrew scriptures.
And what's been said in the New Testament and kind of combine it all together and saying that it's linked. It's not okay the Septuagint God said to Moses ego I'm eho on I am the one. Okay in the Masoretic text the the closest that we have to the original Hebrew God says to Moses I Okay, I am what I am or I will be what I will be.
Okay. Now what we then do is get the Greek ego. I'm eho on I am the one and then I Am what I am. Combine them together and then say well when Jesus said I am that's what he meant. Well, no, you're combining two different translations and hoping that it draws a conclusion.
I think that that is a very big fallacy as well.
I guess now very very big fallacy is to miss the actual argumentation that that we're making. For example, I have often pointed out that the Jesus use in John 13 19 of Ego, I me comes directly I provided I provided The the original languages in the Forgotten Trinity at this point to Isaiah 43 10 You're my witnesses declares Yahweh my servant whom I've chosen that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he can on note a kai pisteu a ta kai Sunita Hati ego I me and That very language appears in John 13 19 Used by Jesus of himself in the same context of the revelation of future events which is part of the demonstration of who Yahweh is in the trial of false gods and Isaiah 40 to 48 and This is not the only place there are numbers of other places where even a guy me is used twice in a row as the name of God and Again, I already pointed to the extensive discussion we did of this back in November December In a previous edition of Radio Free Damascus and I linked to all of that so The the leap here is for Abdullah to ignore the Christian argumentation on this.
So maybe he's just not available. He's just not familiar with it. Didn't read all the book only read certain portions of book that he thought might be relevant to the debates that we were gonna be Doing.
I don't know. He hasn't been in channel for a while for me to ask. But I would imagine he'll probably take time to at least listen to this but Jason just did confirm that he had read it several times and He says you can tell your Catholic detractors that at least one Roman Catholic apologist thinks it's a great book.
Actually, I know a number of Roman Catholic apologists that rather begrudgingly must admit that The book is very useful in providing a biblical defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I appreciate that but I You know, I I can't assume that Abdullah was aware of that.
Maybe he was. I don't know. But the but the argument the response offered here was not really a good response to the presentation that Jason had made and a much stronger case than merely jumping back to X is 314 has been made and Abdullah just didn't respond to.
To face in order to answer these questions from the Christian perspective to demonstrate evidence for it would be to do exactly that. My my contention and the contention of Muslims is that Jesus was a man.
Now I don't even need to provide much evidence for this because the reality that men were born in Palestine 2000 years ago.
It's historical fact, you know, I I don't know I cannot possibly accept and and he's not the first one that I've heard using this should barely says the same thing. We don't have anything to prove about Jesus.
There are lots of men born at that time um lots of virgin born men lots of men who raised the dead and created clay birds and Breathed into them life and they flew away. Yeah, I'm talking specifically about the miracles that the Quran attributes to Jesus.
But the Quran says he raised the dead the Quran says that he'd made did did these miracles. So, I don't think it's fair and I don't think it's I don't think it's a real defense of the Muslim position and I've not heard anyone unfortunately challenge The Muslims who have made this argument.
Well, we got we just believe he was just a man. No, you don't You believe he was a prophet sent from God who was virgin born and could raise the dead there is a special nature. Even to the Lisa bin Mariam of the Quran that it doesn't seem that you really want to defend or Maybe recognize it from a merely historical perspective.
You couldn't defend. Because certainly if you have already gotten to the point of accepting Whatever the Quran says Jesus says Jesus did say that well you recognize that's not a historical stance to take that is Thoroughly a stance of of faith.
You accept the Quran as the Word of God. Therefore Jesus said these things. But you know from a historical perspective. Since there is no evidence prior to the Quran that Jesus said the things to attribute to him you you then turn around and question the accuracy of the documents that do come from the first century and.
And yet you believe what a document from the seventh century says. Jesus says there's a there's a massive massive huge purple elephant in the room here of of self-contradiction and. You you've just I can see why they might shy away from giving a fuller response.
But if you want to support the concept that a man was born Who also had a divine nature? Or was born of a virgin I.
Mean isn't that. Isn't. Doesn't that make his nature in and of itself different than other men? He had no human father. You confess that you believe that. In fact you seem to believe he's sinless. Of course.
He's also. Abdullah seems to believe that Muhammad was the whole statement about his sins being forgiven to the side.
You need to provide some significant evidence for that and at the moment.
How about some significant evidence for the claims of Muhammad? How about some significant evidence for the claims of the Quran about Jesus? Are you willing to operate on the same standard? And I just don't get the feeling that most of my Muslim friends are up to that.
I'm not saying much but.
Logical fallacies and quotes from scripture which at best ambiguous.
Are best at best ambiguous When Jesus utilizes the language of ego, I mean Do you think that's ambiguous? Evidently for a lot of people today. Well, there are people who deny that that was relevant. Yeah, there are there there You can find you can find a scholar who believes anything that doesn't mean That what the scholars confused about is actually confusing.
Okay but When someone like a Bart Ehrman Will Just almost glibly admit, ah, yeah John presents deity of Christ. No, he's gonna say Matthew doesn't Mark doesn't I'll argue those points, but even he With his bias goes.
Oh, yeah. Well John clearly this that's that's that's obvious. How do you explain that? How is it not ambiguous to him and Can you would you really you know, maybe this will be the next time maybe someone down there in Sydney wants to start working on Get me back down there again.
I'm starting to know my way in and out of the Sydney Airport fairly well. Maybe we can we can debate something really specific like this. Did Jesus? Claim deity, you know get right into the text. Make sure we got enough time to get in the original languages and everything else be happy to do it.
Because it's it's clearly right there and I think Abdullah especially because of his knowledge of the Greek Septuagint should be able to see this. I would challenge him to go back look at the documentation that I have provided not just in the Forgotten Trinity but then in the debates that we did back in November and The huge wasn't that a mega?
I think it was a mega dividing line. We did. I think it was a two-hour dividing line we did. Where we went through each of these sections and we went through in depth, I mean Not the kind of thing you generally get on webcasts and You can see it right there.
I'd love to see what you know how he would substantiate the assertion that there is ambiguity to those things. Thank you very much. Okay, so there he says thank you very much. I believe that we then had a few moments of Of further rebuttal if I recall correctly and then we got into the cross-examination after that, so we'll we'll pick up with that.
I don't want to try to dive into anything further on that and Just I Keep getting distracted by looking over at A Twitter it can be very distraction distractive. Look that guy still got hair someone someone just posted a picture and It says it says every time I see my local Kroger manager.
I think of dr. Oakley 1689 they look alike and so I clicked on it and this guy still has hair and He does not have a white beard. So I look a lot like bald people with goatees. There's there's no there's no way around that but all bald people with goatees look alike I think so but anyways Get I get a little distracted when I look over at those things.
So anyway We'll continue with that and I'll try to I want to try to. Sometimes I get too many irons in the fire. So we really need to try to finish up both the Abdullah Kunda and the Harry Knox thing and so, you know, we'll see we'll see what happens next week in being able to do that and We'll we'll go on from there but I Appreciate the opportunity to be able to do these things and I I hope Abdullah will come by and say howdy.
Hello to us and Maybe maybe hey, I'd be more than open To having him come on the program once I'm done with the review and to respond anything I said We we can handle that he's called him before we can use Skype.
Actually right now that is all we could use would be But yeah, you're looking at the phone. I think that ain't working too well, but it'll be back someday. We'll be able to take phone calls again someday.
Hey, thanks for listening to the valiant line today. We will be back on On Tuesday Lord. Well, we'll see you then.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omin org That's a o m. I n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. For the dividing line.