Channel: Adnan Rashid
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Well, I do want to welcome you to the 2018 G three conference and this special pre conference debate addressing global warming.
Just kidding, it's the only levity that we'll have all night I'm sure. My name is Michael O'Fallon, and I am the founder and editor of sovereign nations. It's an organization committed to the rights of sovereign nations and the faith that stands as the bedrock foundation of Western civilization. Tonight, we come together to do what so many seemingly can't do in other arenas of disagreement and politic politics, that is to debate to argue one position and truth claim against another and yet to do so, with respect for our fellow man.
With us tonight, are what I believe to be the best two representatives of both Christian and Muslim apologetics. I personally selected each participant for their ability to both represent their own position with strength, while at the same time, being careful to not misrepresent the opposite side, or engage in ad hominem argumentation.
My job is to simply and fairly moderate, without any biased interference.
The men with me tonight completely disagree with one another. In regards to the following question.
Do we need the cross for salvation?
Representing the Islamic side of this question
is a gentleman that we have brought all the way from Pakistan to be in warm Atlanta, Georgia this evening? Would you please welcome Adnan Rashid.
And representing the Christian side of this argumentation
will be Dr. James White from Phoenix, Arizona.
Tonight, we will follow a modified Lincoln Douglas format.
The opening statements will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of rebuttal. Then we will have for 10 minutes sessions of cross examination where one man can only ask questions, and one man can only answer questions. We will then have 10 minutes apiece for close. And then we'll be handling some audience questions. After the rebuttal period, we will have a brief five minute break. And as well, we would ask that you find some paper and submit some questions up to the front desk here the moderator stand during that time. So if you just give me one minute, I'm going to head down to the moderators table, Dr. White will come up and take the podium and start with his opening
Like I need to paper.
I'm sorry, I prepared his arguments for him before so.
Thank you very much. It is indeed an honor to be with you here this evening. Our subject is one that should interest every person in this audience whether you come from a Christian or a Muslim background, or maybe even no religious background whatsoever, because the fact that it separates two of the world's major religions on an extremely important issue. both Christianity and Islam acknowledge the historical reality of the person of Jesus the Messiah, but we have very different beliefs as to who he was and specifically, what he accomplished this evening. Our focus is upon soteriology upon the doctrine of salvation, and specifically Christ's redemptive work. We disagree
about who he was when Christians believe he was the Son of God, the very incarnate second person of the Trinity. Muslims, of course, do not believe this. But while that is relevant to our debate this evening, we are going to be focusing specifically upon the Christian belief that the cross is necessary for salvation is the cross necessary for salvation for the Christian people. The cross is the center point of history, the jewel of the triune God's eternal intention to demonstrate his glory in the gracious free and perfect redemption of an undeserving people. In Islamic theology, the cross has no redemptive meaning, Jesus did not die upon the cross was not crucified and hence did
not rise again.
Again, there is no need for substitutionary atonement in Islamic theology, the Christian view of Christ is considered excess in the Quran. And Muslims often speak of the worship of the cross as Kufa an act of unbelief or even worse, shirk an act of idolatry. Now, either the cross is the greatest redemptive act of the Creator, that by its very audaciousness renders all other salvific claims irrelevant and empty. Or it is a tremendous sleight and insult to God. By its very nature, it precludes any kind of middle ground, it has to be one or the other. So for our debate this evening, in the very brief time that I have, I must demonstrate the centrality of the cross in divine
revelation, we will begin with the writings of Jesus's apostles. Secondly, I will trace this truth from its prophetic underpinnings in the writings of the ancient prophets of what we call the Old Testament or the Tanakh. And finally, we will consider the necessary nature of this great work of redemptive love. So let us turn to what the Scriptures say as a foundation, first and foremost, in Acts chapter to be read, Peter, saying Men of Israel, listen to these words, Jesus the Nazarene, a man to test you to by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst. Just as you yourselves know, this man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and
foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for him to be held in its power. The central aspect of the proclamation here at the earliest period of the apostles, is the cross the redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ. Later on in Acts, chapter four, rulers and elders, the people if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man as to how this man has been made, well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead by this
name, this man stands here before you in good health, even in the working of miracles, in the healing of the sick man. It's Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead, that is central to the Christian proclamation. In first Corinthians chapter one reread, For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made useless. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God and only a few words later, for indeed, Jews asked for signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a
stumbling block into Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. You can tell that in this proclamation of the gospel, the cross and the salvific work of Christ, absolutely central in this earliest period of the Christian faith. Paul later says in that same epistle, for it turns into nothing among you accept Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. But we speak God's wisdom, the mystery, the hidden wisdom, from which God predestined before the ages to our glory, the wisdom which none other rulers this age has understood for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, the
Glorious Lord was crucified. This is central to the Christian proclamation. When Paul wrote to the church of Ephesus, he said, For he himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall. How did you do this? by abolishing in his flesh, the enmity? How do you bring Jews and Gentiles together into one body, the cross of Jesus Christ, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so didn't himself he might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it, having put to death, the enmity, and when he wrote Colossians, he likewise said, for it was the
Father's good pleasure, for all the fullness to dwell in him and through him to reconcile all things to himself how, having made peace through the blood of his cross, he was prophesied to be the Prince of Peace. How does he bring about that peace through the blood of his cross through him, I say, well, the things on earth or things in heaven, the cross has cosmic significance in the earliest Christian writings. In that same epistle, Paul said, when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which
Style to us. And he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross the very reason that Christians can believe that they have peace with God is focused upon that center point of history, where the God man gives his life voluntarily upon the cross of Calvary. In the book of Hebrews, likewise, therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us. And let us run with endurance the race that is set before us fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down on the right hand of the
throne of God, again, the cross at the very core, the very center, not only of how we have peace with God, but likewise how we as Christians are to live the Christian life, the model that we are to have is to have our eyes focused upon Jesus Christ. So the New Testament witness cannot be questioned. The cross is absolutely central. But is that some innovation? Is it an excess? Does it go beyond the prophetic word, while the Lord Jesus taught his disciples after His resurrection in Luke 2444, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled. This is a key element of the New Testament teaching. And in that process,
one of the texts that clearly he directed people to was Psalm 22. He directed us to Psalm 22, with some of his own dying words, on the cross, you are probably familiar with the words as they come across in Aramaic Eli Eli Lama suboxone in Hebrew, Aly Aly Lama as Bethenny, My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Now as Jesus is hanging upon the cross this is not as is often misunderstood some idea that, that oh, he's been abandoned by God and and and there's, there's he senses failure here, something like that. He is specifically quoting a phrase that everyone would have would have understood. It'd be like me, saying, Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound. I don't have to continue on
from there, because pretty much everyone in this room knows the rest of that particular hymn. Well, Psalm 22 is one of the songs of the people of God. And so Jesus is directing us to the 22nd song. He's directing us to it. Well, when we go to the 22nd Psalm, what do we find?
All who see me sneer at me, they separate with the lip, they wag the head saying, commit yourself to Yahweh, Let him deliver him, let him rescue Him because He delights in him. This is exactly what the Messiah is experiencing on the cross. This is exactly what is happening round about him. I am poured out like water and all my bones out of joint My heart is like wax, it has melted within me, my strength has dried up like a potsherd. And my tongue cleaves to my jaws, and you lay me in the dust of death. And then one of the key texts for dogs has surrounded me a band of evildoers has encompassed me, they pierced my hands and my feet. Now why do I have that graphic of some ancient
Hebrew fragments up there? Well, if we need to, we can get into whether it is like a lion, or they pierced my hands and my feet, there is dispute about that the Greek Septuagint and certain mass retic texts say they pierced my hands and my feet, others say like a lion. It's a textual variant, we can get into it if we need to. Maybe we won't, we'll see but definitely will be able to do so if the need arises. But just consider this text as a whole. And you'll see it as being fulfilled in what takes place at Calvary. It continues on to say I can count all my bones, they look they stare at me. They divide my garments among them and for my clothing. They cast lots This is the
description of what the Lord Jesus Himself experienced upon the cross of Calvary. At the end of Psalm 22. posterity will serve him, it will be told to the Lord the coming generation, they will come and will declare his righteousness to a people who will be born that he has performed it. The point here is very clear. Psalm 22 ends with the vindication of the suffering servant. And this is what Jesus intends us to see on the cross when He cries out, Eli Eli, lama subox Mini. He points us to Psalm 22. And we see the consistency between what is said in Psalm 22 and the fulfillment in the New Testament Scriptures that I've already read in your hearing. Here we have the famous Isaiah
scroll from Quran and this is the very section where we find what is today known as Isaiah chapter 53. Surely our griefs He Himself bore and our sorrows He
carried, yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was pierced through for what? For our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well being fell upon him, and by His scourging we are healed. We have substitutionary suffering, taking place here written 700 years before the events in Christ life that graphic I show you is written 100 years before Christ was born.
All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, but your way has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him. This is substitution. In his suffering. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth, like a lamb that has led to slaughter and like a sheep that is silent before it shares. So he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment, He was taken away and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off by the land of living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
But Yawei was pleased to crush him putting Him to grief, if he would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring. And my friends, I stopped just to say, look around the room. 2000 years later, he will see his offspring.
Here we are speaking a different language, and we follow Him, He will see his offspring, he will prolong his days and the good pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in his hand. As a result of the anguish of his soul he will see it and be satisfied by his knowledge, the Righteous One, my servant will do what will justify the many why, as he will bear their iniquities almost sounds like it's coming straight out of Romans three and four, the Gospel 700 years before Christ, therefore I will allot Him a portion with the great he will divide the booty with a strong because he poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors yet He Himself bore the sin of many and
interceded for the transgressors. I don't have time to get into the fulfillment of this in the book of Hebrews, and Christ role as our High Priest and all these other beautiful things. But here, you have the very voice of prophecy, the consistency.
So let's consider these things together.
God is holy, just pure and cannot abide that which is evil and impure in His presence. God announced his redemptive purpose as far back as Genesis 315. We don't have time we couldn't I could not even list the prophetic passages relevant to the ministry of Jesus Christ in the time that is allotted to me. But we've looked at two very clear ones, but they are not the only ones. The state of man having fallen in Adam, this is one of the areas of disagreement.
The state of man having fallen in Adam required a radically powerful redemptive act of God.
The law pointed toward a greater fulfillment. Imagine that high priest every time he comes in and he sprinkles the blood upon the mercy seat, there's still blood there from the last time, and he's gonna have to do it again the next year, and the next year that repetitive action was meant to point toward a greater fulfillment.
Every person who functioned in within the context that law if they would but look could see that greater fulfillment that would be coming. The cross is the ultimate display of all of God's attributes. He sovereignly orchestrates its time and its place. It took place exactly. When God decreed that it would take place. It shows His Holiness, it shows his wrath against sin. I've said many times, if when you look at the cross, all you see is love. You're not seeing all the cross. Because the love that is seen there is seen more deeply and properly against the background of God's wrath against sin. His Holiness stands in the background, the nature of the one giving himself the
very God man shows his condescension his love. Remember earlier the Lord of Glory, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, the Glorious Lord, His sufferings demonstrate his deep mercy and His compassion for sinners. He could have called a whole legion of angels, but he does not do so he restrains that power in grace and mercy.
The cross fulfills God's law, which is a reflection of his very nature and this is another area we're going to have to discuss, because we believe it is absolutely vital that God's law be fulfilled.
Either His wrath much must come against sin, or there must be perpetual.
creation, you can't just simply wink at sin. You can't just simply say I forgive sin without the law being made right? This is a major difference this evening. Without atonement, the law remains broken and violated God's glory marred and as result forgiveness becomes arbitrary on God's part, unknowable on our part and uncertain in our experience. Only in the cross do we find God's holiness, justice, wrath, love, compassion, mercy and grace fulfilled in one cosmic moment of prophetic fulfillment. It is truly
the center point of history, everything before it pointed to it. Everything sense exists in the light of it and points back to that center point of history itself.
So why was the cross necessary, because God eternally ordained it as the means of his own self glorification.
it's part of God's decree, God prophesied the cross, and in the self giving ministry of the SFX says of the suffering servant, and Isaiah 53 700 years earlier, God's entire purpose to graciously join a people to Himself through the sun, providing for them full and free redemption from sin and his voluntarily taking their punishment upon himself. That act requires their purchase by this one, sensual redeeming act of Father, Son, and Spirit all who were involved in the cross and in the resurrection.
And so as a result,
we looked at the book of Revelation, and the book of Revelation points us toward the future and fulfillment,
and gives us a vision of what it's like in heaven.
The continuous worship of God that takes place there, how it's undisrupted, by what takes place, here upon this earth, man may rage, but God remains absolutely sovereign over his universe.
And there were given a vision once the Lamb has come forward, the Lamb who was slain,
you have the elders, and you have myriads of angels, and they're worshipping God. And we are told in Revelation chapter five, and they sang a new song saying, to the lamb, Worthy are you to take the book and to break it seals for you were slain and purchase for God with your blood man, for every tribe, and tongue and people and nation, you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will rain upon the earth is the cross necessary for salvation.
If there is an empty tomb,
there is your proof, because God raised Him from the dead.
This was the central core of the message of Jesus's disciples. This is the Christian teaching. And we thank you this evening for being here to listen to this very important discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. White.
And now with his opening presentation, if you can give us just a moment as we switch VGA cables on on Rashid.
Right before you start the time.
Thank you for inviting me.
To America to have this debate. I'm always very pleased to debate Dr. James White, I have a lot of respect for him. I've told him this many times. So I'm not going to waste time telling him any more of that. I always exchange presence with Dr. James White every time we debate. It seems this time he doesn't have one for me
unless you pull something out of your bag.
But I always like to give presents to Dr. James White, because I know he's a dedicated Christian and I have a large collection of books on Christianity. This particular one is an interesting one. It's a New Testament in Latin, published in 1697. And interpreted by Theodore Biela, who was also a Calvinist. So a token of our friendship to Dr. James White.
Very much, and I do have things for you later.
And stop my time now.
Right, in the name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent. I am Adnan Rashid, I'm from London. This time I traveled from Pakistan
to debate Dr. James White. And the topic today is do we need the cross for Salah
One very, very interesting topic, Dr. James White preached a very passionate sermon. And if I didn't know what I know today, and listen to Dr. James White, I would have been ready to baptize myself.
But, unfortunately, that's not going to happen because I have this present what follows what James will have to show us tonight. Salvation cannot be achieved without the cross.
And teachings of the Old Testament and the New Testament on salvation, through works, slash repentance, or the law are erroneous and or abrogated.
Jesus not Paul was responsible for teaching salvation through the cross alone.
I will show today, salvation can be achieved without the cross. blood sacrifice was not necessary for salvation. Following the law and repentance was enough to achieve salvation. Paul is alone in his notion of salvation by the cross. The Old Testament, the synoptic tradition and James are not consistent with Paul on this matter. Islam is in agreement with the Old Testament and the Jesus tradition on this matter.
There are a number of atonement theories. I wonder why Christian scholars have to go through so much trouble explaining the concept of atonement via the cross, and they have come up with so many theories. One of them is ransom theory, and the satisfaction theory, acceptance theory penal theory, which is what James White believes in the government theory, moral theory and the Christus Victor theory.
he believes in penal substitutionary theory, which simply means that God
is very angry with humanity, humans are full of sin, and a sacrifice must be done to satisfy God. It has to be done. And that is justice.
Salvation in the Old Testament, we will start with the Old Testament and see whether salvation was possible without blood sacrifice because Paul, he states in Hebrews 920 Do that, without blood. Without a blood sacrifice, salvation cannot be achieved, or our sacrifice will not be accepted. However, when we look at the Old Testament, we see so many passages, so many chapters, so many instances where salvation or forgiveness or Redemption was achieved without a blood sacrifice. For example, we have the book of Numbers 3150, where jewels were simply accepted. Leviticus 511 flour was good enough, Deuteronomy 918. Moses simply repents for the people. And the list goes on and on
I'm almost 518 to 24 Why would God not accept their sacrifices, Hosea
six, six, I desired mercy, not sacrifice. In fact, in chapter 14, verse two,
the Israelites state that we will offer sacrifices from our lips, we will offer the bulls of our lips, we cannot offer bulls anymore as blood sacrifice. For that reason, we will simply repent from our lives, and we hope for
And there are so many instances in the Old Testament where I can simply go on and on and on and talk about salvation or redemption or forgiveness is achieved without blood sacrifice.
Now in the book of Ezekiel, chapter 18, verse 2123, we read, but if a wicked man turns away from all the sins, he has committed, and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live, he will not die, none of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him because of the righteous things he has done, he will live simply, he will follow the law and he will live. There is no need for a blood sacrifice. You simply repent, you follow the law, the rules, the commandments of God, and you will be forgiven. This is exactly what Islam teaches. And we will see in due course, how Islam is very consistent with what the Old Testament teaches and what Jesus is
thought to have taught.
When we come to the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew is a very interesting one. It is often called the gospel of the law, because it talks about the law so much, Jesus put so much stress on following the law. And when a young man came to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, we are told he asks Jesus what what is good for me? What do I do to achieve salvation or success to achieve eternal
Life, and Jesus tells him to follow the commandments. Simply follow the commandments, and you will have success. Here is the point where Jesus should have told him, I have come to redeem you, to free you from sin to get you your redemption. But he doesn't tell him that. There is another instance where we have debated Christian scholars and activists as to why Jesus cannot be God, because he missed many golden opportunities to teach that to his followers. And he never taught that in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 29, verse 12, we are told that a Jewish man, he comes to Jesus and asks him what is the first commandment, and Jesus tells him here, O Israel, the LORD our God is one, God,
worship thy Lord with all thy heart, with all thy mind with all thy soul. This is the point where Jesus could have taught him, I am
the second person in the Trinity, there is the Holy Spirit as well. You, the Jewish people have been worshiping one God in one person, or in one being.
And you only knew one person, that's the father, now things have changed, New Covenant has come across. And there are two more persons you have to worship Jesus didn't do that. Likewise, in the book of Matthew, when this young man comes to Jesus, he asks him about salvation about eternal life, and Jesus tells him, simply follow the commandments follow the law.
And then in the Gospel of Matthew, we are told that you will never enter the kingdom of heaven, if you do not follow the commandments of God.
So you can either achieve eternal paradise or Hellfire by doing charity, or not doing charity, again in the Gospel of Matthew. So we can go on and on and on talking about the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus Christ actually talks about the importance of law, salvation through the law. In fact, in chapter five, verse 17, Jesus is believed to have said that think not I've come to abolish the law, rather, I've come to fulfill the law. And anyone who teaches you to go away from the law, even on a minor point, on one point, will be considered considered least in the kingdom of heaven. And we'll see what Paul did later on. Paul completely broke away from the Jewish law. And he preached that
that only faith in the cross or faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is enough for salvation. You do not have to follow the law. Paul was very clear on that point.
The Gospel of Luke and Acts, Luke, was written apparently, or allegedly by Luke. And the book of Acts is also attributed to a man called Luke. Whether Luke actually wrote the gospel or the book of Acts is another question altogether. And myself and Dr. James White, can debate this topic another time, the canon and authorship of the Gospels and the controversy about the authorship. I'm not going to go into that, let's assume for a second of the debate, for the sake of the discussion that Luke was indeed written by a man called Luke. Although these attributions are made to these authors, or these individuals, in the mid second century, years after these documents are written, and almost
all major Christian scholars are unanimous on the point and I'm not talking about liberal liberal scholars, I'm talking about conservative scholars, they are unanimous that these documents were initially written as synonymous, sorry, anonymous documents. So Luke,
amazingly omits when he copies from Mark and this is another theory which scholars follow that Luke and Matthew, they plagiarized from Mark much of the information they put into the Gospels. And when it comes to copying for Mark, chapter 10, verse 45, Luke, amazingly, amidst the salvific formula, he doesn't talk about and to give His life a ransom for many. In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, verse 45, we read this part, but in the Gospel of Luke, we do not see this part he simply admits it.
I wonder why.
So, even in the book of Acts, omission of the curious atonement in Acts is very visible to scholars scholars have picked on that and they have highlighted the point that the book of Acts doesn't put much stress on Atonement by the cross.
One example is when the story of the Ethiopian eunuch is told, and he's reading parts of Isaiah 53 And he asks Philip as to what this means, and Philip starts to preach to him about
Jesus without telling him that this is actually talking about the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. And that sacrifice will atone for your sins, you will have salvation through that. Jesus doesn't go doesn't go into that. Sorry, Philip doesn't go into that. So this is a problem. Why would Luke if Luke is the author of these two documents, the book of Luke and the book of Acts? Why does he not put stress on the issue of atonement?
Rather, the central point in the Gospel of Luke is that Jesus died as an innocent man. He was killed by the Jewish scribes and priests, innocently. And that is the point of the Gospel of Luke. This is what we see as the prominent idea which Luke wants to discuss in these documents.
At no place does Luke state Jesus died for you, or for your sins, even speeches in Acts do not contain the atonement theology? Who thinks so? Dr. James, DG done? I think Dr. White will.
He will? Sorry? rightness, okay. No problem.
Dr. White? Sorry.
Yeah, that's fine. No problem. Okay. So James DG done, he talks about
this problem. The problem Luke not talking about atonement, an important corollary to the X sermons concentration. On the resurrection is the absence of any theology of the death of Jesus, His death is mentioned, but only as a Bear fact, usually highlighting Jewish responsibility. That historical, historical fact is not interpreted. It has never said, for example, that Jesus died on our behalf or for our sins. There are no suggestions that Jesus death was a sacrifice. In other words, in the synoptic tradition, we find very little evidence or very little stress on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that we find in the writings of Paul, not in the synoptic tradition. And in the Gospel of
Matthew, as already clarified, we find a lot of stress on the law following the law. And that's where the salvation is, in the Gospel of Luke, Luke doesn't talk much about atonement, or anything like that. X 2028 seems to have a formula, which insinuates that there was a sacrifice, but not clearly. And Don talks about that even 2028, but church of the Lord or God, or of God, which he obtained with his own blood, or with the blood of his own, not properly speaking part of an even evangelistic evangelistic proclamation remaining more than a little puzzling and obscure. In short, an explicit theology of the death of Jesus is markedly lacking in the Kerygma of the X sermons.
He also states so far as the Kerygma of the X sermons is concerned, we have to say that it lacks a theology of the cross, it makes no attempt to attribute a definite atoning significance to the death of Jesus Christ and mentioned the death of Jesus Christ, but doesn't extend that death, to claim that this death was actually a source of atonement for humanity.
Now, there is another problem in the Gospel of Luke, which apparently talks about atonement, but there is a problem with it. The problem is
whether we accept the longer ending of Luke 2219 to 20, or whether we accept the shorter ending, I'm sure James is aware of this problem. And I'm not going to spend much time on it, and we can possibly talk about it in the crossfire.
But to highlight a simple point, Codex, beta omits, which is an early Greek manuscript, it omits the longer ending, which actually talks about Jesus, this is my body, which is given for you do this in remembrance of me. And he did. The same with the cup after supper saying this cup that is poured, poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. So the words for you in the Verse 19, and the formula for you in the Verse 20. This part is omitted in di D is the name of Codex Beza, which is an ancient Greek manuscript and it is one of the earliest
witnesses that doesn't contain the longer ending, no doubt, majority of the Greek manuscripts do contain it. This is why people like Bruce Metzger scholars like Bruce Metzger, they believe that
This passage may be original, it may be original. Others disagree, people like DC Parker, on Luke 2220. He believes the shorter ending is likely to be the original writing because it is more in line with Luke's theology. It is more in line with Luke's narrative his language.
So, Finland also concludes that there is a problem they in the Gospel of Luke, that this longer ending does not actually help the narrative rather, it creates a problem because of the manuscript evidence which we can, which can be discussed in due course, the Gospel of John, John's Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of humanity. Now, amazingly, when you put the Synoptic Gospels, on one side and the Gospel of John on the other side, we do not see this formula, the Lamb of God, put in the synoptic tradition. For some reason, John's Gospel has this formula, this extension of the story, where John the Baptist, had baptized Jesus in the river, Jordan, EP Sanders on John's gospel, he
states, it is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents. And there are simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50% of what he said, and another one another one, the other 50%, which almost no with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years, scholars have had to choose, and they have almost unanimously, and I think entirely correctly concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the Synoptic Gospels, and that John represents an advanced technological development, in which meditations on the person and
work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them. So. scholars do believe that the Gospel of John cannot fully serve as a source of history of Jesus rather that synoptic tradition is to be preferred.
Now, James versus Paul, Paul, is the man who came up with this theory of atonement, salvation through the cross, as seen already that in the Old Testament, there are plenty of passages to claim or to assert that salvation can be sought or can be achieved by other means other than blood sacrifice. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus put a stress on the law, follow the law, and you will have salvation, you will have eternal life. Luke, does not talk about atonement to my knowledge. And John cannot be trusted when it comes to historicity of these events. So who are we left with Paul and Martin Luther in the 16th century believe that Paul and James are two opposite
ends. They are opposing each other theologically. And James is saying one thing and policy another, and it is impossible to reconcile them, it is impossible to reconcile them. In fact, for this reason, Martin Luther referred to the Epistle of James as an epistle of straw, having praised it for his good teachings, for its usefulness, and it can be used by Christians. He's he has nothing against those who use it, but he doesn't consider it any important. He thinks it's the, it is an epistle of straw. Why, because James taught the law, James upheld the law, he believed in salvation through belief with works, not belief only, as Paul said, there are so many passages Colossians 216,
where Paul talks about not following the law necessarily for salvation. Same formula is repeated in Romans 319 to 28 Colossians 310 Colossians 324 25. Paul is consistently saying the law is no longer necessary. The sacrifice of Jesus has done it for us. We don't have to follow the law anymore. We simply have to believe in His sacrifice, and we will have salvation. James, on the other hand, he is on the other side of the fence. He states that you cannot believe and not follow the law. You cannot have faith without good works. And that's what James was talking about. It seemed that entire Epistle of James was written on Paul, and the rest will be talked about in my 10 minutes when I
returned. Thank you so much for listening time.
Thank you, Mr. Rasheed.
We will now be heading into a rebuttal period. Dr. White will start with his team
10 minute rebuttal
could we have a tech that could possibly come up just to make sure that our, our laptops are gonna be using a laptop? I'm not. I'm not great using anymore
I think we're okay. We're doing fine. And before we start that, that timer since
since I've not jumped the gun, okay. Yes, I did remember you.
And you all are going to appreciate this. I have two guests fraud none.
we'll help him get around Atlanta tomorrow.
So what you do on on is you wear this, and if anybody gives you any trouble, you go rise up and they'll leave you alone. Okay, so
there you go. There's that there's the sort of the funny funny one, though, it does look like it should be fairly warm. So that that'd be pretty nice. The serious one I very much appreciate that's a if you didn't know what that was. That's a beta Latin New Testament over there. I'm very, very appreciative of that. But for you, I have a real nice ESV Study Bible here. It's it's, it's actually small enough, you might be able to get it into your luggage and be able to get all the way back to London. So I did remember you. So thank you so much.
I didn't forget I just normally wait till later points. So okay, here we go. Alright, so much, so much to cover there. But I want to remain focused upon the real, the real key issues. So let me just deal with some of the major statements that were made, and then focus upon what I think is the necessary thing for us to be thinking about this evening, in what odd non had just presented to us a
couple of things.
Luke and Acts were said, there was there was a discussion of, well, it's agreed that you know, and really knows who wrote these things, when you actually look at Luke acts as a set. There are specific names mentioned. I mean, if there is any of the New Testament Gospels and early histories that are specifically identified for us as to their authorship, it would be the Luke X pair. So I'm not sure where that comes from. And it's interesting that when we looked at Mark 1045, and Mark specific language of Jesus giving his life as a ransom for many, it's it's interesting. He said, well, but Luke didn't include that. Why not? It's not that it's not a question about Luke, including
or not including it mark, according to the series that he's presenting is earlier than Luke. So if this is something that develops later on, why does the primitive gospel have it and the later gospel not? That would be backwards? The point is, if Mark has it, it is extremely primitive. And so it seems to me that that that that sort of actually militates against the position. He says, well, there is no there is no atonement, theology in Acts Well, if you what you mean is, there is no extended discussions like you have in Hebrews, or Romans, or places like that. X is meant to be. I personally think that the best theory for explaining the function of x is it was an explanation as
Paul is in prison because it ends where we don't want it to end, doesn't it? Paul's in prison, we don't know what happens. I think one of the best theories as to the very form and function of x is it was like an amicus brief, it was a demonstration of what this early Christian movement was about, and a demonstration that it was not something that the Roman people the Roman government should be persecuting. And so its focus is upon what the early history was, yes, what the message was, but it's not meant to be a systematic theology. And yet, as we saw in x two and x four, absolutely central to the apostolic Proclamation was the cross, the fact that God predetermine that it would
happen and that without the cross, there can be no forgiveness of sins, just because it doesn't dwell upon that or have chapters of explication, like the book of Hebrews Does, does not mean that it was not a part of the primitive teaching of the church at that particular point in time.
I would just very, very quickly point out that in Luke 2219, Codex bezae, Cantabria Genesis Codex de that odd was speaking of is like the Living Bible of the early church, basically, himself said it was more to be stored than studied. It is the most variant manuscripts in the early period. And that phrase, the ology is actually found in p 75, which is our best early Papyrus, which is at least over 200 years earlier than basil sign Atticus Vaticana is 579. And all the rest of the Byzantine manuscripts contain it as well. They just have it in a slightly different phraseology with the last word comes first and the rest of them are the same. So the phrase is
found in all but one of the Greek manuscripts and that's a Latin dayglo. That is extremely questionable in all the things but I'd like to point out that very phraseology is used in First Corinthians chapter 11. Which, if I'm correct, I think Adnan dates Paul before Luke. So that would mean that that phrase theology predates Luke's writing of it. So it's not being there is not really an issue. We can get into the textual critical stuff. As you can tell, that's something I like to get into. But I want to focus upon something else right now, at the very beginning of odd nons presentation, I think we have the key to this evening's discussion, the I mean, might have been the
first 30 seconds might have been the first 30 seconds, where he used the phrase theology, erroneous or abrogated. He was talking about this idea that well, you know, what Paul's saying is, it's just by faith and, and I really think that odd non has a deficient understanding of Paul's doctrine. In Ephesians, chapter two, Paul lays it out, For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, what unto good works, which God has before ordained that we walk in them.
John, Paul and James are not in contradiction with one another. If you follow James too carefully, I spent 24 pages on this subject and the God who justifies followed beginning at chapter two, verse 14, they are saying the exact same thing Paul emphasizes that the very work of the Spirit of God within us is to bring about a conformance, the image of Christ that we do what is glorifying to him, but it is not the merit of my actions that brings about my goodness before God, and that's the issue. The issue is not that the New Testament is saying that those Old Testament laws were erroneous or abrogated. That's not what Paul was saying. That's not what any of the New Testament
writers are saying, the proper term is fulfilled, Not erroneous, not abrogated, fulfilled. That is, they pointed forward to something else. And in Jesus Christ, the law of finds its perfect fulfillment, so that when we are united with Him, in dwelt by His Spirit, it then becomes the work of the Spirit and the Word, to sanctify us and make us more like Christ, we can only truly fulfill the law. When we have died to the law, in Jesus Christ, he is the one that fulfilled it perfectly, we are united to him by faith. And then when we are born again and made new creatures in Him, we are indwelt by His Spirit and empowered to do what is pleasing before God not to add to our
righteousness, but to glorify God. This is the balanced understanding when you take all of the New Testament. And obviously, I'm not gonna take all the New Testament, because if you're quoting DG, James Digi done and people like that you've already started with the presupposition that the New Testament is an incoherent, contradictory work. Well, the problem is, well, you may certainly believe that. But if my if we do a debate on what the Quran teaches on this, I'm at least going to start off by saying, well, consistently if we can, if we allow all the Quran to speak, this is the position. And so let's debate that position. But in general, mainly because the New Testament is so
much bigger than than the Quran is as a whole. I mean, it's the Quran is only like 53% The length of the New Testament be in most of the conversations we ended up having between myself, my Muslim friends, the assumption is that you can create contradiction between the New Testament writers rather than stepping back and going, is there a consistent way of hearing everything that the New Testament writers are saying, I say to you, that there is it's the concept of fulfillment? So for example, he brought up the issue of the rich young ruler and say, See, here's here's what we Muslims muscles, believe you, you do you do the law and you're gonna be right with God, but that misses.
What happened, isn't it? Doesn't that miss it?
The man walks away. Sad. Why? Because he had many possessions.
And you see, Jesus had known when he quoted the law to this man. He knows that as the prophet Jeremiah says over and over again, he knows the heart of man.
And my friends this evening, I'll just be perfectly honest with you. The only way for us really, to come to any kind of agreement understanding on this issue is for each one of us, in the light of God's word to look
Got our own heart and ask the question, if it's up to me.
If it's up to me, if I'm the one that has to bring repentance out of my own heart, if I'm the one has to keep that law,
am I going to fail? Or am I going to succeed?
One of the things we're gonna need to talk about as we get into this conversation more is when you say that that's the Muslim position. Well, what about, for example, the salvation of the man who killed 99 people and killed 100 person, and a lot takes him to heaven, over against some of the Sahaba who wept at their death, because they were uncertain whether they they were going to enter into a loss presence there was there is no objective means of knowing which you're going to be facing.
And the real question comes down to as I look into my own heart, don't I realize that if it is up to me, I'm not going to make it, I need a powerful mediator to stand between me and that Holy God, that's what Job said, I need a mediator.
And we have that mediator. And in Islam, you don't have that mediator. That's really where the issue is. Is the law, a matter of fulfilment? Christ has done it. And now by His Spirit, he's working that within us, is the cross necessary? Yes, when we recognize the power of God's seen in it, thank you very much.
Thank you, Dr. White.
We now have a 10 minute rebuttal, from Mr. Rashid.
So I was talking about
James and Paul.
Dr. White came back and he talked about
the sacrifice again, and what Paul had said, and I don't understand Paul's theology, I understand Paul's theology perfectly well, I simply don't have the time to go through Paul's evolving theology in his epistles.
What I need to do is to show that Paul's theology of the cross was not consistent with the Old Testament primarily. And then the synoptic tradition, because the synoptic authors, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are clearly not interested in what Paul had to say later on. No doubt, scholars believe that Paul wrote before the three gospels or the four Gospels, there is no doubt about that. This is why some people believe that Paul actually influenced some of the redactors of these gospels. Now, James said there is no evidence for,
you know, textual variations of certain passages I quoted.
Most textual scholars believe that majority of the changes or alterations in to the manuscripts of the New Testament were made before the second century, they were made before the second century. And most of our manuscripts come from the second century onwards. So by the time these manuscripts we have today, in international lab libraries around the world, by the time they were penned, all the alterations had already been made into these manuscripts, we simply cannot reach the original text, that venture is already over. The scholars of textual criticism, or the textual history of the Bible, have already declared that we are not no longer looking for the original text of Mark, Luke,
Matthew and John, because we simply cannot find it, it is impossible to reach it and the 21st century, or to reconstruct a book that was written in the first century. See, coming back to the topic again, James versus Paul, I still believe that James was a very important figure who is ignored, generally speaking, in the Christian circles, because there is a lot of stress on Paul's doctrine of salvation through the cross is a beautiful idea. Someone was killed on the cross Jesus Christ all via Jesus Christ, and He freed you from sin. He freed you from the wrath of God, you have the redemption, right? He died for your sins. So you have the salvation. It's a beautiful idea. If I
didn't know what I know, today, or what I have known for years, I would be a Christian. It's a beautiful idea, but I cannot simply come around to overcome these troubling issues we are discussing today. So James was an important figure in according to Paul, even Paul acknowledged in his writings that James is a very important figure. In fact, we have we have been told by literary historians such as Eusebius, and others, that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church. James was the successor of Jesus Christ who the friend, another historian
Interesting historian states that James was the actual leader of the church, the man who decided many of the matters concerning the flock of Jesus Christ after his departure. So in the book of Acts, we are told about these discussions where Paul is having these discussions with James, and the Council of the disciples of Jesus Christ. And lo and behold, guess what? What are they actually discussing? They are discussing that the matter of the law. Paul is adamant that the Gentiles don't have to follow the law of the Jewish people. On the other hand, we have James the Just or the brother of Jesus Christ, insisting that they have to follow some law, such as abstaining from meat
that is sacrificed by the for the idols, the issue of circumcision is being discussed. So if Jesus has died on the cross for our sins, He has redeemed us. Why are these discussions taking place in Jerusalem between Paul and the disciples of Jesus Christ? What is the point? Why cannot? Why can't Paul simply tell them it's over? We don't need to discuss the matter of law. You know, Jesus died for our sins. They certainly didn't believe what Paul believed. And that's why there was a conflict between James and Paul. That's why Martin Luther, in the 16th century, had trouble in reconciling James with Paul. And he made the statement that you can see on the screen many sweat hard at
reconciling James and Paul, but unsuccessfully, Faith justifies Paul stands in flat contradiction to faith does not justify alone, James 224. If anyone can harmonize these scenes, I'll put my doctors cap on him and let him call me a fool.
So it is clear that James and Paul are both standing on opposite sides of the fence. And James was definitely an authoritative figure. He was very close to Jesus Christ, he spent time with Jesus Christ. He was one of those people who spent months with Jesus Christ and learned directly from Jesus Christ. On the other hand, we have Paul, who appears to have received this revelation, after Jesus Christ and His revelation seems to abrogate everything Jesus did.
Such as teaching the importance of the law, Jesus, telling his followers, that you will not have salvation, you will not, you will not have eternal life, until your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of Pharisees and the scribes what does that mean? Why did VITAS? Why is Jesus telling them that if he is going to die for the sins of His disciples, primarily, and the rest of the world, this is the point to tell his disciples, don't worry about it. Don't worry about the law, I'm going to die soon for your sins, there is nothing to worry about. But he keeps on telling them do not break the law, observe the law of follow the Jewish law. This is a Masonic figure, a Jewish prophet,
teaching Jews. And in fact, some people even claim that he only came for the Jews, as he himself stated in the book of Matthew chapter 15, verse 24, that I did not come for anyone but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then in chapter 28, verse 19, in the book of Matthew, we are told that he said to his disciples to go into the nations to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, right. And some of the scholars, current scholars today, conservative scholars, not liberals, or someone who rejects supernaturalism people like Brent Stanton, he states that this passage is a later development. Because in the book of Acts, we are told that the disciples were
baptizing in the name of Jesus, not in the name of a trinity. In the book of Matthew, we are told that Jesus said to His disciples, to baptize in the name of three persons.
So are the Christians guaranteed salvation? Let's assume for a second that Jesus did die on the cross for our sins. But when we read some of the passages in
the New Testament, in fact, writings of Paul, we come to realize that actually salvation is not guaranteed, it is not guaranteed at all. Why? Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, or nor COVID, nor drunkards, nor revisers, nor extraordinary will inherit the kingdom of God. None of these people, then who did Jesus die for is the question. If Jesus died for your sins, then how does that sacrifice actually benefit? Here? Paul seems to be saying that if you do these things,
then you do not have the kingdom of heaven you do not inherit it.
And another passage in Colossians 519 Everyone seems to be doomed. Why? Think about it. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanliness, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, you name it. Now, if we read this list
and think about it, then the question I ask is, who is safe? Who is safe?
Every single one of us is doomed. Every single one of us, and we don't know to what extent what is the magnitude of these sins? How much?
Or how many do we have to commit in order to lose salvation? To lose the kingdom of God? Or the kingdom of heaven? How many? To what? To what exact extent is Paul referring here? Is just one transgression enough? Is it repetitive sinning? If so, how regular? Are these various sins hierarchical? In other words, are all the sins weighed equally? Or are some some worse than others? Don't all Christians, all of humanity even have selfish ambitions and jealousies? Do we not drink some of us? I don't.
But do do people not drink Christians who believe in the cross? Do they not drink? So do you have salvation according to the writings of Paul,
do you is the question so there are problems. And in this passage in front of me, the time is up, so I will have to come back to some of these issues. In the next rebuttal. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you, Mr. Rashid. Okay, ladies and gentlemen,
we're now going to give you a 10 minute break before we start our cross examination period. Also, during this time, if you'd like to be able to take some pieces of paper, and bring one question per person up here, we would like to have one question for Dr. White. And one question for Adnan Rashid, as well. And so we can take a look at those, I will pick the best three for each men at the end. Okay, thank you so much. We'll see you in 10 minutes. Okay, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I want to take time to recognize and to thank Josh Bice, and the G three, conference and all of their volunteers for really allowing us to put this debate on once again, had a great time last year. And
once again, this year, we are really delving deep into some things. And the cross examination is always I think, the most scintillating of the times that we have. But it is great that unlike many of the debates that I've moderated over the past 20 years, that these two gentlemen due respect each other. So what I don't believe what you're going to be hearing is any game playing, which, sadly, that's something that you see quite often in cross examination periods. So a lot of this, I believe, will be quite easy for me. Now, one thing
that I want to ask of you, I know that we have many people that are in our audience that are apologists that many of you are brilliant scholars in your own right and so forth. I would ask please, though, that you refrain from commenting out loud during the debate and holding your own debate or your responses to, to OD anon or to Dr. White? If you could, please, I would ask, please keep the chatter down during the debate, please. I've already had many people come up to me and, and complain about some of these things. We're all Christians. Let's just say that, you know, even during, well, not all of its sorry.
Yes, I know. Yes, we do have a mixed audiences, which is what we wanted anyway, yes. But we all do want to respect each other. And if you are able to, you know, although I was not able to to keep my mouth shut during the last Star Wars film, throwing my popcorn at the screen, and nearly getting kicked out. I would just hope that you could respect the event itself. Other people have paid and have taken pains to be here.
I would imagine many of you that are here are not native Floridians or Georgians that you're able to drive for the snow to get here. But if you could please just respect those that are around you that are here to listen to each one of the apologists and to be able to then formulate those things in their own minds. And with that, we are going to start the cross examination period. Dr. White cross examining Adnan Rashid, and then and then Mr. Rashid will be cross examining Dr. White
have a timer. So we're good. Okay, I've gone before everyone forgets what you were just saying. Well, everyone already has, but we'll assume that they haven't. You just quoted from First Corinthians chapter six, verses nine through 10.
And you basically said, well, then for whom did Christ die? Was Was that what instead you were saying? Yeah. Okay. Do you do you have a Bible program up? Or could you use that really nice ESV Study Bible I gave you or whatever. However, could you read the very next verse? After the one you quoted? You want me to read now? Well, I can read it for you if you'd like, go, okay. Go ahead. Yeah.
Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Spirit of our God. So the statement that Paul is making is all those things, the the idolatrous fornicators, thieves, covetous, drunkards, swindlers, such were some of you, but there was a radical change, but you were washed, but you were sanctified. The only way you can be washed is in the blood of Christ. So doesn't, doesn't the text actually answer the question, and that is, anyone who can turn in faith, anyone who turns in faith to Jesus Christ, even these people are listed here will find him to be the one who is able to bring about their
sanctification justification is isn't that the right what the very next verse says? Yes, it does. But you have to read Paul holistically. Right. This is what I've learned from you, Paul. You have to read Paul, holistically. holistically. Yes. Right. And when you read, Paul, I mean, for example, Hebrews 646, it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have test, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away to be brought back to repentance. So here Paul is talking about someone who has had the Holy Spirit, someone, someone who
has been enlightened, someone who has believed in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And if someone goes away, it is impossible to bring such a person back. So there is no salvation, if you have believed in the cross, and somehow break the rules of the cross, whatever they are, you cannot be brought back. According to this passage. This is our understanding, guess guess which Guess what? The passage of the sermon from last Sunday that I preached to us? Okay. Hebrews chapter six. Right. So if you have it out, how do you respond to that, then, if Well, it's my turn to ask you questions. I'd love to do that. But if you have it up, you could look at verses nine and 10. And you'll notice
that Paul says, but we well, and we're not sure that Paul wrote Hebrews, you directly said that he was, but I theoretically think that he did. But that's that's a another issue. It's specific, the writer specifically states, but we are convinced of better things concerning you things which accompany salvation. So I think that is a misapplication of Hebrews sex, first of all, especially with what comes afterwards to the end of the chapter. But going back to First Corinthians chapter six, the point is, and you said, reading him holistically, well, first, you got to read him in his initial context. He is saying that all of these kinds of people can be saved because of the cross,
do you? Would you at least say that that's what's being said in First Corinthians chapter six? Okay, let's assume that's true. Let's assume for a second, that's true.
Does that mean that anyone who believes in the cross can do all those things? I'm not saying there wouldn't. I'm not asking whether they would if someone who believes in the cross and continues to commit adultery, and drink fornicated, lie, cheat or steal, right? Are you familiar with with Paul's words in the Book of Romans when he says, Shall we continue in sin that grace may increase? May it never be? How shall we who died to sins still in it, I know of that, and asking, I'm not asking whether they would? I'm asking if they would? If they did, let's say someone, please? Who believes in the cross who believes in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who died for our sins?
Okay, if someone if someone was to commit those sins, what would you say about that? That'd be a good question for you to ask me during the during your time to ask me questions where we're trying to be focused on something here. Okay.
You have you have stated a number of times that
you believe that the apostle Paul is opposed to the law
that he teaches somehow in a way that is completely opposed to Jesus and the apostles on the issue of, of of the law. Could I direct your attention to Romans chapter three for a second, right?
Assuming that you would agree with me that Paul, I don't believe Paul was opposed to the law. I don't believe that I believe he contradicted
the Old Testament, as well as the Jesus tradition. And James, okay. He contradicted it by stating it was not God's law or what he simply stated that you have to believe in the cross or you have to believe in Jesus Christ and you don't need to follow the law do good deeds that are planning passages I can, okay in this regard, okay. But good when you say you don't have to do good deeds. So your understanding is he was saying that your good deeds cannot save, you know, my understanding is that you do not have to good do good deeds for salvation, to gain it, or, or that it's the purpose of salvation simply to have salvation. Paul is saying, you just have to believe in Jesus Christ and
His sacrifice, and you have salvation without works. And so when you want me to read some passages, well, believe me I, I'm just wanting to ask you, I'm just asking you to explicate. Why then does he say that it is God's purpose that we walk in good works?
or doing good work? Do you want me to tax I'm sorry, I forgot to give you the sorry. Do you want me to read the text? No, no, it's okay. It's fine. doing good deeds is one thing. I'm not saying Paul is telling people not to do good deeds. I never claimed that. I never claimed that. And I never will claim that. I'm saying Paul's view was that you just have to believe in Jesus Christ sacrifice and you have salvation. And when we read others, they say the contradicting him people like James and chapter two, James is simply in fact calling someone a fool for believing that. I don't know. Um, some people claim that James like for example, do you want to be shown you senseless person, that
faith apart from works is barren? was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac? On the altar? Right now this this is from Genesis 15? Right? Well, no. Genesis 22. No. 15 Genesis 15. This is from Genesis with no money offers and sacrifice. No, no, this passage is from Genesis 15. Six, if I don't? Well, that's that.
We don't talk about offering. Are you talking about the offering of Isaac? Yes. That's not Genesis. I'm talking about Abraham's
initial justification. Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's Genesis six. Yeah. Yeah, that's it. So James is quoting that. So it's Paul, Paul takes a completely different view of that passage, that very verse or that passage from James. So you have you read my 24 page chapter on James chapter two, which deals with this in depth. Right. But does it clarify, is it justified? I certainly
know if I wrote it. I wonder if Luther couldn't all others, like Luther couldn't reconcile James and, Paul, I don't know how we can do it today. I'll try to I'll try to fit it into my closing to explain why that is. But the point is, it sounds like you think that James is saying that you that faith in Christ is not enough. And that that's only part of it, and that your good works have merit that add to what Christ did know what I understand from James James is saying that your faith alone without works is not enough. That faith accompanied by works,
is real. That's real faith. And what was that faith in? That's that faith in Jesus Christ, of course, which you don't believe in which who you don't believe that faith in Jesus Christ is gonna I believe I believe in Jesus Christ.
I mean, I know you believe in the Jewish Messiah, and I don't believe in Jesus Christ like Christians do today. No, I don't or as James would have.
I believe, I mean, look, that's another issue now. Do we have what James might have written completely? Do we have? I mean, the Epistle of James was problematic, right? I'm trying to help you here problematic. Yeah. It was considered non canonical by many church fathers as you are well aware of it.
It is, it is missing in the list of many church fathers.
And Luther, actually, in his writings, alludes to that point, that James was not even considered canonical, but many church fathers for the for the reasons he stated that it contradicts Paul. And it it. It lacks apostolic authority. These are the words of Luther and I have the quotes here with me. I can read them if you want. So James, were was a contestant
that book, right the time is time. Okay. Mr. Rashid's time to ask Dr. White questions, and we'll just go ahead and repeat again is that we do want to make sure that one person is asking questions and the other person is airtime. We're trying, okay.
Maybe I'm too imposing, not at all.
Okay, James, question number one.
We read the Old Testament, and we find passages all over the place that
Israelites simply repent, and God forgive them.
We have similar passages in the New Testament, where we are asked to repent, and we will be forgiven.
does God have to kill his son? To forgive us? Why can't he simply like in Islam, we believe that you simply turn to God and ask for repentance, and you will have your forgiveness.
Why can't simply, God simply forgive us? Well, if you read all of the Old Testament and allow all of it to speak, there's this. There's this huge swath called the Mosaic law. And that law has a function, that function is to show us our sin, and to bring conviction of that sin. And you have this incredible thing called Yom Kippur deem the Day of Atonement, you have high priests, you have sacrifices.
And this, this theme is found in all of the prophets and in all of the historical works. And so when I see God calling Israel to repent, and he will forgive, I don't interpret that outside the light of the fact that God has established this law. And when I look at that law, no.
It demands the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin.
And it does provide for other kinds of sacrifices, Thanksgiving sacrifices, oil sacrifices, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, but when it comes to you, it's sometimes called Yom Kippur, but it's really Yom Kippur Diem, it's there multiple atonements were made on that day, Leviticus chapter 16. There is the necessity of the shedding of blood. And the highest point in the Jewish religious year is when the high priest enters into the holy place with the sacrifice. Right, what James, when you claim the city? I'm sorry, when you claim necessity? What is that necessity for the reason? I'm looking back? I can hear you better back here than right over there. The Society of what when you
said the necessity of blood sacrifice? Yes, it's late. It's specifically laid out in the law, as part of the Covenant documents the relationship that God has with his people. So what happened to all those Israelites who couldn't do that the the temple was destroyed and they were in exile and what happened then? Which Which time of the destruction the first time and the second? Okay, well, in in in the first after the first time of the destruction? Yes, you have God rebuilt having the Temple rebuilt. So you have Nehemiah not not immediately, as we know, well, there's there's a lot, right, right. There's, there's there's a period of there's a period of exile, but when he brings the
people back in that period of exile, what what are the Israelites doing for for their salvation for the forgiveness? Well, you're misunderstanding and saying, I don't believe that it was the doing of those actions of the law that brought salvation. It's when you look at what those actions were, they were pointing to something more, right. They were prophetic. And in fact, I'm not sure that I'm not sure that a Muslim is consistent and arguing against this, and here's why. You believe in prophetic utterances, yes, we do the Quran itself. I'm not wasn't asking I'm sorry. I'm just making a statement there. But for example, the Quran says that the people of the Book find prophecies of
Mohammed in their scriptures. Yes. So we see in the New Testament plainly teaches, for example, the book of Hebrews, the
fulfillment of what is found in the types and shadows in the sacrifices that point to a greater sacrifice. That is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So when I read the psalter, and I read David pouring out his heart, in repentance toward God, and God grants forgiveness, I recognize that there must be a grounds upon which God can give that forgiveness and that's where you and I have a fundamental disagreement, but then it wouldn't would you agree we have I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Go ahead. If that is the case, James if there these are prophetic
passages or prophetic
ideas in the Old Testament where blood sacrifice has something to say for the future, right? Why didn't Jesus simply
explain that to the disciples? Why didn't he say, look at these examples, all these examples in the past? I am the fulfillment, I will die for your sins on the cross like he did 2444 Sorry, Luke 2444 through 45. Right? What is this fate? After the resurrection, he meets with his disciples and He says everything that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets must be fulfilled, no atonement is the issue here. Atonement, where is where does he tell them that I am that atonement, that redemption, okay, the only way that we can know because we have we have two verses that tell us that Jesus did all this talking to the disciples were not told what he said, you
know, how we can find out what he said, the sermons and the writings of the people that followed and and spread his message, right. And so when we look at how the Old Testament is used in the preaching and Acts, Acts 224, it acts for quotes directly from the Old Testament. What's it about the suffering of the Messiah? You see Isaiah 53 being brought in? Where'd they get these ideas? I would say they got him from Jesus. Isaiah 53 is a very interesting passage. I know. Christians believe that it is a prophecy for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You know, Jewish rabbis have disagreed with you for centuries, right? Yes, well aware. But there is there is something I have come across in
Isaiah 53, which is very interesting. You when you were reading the passage, you actually talked about or you. You mentioned, I didn't realize, right, I didn't read the entire chapter. No, you reread the part. I'm okay. Yeah. Were simply states that he will see his offspring. Yes. And then you said, this is the offspring, you have to stop there. And you had to explain what offspring actually means. Why is that because when we go to Hebrew, there is this word 00. Right, which means offspring. And according to Hebrew, lexicons, we are told that this actually means semen. Literally, the substance that produces offspring, and it is very similar to the Arabic term Zarya.
I'm aware of the Arabic language. So Hebrew, and Arabic languages are sister languages are very similar to each other. So here, the Jewish realize this is why the Jews find it very difficult to believe that this is about Jesus, because it simply says that he will see his offspring now.
And we cannot blame the Jews for holding this view, because they have the linguistic tradition. And they interpret this passage or this particular verse, In the light of that linguistic tradition, and prolong his days. So is there a question here? So yeah, that's
how how can you ignore that the linguistic side of I didn't ignore it, because the seed of Abraham is as the star as the see two of the star of sky. So obviously, this is not meant to be taken in a literal fashion. This is a poetic section, you'll notice it says right before that, if he would render himself as a guilt offering, well, how can someone be rendered as a guilt offering under the Old Testament law? This is obviously poetic. And when you look at it, you have to ask the questions. Well, what does this mean? When it says he will see his offspring he will prolong his days, that doesn't mean you have a bunch of kids? What what when you when you look at everything that it says,
My servant will justify the many as he will bear their iniquities. So you choose to interpret certain verses literally and others. Metaphorically, this is a prophecy. Yes. And so prophecy has to be taken in such a fashion as to have a fulfillment, right? And when you look at all of this and say, Okay, what one thing can fulfill all of this, there's only one thing that can there is no, there is no place where the nation of Israel, for example, the normal, rabbinic interpretation, could ever fulfill all of these things. And in fact, there's a number of places where the nation itself is in view as the object of the redemption, He will bear their iniquities, Who will bear
their iniquities, the people of Israel bear the people of iniquity, iniquity that doesn't make any sense when the Jewish rabbis and Jewish scholars have written books on this. But yes, they have and we've written books in response, and I think I point people to the debates that have been done on that I think they're actually conclusive, but from a Muslim perspective, I am confused by your criticism of the text. Because the cut on identifies Jesus as the mushy AK Yes. How were the Jews supposed to know Jesus was the Messiah? If they're if these are not the very prophetic texts that would have held them accountable for knowing one of the reasons whatsoever?
not supposed to. So I'm just gonna respond to that very quickly one of the reasons why Jewish
priests at the time, rejected Jesus was that he was killed on the cross, allegedly. And they had this view that the Messiah cannot be killed. Psalms 91 way it is clearly stated that he will be saved, God will protect him. And that's one of the problems we can discuss in due course. So that's why the Quran confirms that that he was not killed on the cross. He was the Messiah promise to the Jews. Jesus was not killed on the cross. He was saved. He was lifted up, he was raised high, he ascended to the heavens. And that's it. Okay. So now I'm asking, asking questions of you for 10.
Continuous what you just said, though, it struck me. You said one of the reasons that the Jews rejected Jesus was because he died on the cross, how do you
make that fit with Surah 4127. And it's denial of the historical reality of the crucifixion of Jesus. I mean, we're not debating that. But it's obviously central to to this issue, you can't even really seriously consider what the New Testament says about the death of Christ because you don't believe it actually took place. Um, I am accept that the four Gospels are unanimous. All the historical record we have at our disposal tells us that Jesus was crucified. However,
the Quran tells us that he was not crucified. And
the Old Testament also agrees with that, according to what we understand, for example, I mean, this is something I would like to highlight very quickly, when we go to the book of
Psalms. Sorry, Psalms 91. And we see the book of Matthew actually refer to this passage, where, when we read the entire
book, sorry, let me find the passages I'm talking about. There seem to have lost
9111 Hopefully, He will give His angels charged concern you to guard you and always you'll bury up in your hands that you don't strike your foot against them. Right once and yet, basically,
in the book of Luke, chapter four, verse 10, and Matthew four, chapter four, verse five, six,
there is a dialogue between the devil and Jesus Christ, right. And the devil tells Jesus Christ that you will be saved. Right? And well, there are striking similarities between what the wording devil uses, and what we find in Psalms 91. And Psalms 91 is entirely about someone being saved. Verse three, for example, surely he will save you. Verse four, he will cover you, verse five, you will not fear verse eight, you will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked, verse 10, that no harm will befall you, verse 11, For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you, in all your ways, they will lift lift you up in the hands, and this is very much in agreement
with the Quran. The Quran says that he was saved from crucifixion. And he was lifted up, he was simply lifted up, he was raised above, so that you will not strike your foot against the stone. This is the point. This is where it agrees word by word, with Matthew for chapter four, verse five, six. So Jesus doesn't actually deny the passage. He doesn't say it's not me. That passage is talking about. Rather, Jesus says, It also states in the Scripture, it confirms what the devil says. And it is It also states in the Scripture Do not tempt God. Right. So book of Matthew,
clearly states that Psalms 91 refers to Jesus Christ. When we read Psalms 91. We see he is being saved. He's not killed. How do you respond to that? What do we do with that? Yeah, well, it's actually
my turn to ask you questions. But wouldn't you understand that? The fact that Jesus is resurrected from the dead as the ultimate form of salvation?
is how I answered that question by asking you a question. That's
quite honest, wouldn't you recognize, however, that any type of of shadow cannot be as clear as its fulfillment? So in other words, prophecy in the Old Covenant has to be by nature, less than its than its fulfillment? So if you're saying that the the Old Testament prophecies have to be identical to what happens in the New Testament, then you can't have a greater mediator or a greater covenant or any of those things. You're limited only to Old Testament guys.
categories. So how do you how do you how do you? How do you answer the question? How were the Jews supposed to know Jesus was the Messiah?
By his works? It's very simple by him claiming to be the Messiah based upon what he read from the Old Testament. So the old set so Jesus's Jesus could make reference to the Old Testament say, this proves that I'm the Messiah. Yes, yes. So where is there any place in the Old Testament where there is a prophecy that could possibly live up to the level of clarity that you just demanded from Psalm 91? By the way, it's Psalm 91. So Psalms 91. Yes, that Psalms Psalm. Right. Okay. You don't say songs? 91?
Right, Psalm 91, Psalms Manasseh. Psalms, the book of sorrow, right?
Just a little. Sorry, I was it was like you're pulling your fingernails down.
Right? So when we, when we read this chapter, it is very clear that it's talking about
I'm assigning figure who will be saved. Right? And then the book of Matthew tells us that this passage is talking about Jesus. It's very, very perplexing that, then Matthew, Luke and Mark go on to claim that Jesus died on the cross. So you haven't known that this. So your assumption is that dying on the cross is not being saved, even though Matthew, Mark, Luke and John also say, He is then resurrected and exalted to the right hand of the Father, which is the greatest form of salvation that could ever be? No, but if you read the chapter 91, it's clearly states that he will not suffer, he will not suffer, you will not fear. Jesus was clearly in a state of fear, right? We know, the
passages where he fell on his face, and he prays to
get some money. Right. And there are other passages. All right, we're gonna have disagree on how you how you can even come up with the the these issues. But you say that you said that Paul, originated the atonement theory. Was that your direct statement Atonement by a human sacrifice? Yeah, in the form of Jesus Christ dying on the cross.
There are some theories that Paul had to come up with that because the Jewish people had rejected the killed Messiah. They simply couldn't believe in a Messiah who was killed on the cross or
was hung on a tree. And as the Old Testament is very clear about that, that would be a curse, right? And Paul, the first one that curse and turns that curse into a positive thing. So yeah, so if that's the case, though, and James is actually writing as Paul, why is there no condemnation of atonement theology in the Epistle of James? Well, that's what it is, when James is telling whoever he's telling what he's telling, that you cannot, you cannot have faith alone without works. But that's not atonement theology. In other words, if, if, in fact, this radical thing does not find its origination in Psalm 22, and in and in Isaiah 53, but Paul came up with it, then wouldn't that be
the central aspect of the book of James? No, that is the atonement theology of Paul Paul talks about the Law no longer being necessary because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ law has become unnecessary, because
I don't even know where it comes from, but, but there's nothing in in the epistle that even addresses the idea of denying, substitutionary atonement, the sacrifice of Christ. And in fact, let me just ask you to look at one one text and tell me if it doesn't seem to
sound just like Paul.
James chapter one, verse 18. In the exercise of his will, he brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of firstfruits among his creatures. I mean, that sounds like Romans chapter eight. So why is he using Pauline language if he's actually trying to correct Paul?
That actually proves my point. That's that's a point in my favor. Because when people
refuse to accept
James is actually talking to Paul when he says, You foolish man, you senseless man. People say it's not he's not talking to Paul. But if you're claiming that he's talking, he's using Paul's language. That means he's actually talking to Paul, but in agreement. Now he's he's all the apostles would use this language. Right? So but but you're missing my point. I'm saying if, if you're claiming that James was using Paul's language, that means he knew Paul's language, because that's the case. He's talking to Paul. And he's calling him a foolish man. Well, the in James 214, it specifically says, Can a faith that has no evidence of his existence save? Do you think that's actually what Paul was
Paul was teaching that, like, for example, let's let's let's read. Sorry, if everyone could please silence their cell, the time elapsed, and I couldn't I didn't get to it fast enough. Right. Okay. My turn.
Cancel is supposed to stop. I don't know why.
Since the last 10 minutes, right. All right.
It's all yours. Right. So as we talking about James and Paul,
look, James is talking about
unless see what he has to say. What good is it? My brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith, but do not have works? Can faith save you? Okay, you're starting, you're starting way too far into the passage. I'm reading James 214, which is what you refer to right? Yeah. That's what he states. And then it goes on. And verse 20, same chapter Do you want to be shown you senseless, senseless person, or in some translations, you foolish man, that faith apart from works is barren? Yes, was not was not our ancestor, Abraham justified by works? When he offered his son Isaac on on the altar. You see that faith was active along with his works and faith was brought to completion by the works.
I'm going to ask
if we have a copy of the God who justifies in the back? And if we do, I'm going to personally pay for it and ask that it be given Thank you, too, brother to can you bring that up brother
to another present another present for you? Because I like I can't I can't summarize a 24 page exegesis right now. But let me just let me just do this for you. Okay, what use is it my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that face Satan pistas has the Greek article there. It is functioning to say this kind of faith, it is a faith that can not give evidence of its existence. That is the faith that is being issued and condemned throughout this text. And it is never, ever Paul's teaching that the faith that is produced by the Spirit of God in the elective in the hearts of the elect of God's people. Is that kind of faith. Okay, I'll stop you there. Because
you're doing now exegesis. Right? Yes. Okay. That's what we have to do. Let's, let's go to the, to the book of Acts, which is where the discussion is taking place. On the issue of law, this very issue we're talking about. This is where the problem was. Paul was in Jerusalem to justify himself, or what he was doing, talking about accepting. Yes, I'm talking about the book of acts as a long, you know, yeah, but the Jerusalem Council and actually getting exactly. So why are they discussing law? Why are they even discussing it when Paul himself is clearly
preaching to people that it is not necessary to follow the law anymore? Because Jesus died for our sins. So so so and Paul was, according to the book of Acts, accused of that very thing, that very idea, actually, if you look at Acts chapter 15, on on the Paul does give testimony concerning His ministry amongst the Gentiles, but who gets up after him? So sorry, but who gets up after him? Peter, right. And Peter then testifies in support of what Paul is saying. And then James concludes by saying what were to write this letter to the Gentiles, and these are the things that are necessary to maintain unity amongst the believers. But there is no condemnation of Paul, they agree
with the message that we are justified by faith, just as the Gentiles. So what was the conclusion of James but and there are two issues here. James is sitting in judgment. Do you agree in acts of teen Yes, well, he's the he is the
he is the person in charge of the Council. Thank you.
But that means but it's not that that's not mean that he was a Pope or he was No, I didn't claim that No. But he isn't he is running the show. So we have plenty of evidence to claim that James or the leader of
the flock, or the community, or the Christians, if you want to call them that, although they won't call Christians at this stage. As we know, the book of Acts tells us that Christian, the word Christian, he's the Bishop of the he's one of the bishops of the Jerusalem church. I don't even know the term Bishop is the right term to use the James at that time because James is still going to the temple. He is busy observing the law is arguing for the law is a is a zealot, he's a zealot for the law. These are the words I'm using Biblical words in biblical terms to describe James, as he's described in, in the Bible. So when he gives his judgment,
he talks about certain rules and laws to be followed by the Gentiles, right? Avoiding things strangled drinking blood, you why those none of those things were for justification. They were for the fellowship of the saints number, why, Paul Paul, so that the church would arraign one church, the greatest fear, non that all of the apostles had was that there would be a split in the early community into a Gentile Christian church and a Jewish Christian church. Paul had great fear of that. To be honest with you, every, every early movement has that great fear of a fundamental split. Even Islam had the same concern, as you know. And so that is his concern. That is Peter's concern,
that is Paul's concern. And they recognize that if there is not a concern about having Jewish believers, there's not they're not gonna be able to have the table fellowship and the unity that they need to have in the church. But that specific text in Acts 15 specifically verifies that the Gentiles are not to be put under the law to be able to gain justification, right? They aren't they do not have to be circumcised, they do not have to enter into that covenant before they can enter the new covenant. There is unity between Paul and James and Peter. Right. So why does Paul, how does the Unity come about? Because Paul simply submits to what? No, there is no, there is no reason since
Peter verifies what Paul said, there is no rejection on James as Part I. Why would you read it that way? Well, when James when James decided that certain rules and laws and regulations are to be followed by the Gentiles, not for justification, right? I mean, it doesn't say, does it say that in the text? Yeah. Because when you look at what the rules are, this A would never have been for how you made your boss is getting heated? No, no,
no, we're, I think you're I really honestly, I've dealt with Acts chapter 15, but rather in depth because it is utilized by my Roman Catholic friends in another context. So I, I, I've done a lot of work on it. And I don't I really, really, really honestly believe I'm going to challenge you. I'm going to ask you, honestly, to, to look carefully at what I did with James chapter two, we left James chapter, I will definitely do so. Because I honestly believe that the reason that Luther said you quoted Luther, yes. You know why Luther said that? Because Luther was in a battle for his life with Roman Catholicism. Yes. And as a result, and you've seen this, in the history of Islam, there
will be battles that go on and some people become somewhat imbalanced, because they're fighting against a particular position. You can and I think must recognize that X 15 Is is consistent with a proper reading of James chapter two. And this whole idea that you have that there is this Loggerhead between them. I know lots of people who want to introduce problems in the Bible want to make that argument, there is no reason for it. And I don't think it's consistent for you as a as a Muslim, who has your own book of Revelation. To begin with a presupposition and examining someone else's that I can simply take it apart and make it contradictory to itself. One of the things that I did in my
book on the Quran is I attempted to let the Quran speak for the Quran first. If you allow James and Paul to speak for themselves first, you will discover that they are friends, not enemies. I never claimed they were enemies they were in theologically I'm speaking I'm speaking allegorically that they are not theological enemies. I'm I am aware of reconciliations or attempted reconciliations between James and Paul and I don't accept them as valid, but you haven't read mine convincing. So have you read mine? I will have to read you're gonna have to read mine right.
And see if it changes my mind. Coming
Coming to another question.
It is claimed that Jesus died willingly on the cross. Yes. And there are some disturbing passages which
I would like to hear your response on, where it simply states that Jesus was simply not willing to die. And again, it goes back to Psalms 91. Psalms chapter 91. Right. Okay. So in the book of Matthew, chapter 21, verse 22, we're told you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Right? Jesus is basically telling people that you will receive, you pray for it, you will receive it. Then we are told he prayed in the Gospel of Mark chapter 1436. Father, he said, everything is possible for you take this cup from me.
Right? Then Luke 2242. Father, if you are willing to take this cup from me,
then Matthew 2639. My Father, if it is possible, I'm going to the time, right, so go, okay, yeah, really, very, very quickly.
When Jesus says, if you ask anything, he very clearly makes a part of his teaching, this must be in accordance with God's will. He doesn't simply say it was.
Shut up. Thank you. Sorry, he does not simply say, you can go and pray for a Ferrari and I'm automatically you give it to you. It has to be in accordance with God's will, because that makes your prayer. It doesn't, you're not forcing God to do something. In the same way. In each one of those texts. You just read, Jesus said, Not my will, but yours. Right. So to really get to the normal Muslim objection, this as quickly as I can, when you say Jesus did not want to die, what's your what you really need to understand is what you're seeing in those words of Jesus is the sinless Son of God, this is not a fear of death, he recognizes he is going to become sin on the cross. You
don't believe that happened? That's the only way to explain it. Because you believe Jesus was a prophet.
Prophet would not have mere fear of death. So why did Jesus say these things, because he knew he was going to be made sin upon the cross. And that is how our salvation would take place. Okay, gentlemen, we are now going to move into the closing statements. Dr. White will close first he has 10 minutes, and then Mr. Rashid will close after him, then we will go into some chosen audience questions at that time. Once again, I thank all of you for being here, braving the cold and the snow. And of course, I think odd non 15 hour flights, you need to thank somebody for surviving something like that, and coming all the way here.
I have been very severely criticized by many for the fact that I openly profess my respect for and love for Muslim people such as odd non.
I think odd non would be the first person to say that he is not confused about what James White believes that James White is not trying to compromise with Islam, that James White is a critic of Islam, but that he recognizes that I criticize, seeking to be fair and honest and truthful, in what I'm saying. And I think that's simply what it means to be a Christian. We serve Him who is the truth, and therefore we have to be truthful. And that means there are some arguments that we cannot use, because some arguments just aren't all that good. This evening, our subject is is the cross necessary for salvation. And I said, in my opening, I demonstrated this mentality of the cross
across the New Testament, I would argue for everyone, all of the New Testament writers, the fulfillment of the prophetic stream from Isaiah and from Psalm 22. And there's so many other places we could have gone to see that. And the to see the richness from which the apostles drew their own understanding of those Old Testament texts, which I believe they received from Jesus through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and things like that. We saw all of that, but then I closed by stating that really, when you think about it, why is the cross necessary?
And you've heard or not and I speaking and and we didn't get a chance to get into this. I wanted to get into some of the Hadith I wanted to talk about the Hadith where the man kills 99 people and then he kills 100 person, and yet he's ushered into Paradise because he was going to a city to find out about repentance and we should have spent some more time I think, talking about how God's laws fulfilled and the fact from the Christian perspective, atonement is necessary, so that his law is fulfilled so it God's not just simply saying, Well, if you've killed 100 people I'm gonna let you in anyways.
because you're one cubit closer to a city you are going to, from the Christian perspective, that simply doesn't make any sense. And then, and then right in that same section in Sahih Muslim and that hadith actually is one of the Hadith could see, I want to ask you whether you gave that more weight and we can't get into that now. But in that same section in Sahih, Muslim is a are three Hadith that talk about how on the Day of Judgment, there can be certain Muslims that are come to judgment, that have a pile of sins, and their sins can be placed upon a Jew or a Christian. It's in the exact same section of Sahih Muslim, I don't know, maybe not take the time to comment as whether
he accepts those Hadith as being as being valid or not. But there are so many things we could have been talking about that all come back to the issue that is found in the thesis statement, which is a little bit different than arguing about James chapter two, I'll argue about James chapter two. But
is the cross necessary? Why is it necessary? From the Christian perspective, it's because we recognize the deadness of man and sin and the darkness of his heart.
This is not Paul Reed, Jeremiah
spends some serious time with the prophet Jeremiah. And he will tell you, you cannot trust the heart of man.
It is desperately wicked sick, it's desperately wicked and sick.
And so if that heart cannot be fundamentally changed,
then how can any one of us ever do sufficient works that could cause us to stand before a holy God? I believe when the scripture says that nothing unclean will dwell in His presence, nothing.
And then I look at Isaiah chapter six, and I see that that vision of Yahweh, exalted and sitting upon his throne, and yeah, John tells us that was Jesus, but the holiness of God illustrated because the the angels surround the throne, and they they say, Holy, Holy, Holy,
nothing unclean, there is no going to be grading on a curve.
And so I have to ask the question, that man that killed 100 people, how does he stand before God? What righteousness does he have? Because not only has he broken God's law is a mass murder. But there's all these positive things he never did. He has no righteousness, He has no positive righteousness. So how's he going to dwell in the presence of a holy God?
The Christian has an answer.
And I'll be perfectly honest with you Anon, I've read the Quran many times, I've read all of sahih al Bukhari, Sahih, Muslim,
most of Ibn katheer.
And my conclusion is that the writer of the Quran, the early Muslims, did not have any idea what the book of Hebrews taught, they just didn't know. There's no references to it, there's no responses to it, there's no rebuttal of it. They did not know the message of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Or if they heard somebody talking about it. They thought that someone was saying, Oh, you don't have to worry about what you do. Somebody else does everything for you. They don't recognize the nature of the great exchange. Now you've had to learn that because you're a modern Muslim, and you have to interact with Christianity. But in those early, early centuries, I see no evidence that
there is understanding of these things. It's that great exchange that answers the question, my sin imputed to Him, which is why Jesus says, take this cup from me, he's not a coward.
He's not afraid of death.
He is going to be made sin for us. He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, the great exchange?
And how can the great exchange take place? How can God justly Look at me? Knowing my sin,
knowing the things that even this day I've left undone
knowing that I have not treated people the way they should have been treated, knowing that the greatest commandment to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and I stand before you today to say, I have not done that this day. So how am I supposed to stand before a holy God?
How am I supposed to actually pretend that I have peace with God? Romans five one says, Therefore haven't been justified by faith. We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Where does that peace come from?
It's because I am in possession of a righteousness that is not my own.
It's the righteousness of another because I have enjoined to Jesus Christ and He did love the Father perfectly every day. He has a positive righteousness that is imputed to me
And he is able as the God man to bear not only my sins, the multitude of them that there are, but the sins of all of God's elected people.
And that's why the cross is absolutely necessary.
And so what I say to our non what I say to all the Muslim people,
for whom God has given me a love, so that I pray for them,
I listened to them, I hear them. I feel badly when my fellow Christians refuse to do that.
Well, what I say to all of them is, this is the message of the gospel that has been kept from you. Because of 40 Arabic words. And in the Quran in surah, four 157, you don't have a mediator, you don't have the God man who can stand in the gap, you don't have the one that can give you that righteousness,
you have a zeal. And I appreciate that.
I appreciate this Manziel. I appreciate his willingness to come here and to he's sort of, you know, in the minority here, you might say on many different levels.
Even though you'll notice a lot of the Calvinist here have beards. So you could actually consider sneaking a little bit better that way.
But he's come to this place, and he knows he's going to be the minority person. I appreciate that zeal.
But he knows in his heart, I hope he knows in his heart that my greatest desire for him is to come to understand.
There's unity and what this Bible says about what Jesus Christ did.
And what he did is enough. It's not just simply a tipping your hat toward God, it is casting yourself completely and totally upon Jesus Christ and saying, if I'm going to be saved, it's going to because of what you've done for me, and then recognizing the result of that, and the New Testament is that God wants to make me more like Christ, which means I'm going to love God, and I'm going to love others, and I'm going to hate my sin. And he's going to bring all those good works out of me as a changed person, not to add to what Christ has done, but because that's what glorifies Him.
That's the beautiful message, and it's consistent across the New Testament. That's the message I have for the Muslim people. I hope that in hearing it in dialogue, you will be able to hear it with clarity. That is truly my heart's desire. Thank you for being here this evening. Thank you, sir. God bless you all.
Thank you, Dr. White.
Mr. Rashid has 10 minutes for his closing statements.
Thank you, James, for that passionate ending. I would like to thank all my hosts who have done an amazing job in receiving me accommodating me and making my stay very comfortable, especially
Michael Falon, is that correct pronunciation, and his team, Kathy, Larry, and all the other brothers who have been working very, very hard to make my stay comfortable. They pick me up from the airport, they waited for three hours nearly outside, and then brought me to the hotel and made sure that I have a very comfortable state. So I would, from the depth of my heart, like to thank James as well for flying in and taking part in this debate. Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you.
With regards to this discussion, I would like to say that this is to be cherished, it is to be encouraged.
Muslims and Christians coming together as brothers and sisters in humanity to discuss and talk and share values that are dear to us. And, most importantly, demonstrate the beauty beauty of our faiths by talking to each other respectfully, and honoring each other
in front of God. So that's very important. A lot of people don't agree with us. A lot of people would like to spread hatred, they would rather throw accusations and,
you know, promote mistrust. But that's not you're going to find with myself and Dr. James White. We have deep respect for each other in this regard.
With regards to the topic, I think it is very clear to myself and
to possibly some of you that
Paul was the man who was responsible for this tournament
theory. He was the one who formulated this theory. He broke away from the Jewish tradition. And the followers of Jesus Christ as clearly demonstrated that he was having debates with
With the disciples of Jesus Christ, who spent a lot of time with him, and don't forget that the Gospel of Luke is thought to have been written by a physician of Paul, a man who was a physician to Paul, and if the book of Acts is written by him, then you expect him to be a little biased towards the man he knows.
And despite that, there are
detailed in the book of Acts, that highlight the tension between Paul and the disciples of Jesus Christ, discussing the importance of law, to an extent where James is actually insisting that law must be followed even by the Gentiles, even by the Gentiles. And by this time, Jesus has already been crucified, allegedly, as the gospel state, he has been crucified, the sacrifice has been done. Paul is already preaching. This is the time for Paul to say to the disciples, you know, the sacrifice you believe in it, you know about it, the atonement? Why are they still discussing the law? Is the question. So I know James has talked about it. I'll talk about the Islamic solution. Now
James has raised the question about the man who killed 99 people, and then and ended up killing 100 people and still had forgiveness.
If we look at the details, the man was on his way to seek repentance, he was sincerely seeking repentance. From this way, he went to a man who made him hopeless, and he ended up killing that man as well. And he died on the way.
And in Islam, we are taught by the Quran and we believe the Quran was revealed by God Almighty, and it is a continuation of the old tradition to be found in the Old Testament and in the teachings of Jesus Christ. We firmly believe that Prophet Muhammad was a true messenger of God, who did not break away from that tradition. Rather, he confirmed it confirmed it. If we look at the teachings of Prophet Muhammad and Jesus, they were very, very similar. In the book of Matthew chapter 19, verse 18, to 19, we are told, and Jesus said, You shall not murder telling this man who asked him about the first commandment or our way to salvation, to eternal life, and Jesus response. You shall not
murder You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Similarly, Prophet Muhammad, it is narrated in Sahil Bukhari one of the most authentic sources of Islam, his companion aucuba, sorry, Ababa bin summit narrated that Allah's Apostle said while a group of his companions were around him, like they were disciples around Jesus Christ.
And He said to them, swear allegiance to Me for number one, not to join anything in worship along with Allah, God Almighty, not steal,
not to commit illegal sexual intercourse, which is adultery, not to kill your children not to accuse an innocent person of an chastity, not to be disobedient in good deeds. So if you look at the similarity between the teachings, it seems that Mohamed is more like Jesus than Paul.
Jesus is teaching from the law. He's telling one of His followers to follow the law, you will have eternal life. Muhammad is teaching the same law to his followers that you want to succeed you want to have success, follow the law. And this is exactly what the Quran taught. When you read the book of James, or some passages I quoted in my opening statement from the Old Testament as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is what you find.
But those who believe and do right his deeds, we shall admit them to the Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell there in forever Allah's promises the truth, and whose words can be truer than those of Allah, Allah is, by the way, the same God who was worshipped by Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The word stated, allegedly by Jesus Christ from the crossword Elahi Elahi la masa botany, which is Aramaic Ilahi. Allah Elohim comes from the same root word. A lot of people think Allah is some alien god, invented by Muslims or the Arabs. No, Allah is the same God worshiped by the Israelites
referred to by a different name. Not so different. If you look at the root words of the word Ilahi, Elohim and Allah you will see the same root word.
Another verse in the Quran, chapter five, verse nine states. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds that for
Then there is forgiveness and great reward. So in other words, when you read the book of James James is talking about the same things. James was a very close follower of Jesus Christ, just like Jesus James is saying, believe, and do good deeds, believe and do good deeds, believe and do good deeds. Without good deeds, there is no belief. This is what James is saying effectively, in his book, and this is exactly what the Quran is teaching. This is exactly what the Prophet of Islam pot and then we have the concept of repentance and the Quran very clearly stated, God as we Muslims believe stated in the Quran, chapter 39, verse 53, say all my servants, who have transgressed against
themselves by committing evil deeds and sins, despair, not from the Mercy of Allah. Very Verily, Allah forgive sins collectively, truly, he is oft forgiving, Most Merciful. So if you have committed sins, then simply repent, and Allah will forgive God will forgive. If you do not repent, you still have a promise of salvation. A lot of people assume and to think that the Muslims do not have a guarantee of salvation. They simply do not know whether they are going to Paradise, or whether they will have eternal life or not. As James alluded to the point in his presentation, that we don't know what's going to happen, the Muslims don't know. To the contrary, we have been promised that we will
have salvation so long as we die as Muslims. And it is narrated in the
in the book of Bukhari, Sahih al Bukhari, which is again the most authentic book after the Quran itself, in catabolism, on the book of faith,
and one of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad he narrates the Prophet said, Whoever said none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart, good faith equal to the weight of a barley grain will be taken out of hell. And whoever said, None has the right to be worshipped by Allah, but Allah, and has in his heart, good faith equal to the weight of a wheat grain will be taken out of hell. And whoever said, None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good faith equal to the weight of an atom will be taken out of hell. In other words, those who did not repent and died in a state of sinful sinfulness and had faith, they will eventually be taken
out of hellfire, and they will have eternal life. So we as Muslims have an absolute guarantee, a promise, so long as we die Muslim, so long as we do not apostatize and worship other gods besides Allah, God that was worshipped by Abraham, Moses and Jesus, we will have salvation. This is exactly what Jesus taught. This is exactly what the Old Testament prophet taught prophets taught. This is exactly what the New Testament
preaches, such as James taught, and even in the Synoptic Gospels, we, we find such teachings. So ladies and gentlemen, finally,
to summarize the presentation, we do not need the cross for salvation. Because we find plenty of evidence in the scriptures, that the cross is not the way to salvation, rather, believing in God and doing good works. And repenting is the way way to salvation. That is the way to eternal life, not the cross, as taught by Paul against all the prophets of the Old Testament, and Jesus Christ and Muhammad. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. And God bless you all. Thank you, Mr. Rashid.
Okay, now we're going to go into a quick rapid fire round in my attempt is to try to have us finish up by 10pm and ensure that everybody, including staff can go home for the evening. Okay. Each person that I asked the question of whether it be Dr. White or Mr. Rashid, what will happen is that I will ask them a question, they will have one minute to respond, then their opponent will have 30 seconds for rebuttal. Okay, and then we'll go to the next one. The first question is for Dr. White,
Dr. White, without the originals. How do we know that the New Testament what the New Testament actually says?
Well, we didn't have an opportunity to get into the argument, it was stated that all scholars have given up on finding the original text is simply not true. Show up on Friday, Dr. Michael Krueger from reformed Theological Seminary will be here we'll be addressing issues like that.
The reality is that even unbelieving scholars recognize that today we're just tinkering with the text, that we have an incredibly accurate
New Testament manuscript tradition. And it just simply is
not true that everyone has given up on finding what the originals are, the reality is that we're dealing with a small percentage of the text as far as variation is concerned. And we do continue to find new manuscripts. So the reality is we have an embarrassment of information to be dealing with much more than in other religions, shall we say, but I'm out of time. Thank you, Dr. White, sheet. Thank you, Dr. White. for that. I simply want to ask everyone to read Bruce Metzger, his work, the text of the New Testament, its reception, corruption and restoration. The fact that the title is worded like that shows you that the text of the New Testament was received, it was corrupted, and
then there is a process of restoration which is going on to this day.
Okay, this is a question for Mr. Rashid. James to 10 says, For whoever shall keep the whole long and yet stumbled in one point, he is guilty of all. The question is, have you kept the whole law? If not, how are your sins forgiven? Since you are guilty?
Thank you for that question. That's a very good question. I have answered that question in my final statement that anyone who is not able to fulfill the law completely or follow the law completely, rather, simply has the promise that you repent, you do your best to follow the law, follow the instructions of God and His prophets. And if you slack that, you will, there is no doubt that there's no perfection in this world as clearly acknowledged by God and His prophets, including Prophet Muhammad. In one of the reports, he stated that all the children of Adam are sinners, all of them, not because of the original sin, because they are by nature, weak, they are tempted the sin.
And the best of sinners are those who repent, those who repent because repentance definitely immediately wipes away your sins. This is how we are taught. This is what we believe in. So anyone who fails to follow certain injunctions can simply repent, and will be forgiven. Thank you, sir Dr. White. However, repentance is not a meritorious thing. Repentance is a necessary thing. But repentance does not actually provide the grounds for forgiveness. That's why there was a sacrificial system that pointed away from itself to a greater fulfillment. And certainly it was the intention of James to point out that God does not grade on a curve, and that there needs to be a mechanism
whereby the guilt of that sin is removed. That mechanism is not any longer the blood of goats and calves and bowls that was all pointing forward to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. question for Dr. White? Why Can't God just forgive us? Why must he require Christ's sacrifice?
central point of this debate, and that is that God's law in Christianity represents his nature and his being it is not to simply Well, I'm just going to come up with this form of law. And because this sort of pleases me, it represents who he is in himself. His Holiness is innate to his being. And therefore there is no possibility for God to simply go well, I know that my law states that this is abhorrent to Me. But I'm going to suspend that, and forgive this person without the law being fulfilled without the penalty of the law being fulfilled. And I'm going to just simply allow this contradiction to exist in my nature. This is the real issue that we have here is that that hadith
really introduces for me a substantial contradiction in the very nature of God, that does not exist in the Old and New Testaments, because of the sacrificial system and its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, this Rishi. I think the question should be why do we need the sacrifice of a righteous, innocent person? Why does God need to kill an innocent person for to save guilty people? That's injustice. It's like James commits a crime. And I take Michael by the hand and crucify him. Does it make sense? It doesn't make sense. And God doesn't need to do this, this. This. I mean, I don't like to use this word, but this drama, because if Jesus is God, he's not actually suffering because He's
God. Okay, Mr. Rashid, how can God accept an imperfect man without impinging on his justice? How can God How can God accept an imperfect man without impinging on his own justice? God has created us and He knows that we are imperfect, because that's the way He has created us. He knows that he has given us temptations he has told us what is good what is bad, and he has given
As a free will, and God knows that many, if not all, will be tempted by the devil, and they will commit bad deeds. And for that reason they will need to repent, otherwise, we are all doomed. We are all doomed. If there is no repentance, if there is no forgiveness, if there is no mercy, the fact that God is so merciful makes him even holier in my eyes. He's bigger than simply taking someone innocent and kill Him on the cross, instead of forgiving them simply. So the Old Testament system was a lot better than what Paul had to tell us. Simply repent to God, and God will forgive you. It is, it is as simple as that. Repent, and you will be forgiven. Doctor why?
Jesus Christ freely gave himself it's not the idea that you take some innocent person and unwillingly place them upon the cross, Jesus Christ gave His life voluntarily upon the cross of Calvary. This was the agreed plan of Father, Son and Holy Spirit from eternity past. And so it's not some injust action. It is a merciful action. And since Jesus is the God man, it is the action of God, whereby he provides the solution to the problem that mankind faces.
For Dr. White, if I read first Corinthians 16, nine, and see within myself that I am guilty of these sins, then what hope or resolution does Christianity offer? First Corinthians What 616 Nine, I have a feeling it's six, nine and 10. Because I don't think there is a First Corinthians six. This is not an infallible, infallible document, say, reading. Alright, I'm going I'm going to assume that we're talking about the text that came up in the discussion, which is First Corinthians chapter six, verses nine and 10.
And the the list that is provided there of sins, and then what I pointed out is Paul's statement is such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in Jesus in the name of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God. So the point is, that when you are redeemed by God, when you are born again, you are given a new nature, you are involved by the Holy Spirit of God. And therefore it is God's work within our lives to conform us to the image of Christ that causes us to desire the things that God would have us to desire and to do the things that would glorify Him. And so it is not that by doing those things, I'm adding to what Christ did, but is that I am acting
consistently with the Spirit of God that he has placed within me
right in the time still finishing.
What really perplexes me is the fact that if Jesus died for our sins, as Paul claimed, then whatever sins we commit are paid for.
It might be a license to simply go and go on an orgy for that matter, you know, you can have your your beach parties you can go and you know, abuse children you can have, you know, you know, I don't want to go into the details, grim details, people are doing all kinds of things in the world today. So if one believes in the sacrifice, then all of this is paid for.
Okay? This is Question four, for Adnan Rashid. What saved Abraham his faith because it faltered, or his obedience because it was imperfect.
I believe Abraham was saved simply due to his obedience to God. He believed primarily, first of all, he had to believe. And after believing he was very diligent in following God's teachings, and he was a sincere man. And it was because of his obedience to God, he was saved. And not only he was saved, his entire progeny was promised great things in the form of the Israelite prophets, and eventually, Mohammed, I believe Mohammed was actually foretold in very powerful words, Isaiah 53, if it's a prophecy about Jesus, then Isaiah 42 is more so about Muhammad foretelling, an Arabian Arabian Prophet, who will come with all these qualities foretold in that particular passage. So if Isaiah 53
is foretelling Jesus, then there is no problem in accepting Isaiah 42 as a prophecy for Muhammad. So I think Abraham was the cause of all this, that happened in his progeny.
Abraham was saved by his faith in the promise that was given to him in Genesis chapter 15, of the covenant that God provided to him. It wasn't there was no merit. In his goodness, he wasn't the most holy man and therefore he was chosen because he was the most holy man God was free and choosing him, but his the basis of his salvation, the same basis of all the rest of us
Faith in the fulfillment of the promises that Yahweh provided to him in the covenant. Last two questions for Dr. White, as a Muslim, how can I be saved?
That's the question. Okay.
If the question is if you're asking as a Muslim, how can you be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, not a Jesus who is a mere Prophet, not a Jesus, who is just one prophet amongst many prophets, but the Jesus of the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ, who himself said he came down from heaven.
belief and faith in Him is trusting in Him completely casting all of your sin upon him, and trusting that his sacrifice the fact that He gave His life and rose again on the third day to see that the right hand of the father that he is able to save completely, those who flee unto him for salvation, but editing him down to someone you're a little bit more comfortable with.
Jesus said, that was not a possibility. Mr. Rishi?
That's just my turn to respond. Yes.
Yeah, but you have to answer the exact question.
I don't think Jesus was simply a mere prophet, and I don't think he ever died for our sins. I don't think that's true. And I don't think it was God in any shape or form. He if he was God, then He didn't do a good job telling us that He was God. He had plenty of opportunities. He had time to to curse the Pharisees. He had time to curse the tree. He had time to talk to people about things. Didn't have time to just state one sentence. I'm God, worship me. So salvation is through following the law. Jesus followed.
Okay, last question for Mr. Rashid. In your presentation, you said that Mark and Matthew copied from Luke, I believe you use the word plagiarism? Would you please provide evidence for this?
All scholars of the New Testament I am when I say all I am very confident that all scholars believe because there are passages in Luke and Matthew that have been copied word by word for Mark. James will confirm that I hope he will. And it's time to speak there are passages in Matthew and Luke copied word by word for Mark. And, of course, Luke and Matthew added more information, and then comes along John with a lot more information a lot more interpretation. That's why scholars believe that John has this high Christology he came with came up with a lot of ideas that cannot be found in a synoptic tradition. Even conservative scholars, like F Bruce and Richard Bolcom have clearly
stated that the Gospel of John is a lot more interpretive, and a lot more extensive.
In in, you know, extending on details than the synoptic tradition. So there's plenty of evidence that these gospels took ideas and words from each other. Especially mark.
a second, okay.
The assumption being made, of course, is what's called literary dependence. I do not believe in literary dependence. I'm not sure why Muslims push this so hard, because there's all sorts of things in the Quran, where there are repetitions of stories that differ from one another that raises questions as to why one author would be doing that. But the reality is, you have the tradition of Jesus, and it is recorded for us by Mark by Matthew, by Luke, and by John much later on. It's one consistent tradition. And the consistencies come from the fact they're teaching one, one truth.
Ladies and gentlemen, would you please thank these two gentlemen for their time and for this great debate this evening.