Monday, September 13, 2010

"Dr." James White: Christians should be buying Qur'ans


On September 8th, 2010 "Dr." James White called in on the live program, "News and Views English" of the "Aramaic Broadcasting Network" (www.abnsat.com) to share his views on Pastor Terry Jones proposed "Burn a Koran Day". I learned about his call-in via his blog at AOMIN, and the YouTube videos that he linked to:

My Attempt to Reason with Dr. Jones of Gainesville

[Also available @ YouTube: Burn the Quran 8.]

During his call-in, James stated:

...I would like to suggest that we should be buying Qur'ans, like you have on the desk, of you and I do programs together, and studying as both you and I have, so we can proclaim the Gospel and demonstrate that Muhammad was not a true prophet and the Qur'an is a denial of the truth found in Jesus Christ...(3:56 - 4:14)

Pastor Jones a bit later responded with:

...I think definitely we don't need to be buying Qur'ans and reading them; I think that's absolutely ridiculous, we need to be reading the Bible , we need the Bible...I would not encourage Christians to buy a Qur'an and read it...I hope that we are not encouraging Christians, your normal, everyday Christian, to buy a book of lies and deception, a book that is very deceiving, a book that is filled with deceiving spirits, that we are not telling them to buy that book... (6:11 - 7:11)

Before I begin sharing some of my own thoughts on this issue, I want to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BURNING OF QUR'ANS. However, with that said, I would now like to reflect a bit on which of the two positions presented above is the most consistent one, keeping in mind the fact that both men believe the Qur'an is not from God, that it is a false religious book, that it presents a false Gospel, that it is anti-Christian, that it "is filled with deceiving spirits", that Muhammad was a false apostle, et al.: should one adopt James White's position that Christians should be buying Qur'ans, or should one side with Pastor Jones that the only Christians who should be buying Qur'ans are the professional, anti-Islamic apologists?

Pastor Jones makes reference to a historical event recorded in the Old Testament when King Josiah, prompted by the reading of "the book of the law" (by the high priest Hilkiah), begins his famous 'reform/s', eradicating ALL the false religious practices and objects that had crept into the religion of Israel (2 Kings 22, 23:1-25). King Josiah was being faithful to the commands given by Yahweh, through the prophet Moses; one of the more definitive instructions given is found in Deut. 13:1-10:

If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; hou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; hou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (ASV)

Now is not the time or place to get into the controversial debate of the role the Old Testament should play in determining the set of civil laws faithful Christians should adopt in countries where Christians are the majority, and hold legislative positions in government (Greg L. Bahnsen's, Theonomy In Christian Ethics, is an excellent introduction to this subject), but whatever side one takes on this issue, the Old Testament should not be ignored, and the very least should serve as a guide to the INDIVIDUAL practice/s concerning the issue of false religion.

Early Christianity came into existence within the confines of a pagan nation, and it would be centuries before Christians became the majority and could implement civil laws that were Biblically based. But, that does not mean that one's individual practice could not import the essence of the Old Testament's teaching on false religion, idols, etc.; Acts 19:19 gives us a glimpse into the mindset of some early Christians:

And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. (ASV)

The apostle Paul wrote:

Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6:14-18 - ASV)

Now, if the Qur'an is what James White and Pastor Jones believe that is—a false book "filled with deceiving spirits", et al. (I think that they are both probably wrong on this)—then who is being more Biblically consistent: White or Jones?

Interestingly enough, James White is a Calvinist, who holds great respect for John Calvin, yet it is Pastor Jones' position on the Qur'an that is much closer to Calvin—note the following:

Calvin's last personal encounter with evangelical Anabaptism seems to have occurred two years later, when an otherwise unknown Belot came to Geneva and laid out tracts for sale. Calvin had him arrested...Belot was expelled from the city. When apprehended two days later, he was beaten for defiance, his books were publicly burned, and he was threatened with the gallows if he should return. (George Williams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 597, 598.)

So, I ask once again, if one adopts the view that the Qur'an cannot be from God, that it is a anti-Christian book, "filled with deceiving spirits", who is being more Biblically consistent: White or Jones?

But then, maybe White and Jones are both wrong...


Grace and peace,

David

92 comments:

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

First to comment yippie! Well David in light of the evidence that you have produced Pastor Terry has the more theologically consistent position.

You also pointed out Calvin's position. It is interesting that James White supports death for apostacy. He said that Calvin did not do injustice as Servetus was breaking the law.

I find it interesting that all the Christians today who talk about how good and pious western 'civilization' is <what ever that means, is that in reality all these so called human rights come about AFTER Church and State are seperated.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued from above, even though this may not be directly related to this post I shared recently with a government representative here that I am not a supporter of seperation of church and state (anymore).

He inquired why? I told him all life forms on this planet compete for space, if moss can grow on concrete it will do so. Corals in a reef sting one another and spread.

The concept behind liberalism and secular democracies is to try and give a platform where every one can have a certain number of rights given by the state.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

now there can be and are many symbiotic relationships where organisms live together for mutual common good and co existence.

Christians can talk all they want about being persecuted by history shows from the moment they took positons of power it was dominance by them and submission by their subordinates.

All one has to do is look to the places where Christianity has an inkling of power or hold on the psyche of the populace and violence follows. N Ireland, former Yugoslavia, U.S bombing of abortion clinics, and so forth.

Christians are scared to death to be in power. We can see that even with in the Christian dialectic in the U.S the internal disputes. For example would a 'Christian' president allow for abortion? Would he support gay marriage? Why or why not?

Why is Marijuana illegal when it was the cotton industry that lobbied hard for it to be banned, but something much more destructive (alcohol) can be easily accessed in 7-11s, Walmarts and hotels throughout America.

What's the deal?

For secular society morality is regulated to a vote!

This is anathema in Islam.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Who decides what is or what is nor moral? When you have corporations that are trying to get the supreme court to pass laws that allow for the making of animated films that show pedophilia. Their argument is that it's animated so why should it be illegal since they are not real.

What ever happend to the cattles rights and the chickens right not to be eaten?

Islam is not subject to reason, our reasoning is subject to the guidance and revelation from Allah.

Now there can be varying opinions within the faith tradition (symbiosis and co existence).

Yet there are just some things that cannot coexist.

The whole of the Muslim world is under siege by those who want us to abandon our faith. First they want us to be secularist and once we had over the power of shariah to athiest and liberals it won't stop there.

They come to the schools and plot a chart for the education system. Destroy the Javi script in Malaysia and Indonesia, Russians take away the Arabic script in central asia and replace it with cyrillic, and the Turks replace their script with a Roman alphabet.

Traditonal Imams dissapear and are replaced with Imams who have "PhDs in Islam" people who basically want to regulate Islam to the friday prayers much like Christianity has been regulated to that quite unobtrusive time of the morning on Sundays.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

This is not going to happen! By the grace of Allah. Because this deen this way of life is the truth without doubt.

It is western civilization that is imploding. The economy is absolutely crushed. America reminds one of the family traveling to Disney land in the minivan laughing having a good time fully aware that the tank is on 'E' but still pressing forth on fumes!

I lived in the United States most of my life and Americans are good people (though many woefully ignorant of the world around them). They will give you the shirt off their back and many times stop their car and help you change your tire when need be.

But the people in the U.S and the world in general have been duped by greedy corporations, the fat cats, liberals without a cause or a clue, inconsistent hypocritcal conservaties who think they are the great white hope, and it is just decadent. Decadence.

So with that I will stand for, stand upon, defend, and cherish until the day I die this way of life known as submission, saftey, surrender and peace (ISLAM).

now that I got off my soap box.

Pastor Terry is consistent on three fronts. 1) He is consistent in terms of his faith as a Christian and he gave Biblical support.

2) He is consistent with what those in reformed tradition have done.

3) He is consistent the secular principles of the consistution he is free to burn Qur'ans just as I am free to burn Bibles.

lastly, I do not advocate the burning of Bibles or Qur'ans. In Islam you can burn sacred documents as this is the proper way to dispose of them.

Example I get a brochure with qur'anic material printed on it. In Islam we do not throw this in the trash with baby diapers, half eaten food with worms crawling on them and what not. We take Qur'anic material even today in the year 2010 and burn it.

I have burned Qur'anic material before.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
“It is interesting that James White supports death for apostacy. He said that Calvin did not do injustice as Servetus was breaking the law.”

He does not support death penalty for apostasy. You are gravely mistaken. You have twisted and distorted Dr. White’s view and also the proper way we should understand Calvin and Micheal Servetus. Dr. White, for apostasy today, would say that the local church should bring church discipline on such a person and kick them out of the church if they don’t repent and come back to Christ. (Matthew 18:15-20; I Corinthians chapter 5; Titus 3:10) So you should retract that statement and apologize.

The point about Calvin is that people spin and twist and mis-represent what actually happened in the Servetus situation and they ignore the historical context of the times. The Roman Catholics were going to execute him and he was in jail and yet he escaped to Geneva. Calvin visited him in prison and wrote letters to him, and pleaded and exhorted him to repent. The civil authorities were still operating in the prevailing culture that had been around in Europe since Justinian’s laws against paganism and idolatry and pagan Greek/Roman temples, etc. You misrepresent the Calvin / Servetus issues by ignoring the historical context of the times, etc.

The Reformers inherited the Roman Catholic European culture of the marriage of church and state that goes back to Theodosius in 380 AD and Justinian around 537-550 AD. (harsh punishments, wars, Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.)

The separation of church and state (USA, and western Europe) is a modern movement based on Jesus’ statement, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar and render to God the things that are God’s”; and it is also based on the over-reactions and problems of the European history of the Crusades, anti-Semitism, the Spanish Inquisition, harsh punishments and torture, and the religious wars that broke out in Europe since the Reformation.

Also, in one of new posts, you wrote that Dr. White is the only elder at his church. (last time I looked) This is wrong, as Pastor Don Fry is also an elder. You obviously don’t understand what Biblical eldership is. (see Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5) Elders are supposed to teach and “pastor” or “shepherd” the flock; so they have 2 elders and you should retract your statement. They had 3, but one of them recently died. They are a small church.

Ken said...

David,
This post is just not good at all on your part.
Just because we agree with Calvin on many things about Salvation, Election, and God’s Sovereignty, does not mean that we should follow him on every detail. He was wrong on infant baptism, both Dr. White and I are Baptists when it comes to the issue of baptism – believer’s or disciple’s or credo-baptism. So, Calvin is not infallible, and the Bible is our final authority.

You left out Dr. White’s main point – it is not a gospel proclaiming action – just burning the Qur’an out of anger or a symbol against the 9-11-01 Islamic terrorists, since they used the Qur’an to justify their evil deeds ( Surah 9:1-4; 9:14; 9:29); does not proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it sets up extra emotional stumbling blocks to the gospel, as a Christian pastor doing this, just like the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, colonialism, religious wars, book burning, etc. are still to this day “stumbling blocks” to the gospel among Muslims, atheists, agnostics and other skeptics, and Jewish people also.

Deut. 13 was for Israel as a theocratic state and it says nothing about “book burning”. USA is not Israel and not a theocracy. In fact, God took the kingdom away from Israel – Matthew 21:43-45; Acts 1:6-8 – we are to preach the gospel, not enforce OT punishment laws.
Acts 19 was people who formerly did magic repented and got rid of their magic books as a proof of their complete repentance – Acts 26:20. Pastor Jones is not a former Muslim and never even read the Qur’an, so it does not apply. Even if he had been a former Muslim, and had read the Qur’an, the action is bad and stupid because it is not NT or apostolic or communication of the gospel of Christ, the cross of Christ, the love of God. You are taking verses and history out of context. Bad, David, goofy article!

I think it is you who are being inconsistent in the way you wrote this, and being open to Bahaism (and continue to not explain how that fits with your "Origen/Tatian/Irenaeus (? even "Mormon" in your suggestions in the past !) subordination /ECF Christianity") and yet promoting some form of Christianity(I guess from your point of view), and you seem to question the the Deity of Christ or Trinity (the orthodox doctrines of the Bible, Athanasius, the Cappodocian fathers, etc.) and sit back and call others inconsistent.

Seems like a mass of confusion here.

Ken said...

It is the Muslim world that is so immature and babyish that they get angry over things like this and start doing violence and killing people, like the guy who brutally murdered Theo Van Gogh in Netherlands and the riots that broke out over the Muhammad cartoons and the killings that took place over Jerry Vine’s dumb comments. (Even Imam Ra'uf in NY suggests that he cannot move the Mosque/Islamic Center back farther away from the plan because it may cause anger from the Muslim world! Manipulation, black-mail speech, more typical immaturity and wickedness - cunning, deceptive - makr
مکر
(Surah 3:54; 8:30; 10:22) tricky, clever manipulation that will come out with a scorpion sting in the future and proclamation of victory (Fath) فتح

The results of consistent and doctrinal and acting on the Sunna of Islam (Qur'an, Hadith, Sunna, Sirat, Tarikh, Tafsirs, Fiq) seems to be all about power and force and anger, manipulation and whining and complaining about others insulting and dishonoring their feelings. Blaming others for their own problems, like Adam and Eve in the garden.

Proverbs 12:16
“A fool shows his annoyance at once,
but a prudent man overlooks an insult.”
NIV

“A fool's anger is known at once,
But a prudent man conceals dishonor.”
NASB

“The vexation of a fool is known at once,
but the prudent ignores an insult.”
ESV

This is what typical Muslim rage reminds me of. Immature temper tantrums that result in violence and murders. Why doesn’t the “final religion” and “deen that covers all areas of life” help them deal with their temper tantrums, anger, male chauvinism, violence against women (the Pakistani man who beheaded his wife in Buffalo, NY – WOW !), killing Christians and Hindus in India, killing Christians in Nigeria and Indonesia??

Because Islam has no holy power, no power of the cross against sin, death, or the devil; it has no Holy Spirit, and is not the truth and the Qur’an is a purely human book. It has some truth in it, which is got from the Bible, God’s word, which is the truth – John 17:17; Psalm 119.

David, you are still not answering the Bahai issue and spent time on this silly post, one of the worst you have ever done, from an intellectual viewpoint.

Ken said...

Along with Dr. White’s excellent points on this, here are some other better articles on this issue and you should be promoting their Biblical faithfulness and reasonableness and consistency with NT Christianity and how it applies to today’s world.
1. Carl Truman
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/09/koran-burning.php

2. This article points out the dangers of the Qur’an burning and also the differences in it and when the Christians in Acts 19 were repenting of their former life of magic and superstition:
http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/on-burning-religious-books/

3. Jochen Katz
http://answering-islam.org/authors/katz/cancel_quran_burning.html

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Some interesting comments for sure! I am not qualified to critically examine the state of "Western culture" in our times, there are just too many disciplines involved for me to accurately and cogently present a comprehensive assessment. But, with that said, it sure seems to this simple beachbum that "Western culture" has exhibited signs of decadent decline; hopefully, this is but temporary, and corrections will emerge in the near future.

As for my post, the intent behind it has two primary motives: first, to demonstrate certain inconsistencies from two controversialists who begin with the same presuppositions (concerning the nature of the Qur'an and Islam); and second, to open the door (i.e encourage people to deeper thought), to the possibility that their (White and Jones) presuppositions are wrong.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks for responding; you posted:

>>David,
This post is just not good at all on your part.
Just because we agree with Calvin on many things about Salvation, Election, and God’s Sovereignty, does not mean that we should follow him on every detail.>>

Me: Did not say that you, James, or the vast majority of Calvinists did/do "follow him on every detail"—as such, this sure seems to be a 'strawman'.

>>He was wrong on infant baptism, both Dr. White and I are Baptists when it comes to the issue of baptism – believer’s or disciple’s or credo-baptism. So, Calvin is not infallible, and the Bible is our final authority.>>

Me: Are you saying that the Bible was not the "final authority" for Calvin; what about Dabney, Edwards, Hodge, Shedd, Warfield, and so many other brilliant Calvinists who embraced and taught infant baptism?

>>You left out Dr. White’s main point – it is not a gospel proclaiming action – just burning the Qur’an out of anger or a symbol against the 9-11-01 Islamic terrorists, since they used the Qur’an to justify their evil deeds ( Surah 9:1-4; 9:14; 9:29); does not proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it sets up extra emotional stumbling blocks to the gospel, as a Christian pastor doing this, just like the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, colonialism, religious wars, book burning, etc. are still to this day “stumbling blocks” to the gospel among Muslims, atheists, agnostics and other skeptics, and Jewish people also.>>

Me: I found "Dr." White's argument to be pragmatically based, and not Biblically based. The symbol created by the burning of books, tracts, religious 'aids', et al. that one believes to evil, false, "filled with deceiving spirits", is a powerful one with Biblically based warrant.

>>Deut. 13 was for Israel as a theocratic state and it says nothing about “book burning”. USA is not Israel and not a theocracy. In fact, God took the kingdom away from Israel – Matthew 21:43-45; Acts 1:6-8 – we are to preach the gospel, not enforce OT punishment laws.>>

Me: Read Dr. Bahsen's book, and then get back to me.

>>Acts 19 was people who formerly did magic repented and got rid of their magic books as a proof of their complete repentance – Acts 26:20.>>

Me: Hopefully you are not saying that only "magic books" are to be burned, and/or that the practice of "magic" (in the 1st century setting) was not religious.

>>Pastor Jones is not a former Muslim and never even read the Qur’an, so it does not apply. Even if he had been a former Muslim, and had read the Qur’an, the action is bad and stupid because it is not NT or apostolic or communication of the gospel of Christ, the cross of Christ, the love of God. You are taking verses and history out of context.>>

Me: I disagree Ken, you seem to be relying on pragmatics for your argument, rather than taking the historical examples/principles of the Bible and applying those examples/principles to the present day (as did Calvin, and so many other consistent Reformed folk down through the ages).

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>>Bad, David, goofy article!>>

Me: Sigh...you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but for one who claims that his "final authority" is the Bible, it sure seems to me that you have neglected to take the Biblical examples, principles and warrant, seriously.

>>I think it is you who are being inconsistent in the way you wrote this, and being open to Bahaism (and continue to not explain how that fits with your "Origen/Tatian/Irenaeus (? even "Mormon" in your suggestions in the past !) subordination /ECF Christianity") and yet promoting some form of Christianity(I guess from your point of view), and you seem to question the the Deity of Christ or Trinity (the orthodox doctrines of the Bible, Athanasius, the Cappodocian fathers, etc.) and sit back and call others inconsistent.>>

Me: Sigh...I am the one who is open to the possibility that God may can give, may have given, and may do so yet again, further revelation to mankind after the close of the 1st century. That is why I cannot in good conscience endorse the burning of religious texts that claim to be a continuance of the Abrahamic tradition.

>>Seems like a mass of confusion here.>>

Me: I think the confusion lies with those who are not consistent with their presuppositions.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
Paul was "provoked" by all the idols in Athens (Acts 17), but he did not seek to burn them or smash them or destroy them; instead he preached and argued and debated and spoke to the Greeks/pagans/Stoics/Epicureans/philosophers, etc.

I read Bahnsen's short version of Theonomy in 5 Views on the Law and Gospel. I am not convinced that Theonomy is valid for the NT era and beyond(our day until second coming). He was great in his debate against Robert Stein, the atheist; but Theonomy and the marriage of church and state has created too many stumbling blocks for the gospel. Don't you see that?

The GV19, a Muslim, spends a lot of his time at his own web-site "exposing" and criticizing some Conservative Christians for their "right wing" views of self-defense and just war against Islamic terrorism.

My goodness, you are making things harder here by indirectly advocating Theonomy and book-burning, another stumbling block for Muslims. (even though you said you don't advocate it; you are indirectly by your saying that Dr. White and I are inconsistent, when we put the gospel and NT first.

How is it "pragmatic" when the whole NT is about preaching the gospel, teaching, suffering, willing to be persecuted, perseverance under persecution, endurance in trials, love, service, etc.

John 18:36 - My kingdom is not of this world, if it were of this world, my servants would be fighting . . .

Matthew 26:51-52 - "those who live by the sword will die by the sword"

Ephesians 6:10-20
Our struggle (wrestling, "fighting") is not against flesh and blood, but against the devil

2 Cor. 10:3-5
The weapons of our (spiritual) warfare are not fleshly but mighty through the pulling down of strongholds

Matthew 5:38-48
Love your neighbor
Turn the other cheek

Matthew 5:22-26
Don't have anger in your heart
Don't have hatred in your heart
Don't call people fools or idiots

Romans 12
do not return evil for evil, but leave that to God; "vengeance is mine", says the LORD . . .

Ken said...

2 Cor. 10:3-5
The weapons of our (spiritual) warfare are not fleshly but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds

Ken said...

If you think Bahaism is true, it automatically means that Islam was true for a season, several centuries, and that automatically retroactively means Christianity was not true at all, according to any kind of historic Christianity - NT, pre-Nicean, Nicean, Chalcedonian, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

Your argumentation is truly contradictory.

You are still not explaining how you can put that together in any logical, reasonable, non-contradictory way.

Ken said...

Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Love Your Enemies

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:38-48

David Waltz said...

Hi again Ken,

In your last series of responses, you wrote:

>>David,
Paul was "provoked" by all the idols in Athens (Acts 17), but he did not seek to burn them or smash them or destroy them; instead he preached and argued and debated and spoke to the Greeks/pagans/Stoics/Epicureans/philosophers, etc.>>

Me: You have completely missed two important aspects: first, when Paul was preaching to the Athenians, neither Greece, nor Athens, the population was not one a Christian majority; and second, nothing in Paul's dealings with the Athenian philosophers suggests that Christians should run out and buy the works of the Epicurean or Stoic philosophers.

>>I read Bahnsen's short version of Theonomy in 5 Views on the Law and Gospel. I am not convinced that Theonomy is valid for the NT era and beyond(our day until second coming). He was great in his debate against Robert Stein, the atheist; but Theonomy and the marriage of church and state has created too many stumbling blocks for the gospel. Don't you see that?>>

Me: Two questions Ken: first, the USA is a country whose population exceeds 75% who claim to be Christian; what should be the basis upon which our legislators establish CIVIL law? And second, is not the fact that the legislation of the last few decades is becoming less and less Biblically based a "stumbling block" to Muslims who perceive the USA as a country with a majority of professing Christians?

>>The GV19, a Muslim, spends a lot of his time at his own web-site "exposing" and criticizing some Conservative Christians for their "right wing" views of self-defense and just war against Islamic terrorism.

My goodness, you are making things harder here by indirectly advocating Theonomy and book-burning, another stumbling block for Muslims. (even though you said you don't advocate it; you are indirectly by your saying that Dr. White and I are inconsistent, when we put the gospel and NT first.>>

Me: Ken, I know too much about history to take cheap shots at Theonomy; unless you believe that Christians should have NO voice in our government, then it is you who should be a bit more guarded on what you save about Theonomy.

>>How is it "pragmatic" when the whole NT is about preaching the gospel, teaching, suffering, willing to be persecuted, perseverance under persecution, endurance in trials, love, service, etc.>>

Me: The verses you cited pertain to Christ's Church, and though it is a visible body of believers, it is spiritual in nature. But, the NT is not silent on civil government:

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. (1 Tim. 1:8-11)

Now, when we pray for our "higher powers" (i.e. government officials; as per Romans 13), should not our prayers include the desire for them to enact legislation that conforms to the Bible? My goodness Ken, are you a libertarian?

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>> If you think Bahaism is true, it automatically means that Islam was true for a season, several centuries, and that automatically retroactively means Christianity was not true at all, according to any kind of historic Christianity - NT, pre-Nicean, Nicean, Chalcedonian, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

Your argumentation is truly contradictory.>>

Me: When have I said that " Bahaism is true"? Further, it seems a bit odd for one who maintains that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are not true Christian churches to evoke them as examples of "historic Christianity".

Anyway, I think we are getting off topic, as I said a bit earlier in my reply to GV19:

== As for my post, the intent behind it has two primary motives: first, to demonstrate certain inconsistencies from two controversialists who begin with the same presuppositions (concerning the nature of the Qur'an and Islam); and second, to open the door (i.e encourage people to deeper thought), to the possibility that their (White and Jones) presuppositions are wrong.==

Could you answer one simple question for me: do you think it is Biblical to encourage the followers of Christ to buy books that are "filled with deceiving spirits"?


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

First David and Ken my apologies if you felt I was really being side tracked by my comments.

However, I feel that when we discuss these issues it does help to give some background or context.

First Ken

"White, for APOSTASY TODAY, would say that the local church should bring church discipline on such a person and kick them out of the church if they don’t repent and come back to Christ."

It does not take a genius to understand that James White did endorse Calvin's actions. It was appropraite for the TIMES.

"You misrepresent the Calvin / Servetus issues by ignoring the historical CONTEXT OF THE TIMES, etc."

Ken the simple point being is that if you can find hermenutic that allows for Calvin to do what he did in the 'context of those times' that is sufficient evidence enough to show that White supports death for apostacy provided the "time and context" support it.

I understand you and White capitulating to post modern understanding of Christianities place in the world. A place where God is just a hobby; where you are allowed to tinker with God in your garage.

In this respects Gary Demar is the more consistent conservative and consistent Christian.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued above,

also your attacks on Calvin are unwarranted and shameful for a person who claims to have been regenerated from the Holy Spirit. It is unthinkable to think that Calvin embraced Total Depravity (Original Sin) and you and James White would take a psuedo-campbellite position on baptism.

This is why out of your entire crew the man I have utmost respect for is Turetinfan his position is the most theologically consistent when it comes to the issue of baby baptism.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:3)

It is beyond weird and insulting to think that one would be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and not guided into all truth concerning doctrine.

To baptize babies or not, Ken either you and White are in not spiritually guided on the matter of Turetinfan and John Calvin are in error.

This is why from this point forward I have decided Ken that you and White are psuedo-calvinist.

That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24) < White and yourself struggle with this, but not the consistent Calvinist. Their hermenutic is more consistent with this passage.

Hince Ken you and White's complete abandoment of sola scriptura on the issue of baptism. Baptising people at a 'coming of age' ceremony.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken,
"The separation of church and state (USA, and western Europe) is a modern movement based on Jesus’ statement, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar and render to God the things that are God’s”;.......

Exactly Ken! And what does belong to God? Everything! Do not use this statement as a justificaion for Nazism, Communism and Liberalism! Ceasar does not have anything rendered unto him if you correctly understood this.

"and it is also based on the over-reactions and problems of the European history of the Crusades, anti-Semitism, the Spanish Inquisition, harsh punishments and torture, and the religious wars that broke out in Europe since the Reformation."

Wow! There's a thought for today. A religion that has a text filled with all those beautiful statements you gave in subsequent post was able to find a hermeneutic, a discourse and a rubber stamp of approval for all that violence!

Where as the Qur'an and Islam "The great demonic boogeyman of the world" with all it's violent text and jihads, was able to have one of the most advanced cultures on earth, complete with Jewish and Christian participation in soceity. Wow! indeed!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Also Ken I would appreciate if you would pay heed to the scriptures you claim to believe in a little more.

Christians should submit themselves to Islamic Shari'ah Law! Who says so? The hermenutic that I have shows me the Bible tells me so! Check it out!

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, (1 Peter 2:13)


"subject to to the governing authorities" and that there is "no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." (Romans 13:1-2, NKJV).

These two passages are sufficient to silence the Christian opposition to Islamic governance.

I find it odd the kind of Christian who advocates a society of liberalism, where religion and belief in God are constantly under threat of attack.

I find it odd that women in Iraq and Saudi Arabia who cover themselves, and who's bodies are not used as marketing tools need liberated, but we do not have massive naval ships parked outside of Thailand ready to liberate the people of that nation a place where missionaries go and have sex with children in brothels on the side.

I find it odd indeed.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Also Ken If I was of the Christian faith I would find it shameful your lack of trust and faith in the Almighty.

Christian governanance is a stumbling block to the gospel?

"Theonomy and the marriage of church and state has created too many stumbling blocks for the gospel. Don't you see that?"

Subhan'Allah! A stumbling block for God? Can can smash through any stumbling block!

If a person who believes in Jesus can believe that God almighty ordered babies to be sewn into pieces in 1 Samuel 15:3 the rest is gravy Ken!

Every time you Christians attack Muhammed (saw) and attack the laws of Islam you indirectly find fault with the God of the Old Testament and your Marcionism shines through. As you attack the Tanach you destroy the foundation upon which your faith is built!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Can can smash through any stumbling block! < This should be God can smash through any stumbling block!

Lastly I believe that Ken Temple is a Muslim. Ken has converted to Islam a long time ago.His mission is to bring down the Catholic Church.

Ken converted to Shi'a Islam while in Tehran some years ago.

He is practicing Taqiyyah a form of concealment of his faith(he openly advocates Jesus and reformed theology even confessing the five solas) while in the comment sections and on forums.

Whilst secretly his major goal is to cause dissension in the ranks of Christians and bring down the Catholic Church.

He operates under the guise of a reformed Christian whilst his major target is the Catholic Church which represents the bulk of Christianity some 800 million-1.1 billion Christians.

Ken are you really a secret Muslim practicing taqiyyah? Did you convert to Shi'a Islam in Tehran?

I think it's time the truth comes out Ken.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

btw the last comment was just food for thought ;)

Chris said...

>>I find it interesting that all the Christians today who talk about how good and pious western 'civilization' is what ever that means, is that in reality all these so called human rights come about AFTER Church and State are seperated.

You might be interested to learn that in terms of sheer numbers, the United States became far more "good and pious" after church and state were separated. Roger Finke and Rodney Stark have documented that religious participation among the Puritans was very low-- in the 30% range-- and people were as likely to be in a bar or to have a sexual liaison on Sunday as to go to church. Ever since the separation of church and state, total religious participation and adherence have steadily increased. Today, something like 80% of Americans participate in some form of organized Christianity, and that doesn't count adherents of other religions such as Islam. If you're interested in more details, the book The Churching of America explains sociologically why religion is more successful in an "unregulated" religious economy than in one that is regulated by the state.

Ken said...

The Grandverbalizer19 obviously does not understand the difference between baptismal regeneration in infants (Roman Catholic doctrine and practice) and the covenant infant baptism of Calvin and Presbyterians. Total Depravity and original inherited sin is not "washed away" in covenant infant baptism. But the doctrine of original sin does seem to be why infant baptism arose as a practice in the early church, but it was later - it was not the practice in the NT, nor in the early centuries.

Turretfan and Dr. White and I are united on the gospel and justification by faith alone and salvation by grace alone. While the Baptists who are Calvinistic disagree with infant baptism, we are brothers and sisters with the Presbyterians and other Christians who practice infant baptism, but not the RC initial justification of infant baptism. An infant cannot understand, cannot hear the gospel, cannot repent, cannot believe, so it is not in the new Testament at all. The NT is "repent and believe" - Mark 1:15

"after they confessed their sins, they were baptized" matthew 3:1-8

Bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance.

Acts 26:20
Luke 3:8

Colossians 2:11-12

". . . having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Ken said...

Christian governanance is a stumbling block to the gospel?

Yes, most Muslims reject Christianity as a whole because of the Crusades and colonialism and the war in Iraq; and other problems that even you mention in your own blog. You criticize conservative Christians like Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin, and Gary DeMar and lump all the others like Falwell and Robertson together and you see George Bush and Dick Cheney and all western conservatives as "Christian", which is what most average Muslims do.

Yes, the mistakes and wrong applications of I Peter 2 and Romans 13 are used and abused as stumbling blocks to the gospel and they are barriers to good communication and understanding.


"Theonomy and the marriage of church and state has created too many stumbling blocks for the gospel. Don't you see that?"

Subhan'Allah! A stumbling block for God? Can can smash through any stumbling block!

Of course, God can by His Spirit overcome someone in his/her heart and convince people of the truth of the gospel if they hear it. they must hear it audibly first and then spiritually - "he who has ears to hear, let him understand", Jesus said several times.

But God also uses normal everday speech and relations and uses the means of patience and suffering and love and service and humility and He is sovereignly allowing all the atheism and un-godliness and Islamic terror to humble us all and cause more people from all the nations to turn to Christ. Revelation 5:9; 7:9, Luke 24:44-49; Psalm 67; 87; Isaiah 49:6; Genesis 12:3; 22:18.

Ken said...

GV19 -
Wow. Most of your other stuff is just weird and too difficult to figure out where you are coming from - there is too much trickiness (makr - deception ) and lack of clarity and confusion and you are not communicating properly with all your judgments.

You have to realize I put the gospel of the cross and suffering before political agendas. I hope you can see that from the passages I cited.

David,
I agree that the ten commandments should be the basis for all moral law; but they do not have the punishments in them; I am not convinced of Theonomy; and of course the Ten Commandments - all conservative Christians would agree in standing against abortion and homosexual agenda and pornography and we believe in some kind of just war principle and capital punishment for murder and rape. (romans 13; I Peter 2, I Timothy 1:8-11) I love Gary DeMar's defense of American history and stands against Evolution and abortion, etc.; but I confess I am uncomfortable with the punishment parts of Theonomy.

Again, the Qur'an should be read and studied and exposed, so we can talk intelligently to Muslims and respect them as people and interact with them, not burnt. I don't think the paper and ink have demons in them, no. That is a goofy idea.

It itself is not an idol. Again, we are not OT Israel.

Ken said...

David,
Yes, the immorality and sensuality and paganism and homosexual agenda in the west and corporate greed and secularism (all of which GV19 mentions and uses in his attacks) are also stumbling blocks to the gospel to Muslims, also.

The only solution is NT Christianity and changing hearts by the gospel, but never abandoning the public sphere of the cultural mandate to affect and influence culture in peaceful ways and voting, etc.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Chris thank you for the recommendation. The Churching of America < Do you know the author of the book?

I do think you have a point. Take Turkey and Iran as an interesting paradox, in Iran liberalism is increasing every day because people have theocracy forced upon them. Where as in Turkey too much liberalism turns people off and the return to Khilafa movement gains momentum and strength daily mash'Allah.

Every society tries to regulate ethics there is no dispute there, the disputes usually centre around what is acceptable in terms of ethics and morality. The age of consent for example, the age to drink, the age that is mandatory to be called for war in case of draft and so forth.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

As for Ken I want to know something.

Did you convert to Shi'a Islam while in Tehran some years ago? Are you using reformed theology as a pretext to attack the Roman Catholic Church? Are you practicing taqiyyah? Are you lying to us? If not how do we know?

Ken If you give me your address insh'Allah I can send you some really cool prayer caps and some jalabiyyah (long robes). Or I can send you some black cotton cloth so you can go all out Shi'a style! :)

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
"If not, how do we know?"

I cannot tell if you are joking or what. You are a weird person to even think of that possibility.

I think it means you have run out of arguments and you cannot deal with the truth of my apologetic.

It reveals you have no place to go but Alice in wonderland weirdnesss.

It should be obvious -I believe all of Islam is a false religion, and Muhammad and Ali were just people, no inspiration from God at all - whether Sunni, Shiite, 5ers, 7ers, 12ers, Sufis, Zaidis, Wahabis, - and Islamic cults - Yazidis, Druze, Ahmadiye, Bahaism also.

Written revelation from the living and true one God stopped with the last book of the 27 books of the New Testament - whether it was Jude in 80 AD or Revelation in 96 AD or 68 AD.

I have never been to Iran. They don't allow Americans to go and live there and they only recently are allowing USA Tourists (started under Khatami); I was too young to go before 1979.

Ken said...

Even though the Roman Catholic Church officially anathematized the gospel in the Council of Trent; they are still much better than Islam! (Shiite or Sunni) = real consistent Islam of Muhammad and the Khalifs and the Imams leads to aggressive war (the unjust aggressive wars against the Byzantines, Persia, and killing millions of people in the Middle East and North Africa and Spain and Mesopotamia, etc. - from 622-1071 AD - all Islamic evil Jihads and aggressive wars) - persecution, unjust Jaziye, Dhimmi-ism, destruction, war, honor killings, husbands cutting off heads of their wives (the guy in Buffalo, NY – what a sick man!), child brides, male chauvinism, defense of one's external honor in violation of Proverbs 12:16), anger and violence over cartoons, abuse of women, hatred against the Jews (Hamas and Hezbollah and many Islamic governments.)

I agree with Roman Catholics on many social and political issues - I enjoy watching 3 Roman Catholics in USA cable TV and radio and internet shows - Bill O'Reilly skewer liberal ideas; also Sean Hannity (but he sometimes interrupts the other side too much); and Laura Ingraham is good on political and social issues in the USA, usually in their political opposition to abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and their conservative views on self -defense against Islamic terrorism and conservative principles of economics (low taxes, freedom from government intrusion, etc. - but it must be informed by internal Christian principles of self-control and self-discipline against greed and unjustly treating workers. )

Chris said...

GV,

The authors are Roger Finke and Rodney Stark. The issue is not so much regulation of morality as regulation of which religious groups you can join and what religious practices you can engage in.

Peace,

-Chris

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Ken I read what you wrote, the usual. As I said before and said it again you remind me of the kamakaze pilot who flew 57 missions. I know your upset that I have constantly exposed your very shoddy 'apologetic' (actually in all fairness to you, you have nothing original they are borrowed attacks on Islam)on my web site time and again, I make you end up backtracking your statements, and catch you in so many inconsistencies it's amazing.

However, I don't believe you answered my question and I still have my suspicion that you are a Shi'a Muslim with intent on destroying the Roman Catholic church. How do I know your not lying?

You see that's the thing about Taqiyyah Ken, could you give us something more assuring?

Like how would I know your practicing Taqiyyah and when you are not? I'm not sure if I should take you seriously anymore unless you can give us some more assurance.

I love the fact that David titled this post "DR" James.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Before I get to the 'meat' of this post, I wanted to remind you of some of the negative comments you have made in this thread:

>>This post is just not good at all on your part.>>

>>I think it is you who are being inconsistent in the way you wrote this...>>

>>Bad, David, goofy article!>>

>>Seems like a mass of confusion here.>>

The proposed "Burn a Koran Day" has been quite a 'hot' topic of late, and I wanted to address what I thought (and still do) were some interesting inconsistencies. I suggested that Pastor Jones was more consistent than James White when the common presupposition held by both men (that the Qur'an is a false religious text—i.e. anti-Christian, not from God, but rather, from the Devil) was brought into the equation. I also suggested that Jones (a non-Calvinist) was being the more consistent Calvinist (Calvinism being defined as a the whole of Calvin's theology) on this single issue than White (a professed Calvinist) and cited a certain practice/view of Calvin concerning actions to be taken with false religious texts (i.e. he banned them and burned them). Whether one agrees or disagrees with Calvin on this issue, Calvin firmly believed that he actions were Biblically based.

Interestingly enough, it just so turns out that what has been termed "the radical two kingdoms" issue (which is directly related to theonomy) has also been quite a 'hot' topic among contemporary Calvinists; please note the following threads:

Two Radical Kingdoms

Does the Bible Bind the Civil Magistrate?

The American Revisions...

Two Kingdoms Discussion

I also found the following thread a bit interesting:

If I Ran the Blogsphere ...

Anyway, wanted to bring to your attention some fellow "goofy", "bad", "inconsistent" threads (wink).


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Chris,

Thanks much for the heads-up on the Churching of America book; I found the following quite interesting:

>>You might be interested to learn that in terms of sheer numbers, the United States became far more "good and pious" after church and state were separated. Roger Finke and Rodney Stark have documented that religious participation among the Puritans was very low-- in the 30% range-- and people were as likely to be in a bar or to have a sexual liaison on Sunday as to go to church. Ever since the separation of church and state, total religious participation and adherence have steadily increased.>>

I remember reading that for a good number of decades prior to the 'Great Awakening', 50% of America males were alcoholics. America's "Christian" history certainly some major 'burps'...


Grace and peace,


David

P.S. Just for the record, I love our country, and feel blessed that I was born, raised, and live in the United States of America.

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

Don't want you to feel 'picked on' in this thread, but in IMO, some of your comments are suspect. You posted the following:

>> Even though the Roman Catholic Church officially anathematized the gospel in the Council of Trent...>>

Me: You are certainly welcome to such an opinion, however, it has been pointed out by me (and so many others) that the RCC did not, " officially anathematized the gospel in the Council of Trent"; please note the following threads:

LINK 1

LINK 2

LINK 3

LINK 4


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

GV19 -
Since you reject plain statements - nothing I could write can convince you - you would still say "you are practicing Taqiyye". Even then, it is hard to understand your demand for more "assurance", as you put it.


It makes me think that Protestant Reformed Christianity that is not dry and "doctrine only" that actually loves Muslims and has spent time with them and honored them as people and loves some aspects of their culture (hospitality, people orientation rather than time and accomplishment orientation) and my firm belief that burning the Qur'an is putting another stumbling block to the gospel of Christ (see I Corinthians chapters 1-2, 8, Romans 14), the humility and love in the suffering of Christ Himself, and putting that (the gospel of suffering and weakness and love) before political power - all of these truths are having a positive effect on you.

You can't handle the truth of what you have admitted - "that someone who dies for their enemies has greater love" (see and meditate on Romans 5:6-11 and Ephesians 2:1-10 and even Ephesians 2:11-22) - which is what Jesus did by dying on the Roman cross, as a holy and innocent substitute for sin, like the ram (and lambs and sheep in Exodus 12, Leviticus, Isaiah 53; I Peter 2) in Genesis 22 and Qur'an 37:107, that that substitution "ransomed", saved from sin, purchased the guilty human our of his sin, and was a symbol and foreshadowing of the what Isa Al Masih would do on the cross for people from all nations (Revelation 5:5-6; 9) - Christ purchased, redeemed, ransomed some from every people, nation, tribe, and tongue, thus rebuking racism and prejudice. That truth is also attractive to you, who has a lot of pain from the injustices of the past in western history. (American Indians, Andrew Jackson's sin; Racism, KKK evils and Jim Crowe laws; Crusades, corporate power, slavery, etc.)

The love of God in Christ is breaking through in your heart, and you are trying to resist, and your mind and heart says "this can't be!"; "this is the truth!", "but I am afraid of this truth" (Al Haqq); "his arguments are too good; therefore he must be doing Taqiyye and is really a secret Shiite!"

That is the only explanation for your continued insistence.

"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Romans 5:10

Ken said...

David,
I enjoyed scanning the articles you linked to, mostly by Turretinfan on the issue of the civil government's role and Christian truth.

I have not had time to read them all - and they are certainly intellectual and detailed. I enjoy that debate between Reformed Christians and as I wrote before, Gary DeMar is another Theonomist who has caused me to think a lot about these issues, and he and Kenneth Gentry convinced me of the truth, pretty much of partial preterism, that much of Revelation 6-18 is about 70 AD and Matthew 24:1-35 is about 70 AD, etc.

However, I hope you can see that is not inconsistent to put the NT theology of the cross and suffering and evangelism to those who have yet to repent and trust in Christ, as more important than political power of Chrisitans in this world - that has yet to work well in history - secularists and skeptic intellectuals and liberal universalists like Chris are well know in their documentation of the evils of the Crusades, the Puritan witch trials, the Spanish Inquisiton, corporate greed, and the religious right (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Franklin Graham, etc.)

GV19, a Muslim, also uses the aspects of our conservative western culture (self-defense, just war, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality; fiscal responsibility) that combine with Christianity to say, basically, "see, the Christians in the west, are modern day Crusaders again against Islam", etc.

So, I may be wrong and inconsistent, at the end of the day with Turretinfan and Gary DeMar and other Reformers views; but I am willing to be wrong on the political power issue for the sake of sharing the gospel of weakness, which is the power of God, with those who have not yet repented and trusted Christ.

2 Corinthians 13:4
"For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, yet we shall live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you."

2 Cor. 13:8
"For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth."

Jesus did not try to take down Rome and its political power.

Paul and the apostles did not try to take down Rome and its political power.

It was conquered because of the humility and love and suffering and holiness and good deeds and the gospel of the early Christians, the apostles, and early martyrs like Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, and many others, especially during the worst persecution from around 250-312 AD.

Jesus is our example -
Philippians 2:5-8

Ken said...

David,
You are right that I made some negative statements about your article. I confess I am not a fast thinker (like Dr. White, who is amazing in live debate).

I hope that my last 2 posts will rectify those negative comments and show you that it is consistent with NT theology of the weakness and power of the cross, that our opposition to the Qur'an burning makes consistent and reasonable sense.

As for Trent, we will just have to disagree on that; and the RCC went even more downhill after that, especially in its "Sola Ecclesia" actions in 1854; 1870, and 1950; and then contradicted itself in Vatican 2 - contradicting its whole history since the middle ages.

To be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic, with its anachronistic way of dogmatically claiming it is infallible, which even you have recently recognized some cogent aspects of that.

Ken said...

and the religious right (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Franklin Graham, etc.)

should have been:

and in their (the liberal skeptic, atheist, humanist, universalist) opinion the religious right (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Franklin Graham, etc.)

I don't necessarily agree with all these folks say or write or stand for; but they are basically right against abortion and homosexuality and for self-defense and also for financial and economic wisdom. (at least in theory; GWB did not do well in the spending/economic area.)

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Sincerely appreciate your response/s; you posted:

>>David,
I enjoyed scanning the articles you linked to, mostly by Turretinfan on the issue of the civil government's role and Christian truth.

I have not had time to read them all - and they are certainly intellectual and detailed. I enjoy that debate between Reformed Christians and as I wrote before, Gary DeMar is another Theonomist who has caused me to think a lot about these issues, and he and Kenneth Gentry convinced me of the truth, pretty much of partial preterism, that much of Revelation 6-18 is about 70 AD and Matthew 24:1-35 is about 70 AD, etc.

However, I hope you can see that is not inconsistent to put the NT theology of the cross and suffering and evangelism to those who have yet to repent and trust in Christ, as more important than political power of Chrisitans in this world - that has yet to work well in history...>>

Me: As you well know, the divinely appointed theocracy of Israel did not "work well in history"—evil kings and priests outnumbered the faithful ones—but apostasy and failure are not reasons to abandon what God has commanded. That so-called "Christian" nations have not be great examples to date should not be a reason for adopting a "radical two kingdom" approach. Personally, I find it more than interesting the differences (concerning the civil magistrate) that exist between the original Westminster Confession of Faith, the American revision of the WCF, and the Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith; I cannot help but think that the changes from the original WCF as found in the latter two are more culturally and pragmatically based, rather than Biblically based (and it seems that a number of Reformed folk are in agreement with me on this).

Anyway, I merely make these points to demonstrate that my observations in the opening post of this thread have merit, and should not be so quickly brushed aside.


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,

Ken you said,

" nothing I could write can convince you - you would still say "you are practicing Taqiyye". Even then, it is hard to understand your demand for more "assurance", as you put it."

Me: Very good Ken I hope you realize what a slippery slope this approach can be.

Because it is reformed Christians who pulled these stunts in PalTalk a few years back. Why?

Your first approach was to ignore us and call us Mohammedans (some still do) and than it was to engage in dishonest apologetic (some still do) and finally when you had no other choice but to engage us you started to scream makr (deception) taqiyyah (concealment) anything to muddy the water and to keep your side from engaging in real theological discussion.

But now the world is interested in Islam and you have no choice but to meet us head on. Even now on White's list I have yet to see anyone on the list of people he debated who represent traditional Sunni Islam (the bulk of the Muslim world).

When he decides to do that (and do let me know) things will get interesting. For now let him rest confident in his ability to debate 21 year old grad students in literature.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued ...

Ken you state,

"The love of God in Christ is breaking through in your heart, and you are trying to resist, and your mind and heart says "this can't be!"; "this is the truth!", "but I am afraid of this truth" (Al Haqq); "his arguments are too good; therefore he must be doing Taqiyye and is really a secret Shiite!"

Me: Ken you are most welcome to believe that there is a pink unicorn that lives under your bed that transports you through the sky at night giving presents to all the boys and girls. You are most welcome!

Ken you state,

"GV19, a Muslim, also uses the aspects of our conservative western culture (self-defense, just war, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality; fiscal responsibility) that combine with Christianity to say, basically, "see, the Christians in the west, are modern day Crusaders again against Islam", etc."

Me: Ken this is you embracing the doctrine of Phillippians 1:18 again! Deception and dishonesty from you nothing more. Show me one place on my blog ever where I critique Christiainity for being anti-abortion, anti homosexual or fiscal responsible? Just one!

Infact I critique so called conservatives for their inconsistencies on these issues like Ken Mehlman asking homosexuals to become Republicans as they have 'bigger fish to fry' namely Islam.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken you mentioned,

"GV19, a Muslim, also uses the aspects of our conservative western culture (self-defense, just war,..."

So self-defense and just war are two differnt things in your view? Here is a quick challenge if you wish to answer it.

What is a just war? As a self proclaimed consistent Christian you show me where in your scriptures there is a command given to fight? Where is the 'just war' principle at in the New Testament? The new convenant?

Does this 'Just-War' principle allow for pre-emptive strikes against Iran and Iraq? If not why not?

Would you go to war for your country Ken? Would you operate a stealh bomber and drop fat man and little boy on an unsuspecting populace?

Do you believe that Jesus is very pleased with your arsenal of trident class submarines?


Why are all your 'just-wars' for corporate gain and profiteering? You lament that Muslims see Christians at war with Islam but what the hell would you think Ken if American gun ships came over the mountains of kabul and started spitting fire over your village and a few weeks latter missonaries showed up..... "to milk sheep and build water wells of course"

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

The reason I ask the questions above and I do see it as very relevant to David's post because it relates to consistency.

Who has consistent hermenutic, exegesis, both historically and for today. Who believes in the God of the Bible, and who adopts the God of the Bible to be politically expedient.

Why is it that the Quakers and the Amish would also anxiously await for you to quote scripture about your 'just war' Ken?

It case your interested Ken I'll be sitting over here on the coach next to my amish and quaker brethern waiting for you to find those 'just war' passages that command Christians to go out and fight.

Ken said...

GV19 -
Because it is reformed Christians who pulled these stunts in PalTalk a few years back. Why?

I don't know what you are talking about, since I was not there.

Your (? - not me, no - I've been engaging with Muslims since 1983 - playing soccer, talking, drinking coffee, hot tea, eating shish kebab, Ghormeh Sabzi; Dolmeh, Felafel, Cous-Cous, listening, learning and sharing the gospel and giving NTs, Bibles, good books, etc.)

first approach was to ignore us

I didn't!
But others, and in early history -True, Europe did ignore the Arabs and other Muslims until the oil crisis in the 70s, except for the Crusades, which was not a good idea; and the early church did neglect the Arabs and Middle East and did not reach out nor translate the Bible into Arabic and that is the main reason that Muhammad misunderstood the Trinity and the gospel and the Son of God, etc. Plus the heretics and Gnostics were out there on the fringes of the desert)


and call us Mohammedans (some still do)

the Europeans called the Muslims in Spain "Moors" from Mauritania and Morocco; and the Crusaders called Muslims, "Saracens and Turks" and then the British in India called them Mohammadans

and than it was to engage in dishonest apologetic (some still do)

Don't know what you mean there.

and finally when you had no other choice but to engage us you started to scream makr (deception) taqiyyah (concealment) anything to muddy the water and to keep your side from engaging in real theological discussion.

Remember I asked you if you thought the guy in Saudi Arabia - is he pulling Taqiyyah on Rupert Murdock? You never really answered me and then banned me from your blog. Because Taqiyyeh and Makr are real things in Islam - Muhammad said, "War is deceit" (khod'a خدع(Haddith - I can get specific reference later)

And because Islam has no separation of Masjid and state; it is all one unity, one Ummah and Sharia (ideally; doctrinally; though the unity broke down with the Kharajites and Shiites and splintered into 5ers, 7ers, 12ers and Sufis and Druze and Wahabis and Ahmadiyeh and Bahai, etc.


But now the world is interested

(only because of 9-11-01 and Islamic terrorism and Jihadism - people are trying to understand it;

Christians finally started getting interested in Islam to preach the gospel in the late 70s and early 80s - they want to reach out in sincerely and love and preach the gospel to Muslims; the problem is Muslims are the ones who don't allow it - LA! NO! the anger and violence is too scary for most people.


in Islam and you have no choice but to meet us head on.

You don't allow discussion in most Muslim countries - evangelism, apologetics, questioning Muhammad -it is illegal. You can only have good debate in the west.

But in Islam, "if anyone turns from Islam, kill him" - Haddith Al Bukhari; People are not allowed to preach in Muslim countries and Muslims are not allowed to think and convert. Fear and ignorance keeps the masses in Islam.


Even now on White's list I have yet to see anyone on the list of people he debated who represent traditional Sunni Islam (the bulk of the Muslim world).

Shabir Ally is not a Sunni ?
Abdullah Kunde is not a Sunni?
Abdullah Al Andalousi is not a Sunni?
Abu Al Rub is not a Sunni?
Sheik Awal is not a Sunni?
??

Nadir Ahmad?
Adnan Rashid?
the Imam in NY - I forgot his name - looked like he was from Indonesia or Malaysia; had a strong accent.

I'll have to go to the list to find the others.


Zakir Naik won't debate him.

Ken said...

Deception and dishonesty from you nothing more. Show me one place on my blog ever where I critique Christiainity for being anti-abortion, anti homosexual or fiscal responsible? Just one!

Your anger and articles against Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin, Jerry Falwell, etc. showed that. Christians like them because of conservative values, against abortion, against homosexuality, and self-defense against Al Qaedah and Islamic Terrorism. Duh.

I didn't read your article on the guy who invited homos to be republicans - the picture was too disgusting. Those kind of Republicans are the reason why the guy in Delaware lost, and Christine O'Donnell won. (Roman Catholic, conservative moral values)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Ken you do a good job at sheep calls but proof reading is not one of them my friend.

Again I said, "
Show me one place on my blog ever where I CRITIQUE Christiainity FOR being anti-abortion, anti homosexual or fiscal responsible? Just one!

Your response,
"Your anger and articles against Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin, Jerry Falwell, etc. showed that. Christians like them because of conservative values, against abortion, against homosexuality, and self-defense against Al Qaedah and Islamic Terrorism. Duh."

Why would a Muslim criqitue Christianity for being anti abortion, homoseuxal? Duh indeed Ken! My goodness the Japanese military is running out of planes because of you!

Ken said...

The first 3 Centuries, Christians were persecuted.

At that time the state was the Roman Empire.

After majority became Christian, the just war principles based on Romans 13:1-8 and I Peter 2:12-16 came into being.

Islam attacked first - 632-732 Ad - aggressive wars against the Persians and Byzantines and Egyptians and N. Africans and Spain. And Islam does not allow debate, evangelism, freedom for Muslims to leave Islam; conversions. They did not allow Christians in Arabia, killed them all and drove them out. After that - Dhimmi and Jaziye and year after year, decade after decade, century after century the "Christians" gave into economic pressure or immigrated to Europe or USA.

Since Islam attacked first, relations have gone downhill since. Crusades, colonialism, etc.

I don't have the answers beyond that.

I know that USA/Britian's fight against Hitler and Nazi Germnay was just; and in Afghanistan against Al Qaedah is just; but not sure about the reasons and wisdom for Iraq; but the dictator Saddam Hussein was judged and executed by his own people.

Saddam Hussein's Makr and Taqiyye was so good that even the CIA couldn't figure him out and he had the whole world really thinking he had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell too.

God is allowing all this, even 9-11-01 and Islamic terrorism, in His sovereignty so that Muslims themselves will see the falsehood of Islam and quit blaming others ("it is Israel and USA and British fault" - Grow up and start taking responsibility for your own problems! and start taking responsibility for their own sins and their own evils in their own cultures.

Another reason is that God is ordaining it all so that Christians will learn to talk to Muslims also.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Nadir Ahmad, Adnan Rashid and Sheikh Abu Al Rub for sure are not traditional Sunni Muslims, they represent the neo-salafi doctrine. Not traditional Ashari and Maturdi aqidah, same with sheikh Awal or the man from Indonesia.

Shabir Ally has never made his creedal stance known (however he and James have not debated on any of Islam's creedal statements). They have only debated the issue of Jesus or Muhammed in the Tanach, inspiration of the NT and Did Jesus die as a willing sacrifice.

I withdraw my statement based upon the fact that Kunde and Al Andalusi are traditional Sunni Muslims thank Allah for it!

However, again he has not debated either man on Islamic creed.

For example Muslims do not believe that Allah can be contained in or by his creation. It is the same thing as asking a person to draw a four sided circle.

Traditional Sunni Islam states that Allah does not exist in place (one place) or every place. Allah exist in his essence outside of space/time.

That is why no Muslim who has firm understanding of his/her creed would capitulate to your understanding of John 1:14

Ken said...

I think this sentence of mine was unclear, now that I think about it and look at it again:

"GV19, a Muslim, also uses the aspects of our conservative western culture (self-defense, just war, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality; fiscal responsibility) that combine with Christianity to say, basically, "see, the Christians in the west, are modern day Crusaders again against Islam", etc."

In your articles, You mixed the war issues in with being Christian, and attacked conservatives for just wanting to stand up to Islamic terrorism. (Is Al Qaedah Salafi ?) I didn't mean you critiqued the specific issues of being anti-abortion, etc.

But perhaps my sentence was the unclear one - the key phrase was "aspects of conservative culture" and then you make a big point of pointing out that they are Christians.

Ken said...

thanks for realizing James White has debated Sunni Muslims.

They all seemed basically the same to all of us - except for Nadir Ahmad was totally obnoxious.

Salafi seems to want to get back to original Islam - getting back to the "Salaf" - the pioneers - Muhammad and his companions and rightly guided Khalifs - follow the Sunnah of what Muhammad did to the Persians and Byzantines - attack them in aggressive war until they convert to Islam, or pay the Jaziye, being brought low.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken I pray for the day when the United States (a nation whom I love than you could ever)will get it's independence.

Currently the United States is a vassal of the nation of Israel.

I saw that Israel gave the vassal state of America PERMISSION to give 60 billion in weapons sales to Saudia Arabia recently. How very Christian indeed!

How do you show the world your greatness as a Christian nation? By giving a Muslim nation the largest sale of weapons in recorded history!

So is this all you have to offer the world? Guns and Bibles?

You asked about Prince Talal and I asked you what you thought about Rupert Murdock (a non U.S citizen) having so much way over U.S public opinion. You ran from that question. Personally it worries me deeply as U.S citizen that ANYONE that is not a U.S citizen would have so much sway over the course of our nation's direction.

I want us to stop being a vassal state of Israel and gain our indepence once more! I want Israel to make a public apology for the sinking of the U.S.S Liberty and to make appropriate reperations to the familes who lost loved ones.

I want to fortify our borders against illegal immigration, I have lived in south east and far east asia for some time now. Hardly any American products in sight! Why?

Because all those proud companies will the nod of the GOP in a heartbeat will take that flag flying in the wind off the pole roll it up and ship operations to Vietnam that's why!

I want our country to be off fosil fuels completely and lead the world in a revolutionary technology that we can than sell to the world and jump start our economy, I want to build a new multi billion dollar infastucture in the U.S economy that will jump start the steel industry and get Americans back to work.

What about you Ken? waiting around to take orders from Benjamin Netanyahu? Or waiting around for a Rupert Murdock ( a man who does not live in America or is not a U.S citizen) to tell you how the "war on terror" is going?

Get a backbone for Pete's sake.

Ken said...

Traditional Sunni Islam states that Allah does not exist in place (one place) or every place. Allah exist in his essence outside of space/time.

Christianity agrees with that.

That is why no Muslim who has firm understanding of his/her creed would capitulate to your understanding of John 1:14

But the second person of the Trinity, the logos, the eternal Son, entered into time and space and became flesh. The Father did not, the Spirit did not; but the logos/Son did.

Ken said...

You asked about Prince Talal

see you didn't answer and shifted the question to Rupert Murdock and a different issue. I honestly did not know he is not a US citizen. What country is he from?

and I asked you what you thought about Rupert Murdock (a non U.S citizen) having so much way over U.S public opinion. You ran from that question.

No, I just don't have time to work patiently through every single detail. When you don't answer the question first, then ask another question, it is you who breaks down the communication.

Personally it worries me deeply as U.S citizen that ANYONE that is not a U.S citizen would have so much sway over the course of our nation's direction.

Maybe it is payback for all the years of the liberals and evolutionists and atheists and pro-homosexuals and pro-abortionists controlling the media.

Ken said...

You and David and Turretinfan may force me into some form of Theonomy with Gary DeMar!

I am not a pacifist like Amish and Quakers.

The best article on that is C. S. Lewis, "why I am not a pacifist" in The Weight of Glory and other Essays. Google it, and get it; you will learn how Christians deal with war with that little article.

Got to go to sleep. It is late here, after midnight, where I live and I am getting sleepy.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Traditional Sunni Islam states that Allah does not exist in place (one place) or every place. Allah exist in his essence outside of space/time.

Ken you said,
"Christianity agrees with that."
Where? From what creedal confession? What sola scriptura is used to make this statement?

All I have seen is that In the beginning was, I have not seen that God was before the beginning. Only gives the impression God was concurrent.

As far as the idea of God entering into space time and being contained by the six directions. Contained by six directions is in need of area, and the one who is in need is not God. God NEEDED a Human vessel to accomplish his goal. Al hamdulillah that Allah has guided me to Al Islam! Allah is free from what you associate with him!

I'll leave that to your theologians to kick around.

For us Muslims we do not say that Allah is all knowing and Allah does not know. We do not say that Allah is all powerful and Allah is not all powerful. We do not say of Allah that Allah is all good and all evil.

We do not say that a person can draw a four sided circle, we do not sit around and drink coffee and make questions such as can God create a God more powerful than himself.

Ken the truth is made clear to you. I call you to Tahweed and to stop assocating partners with Allah, and making Allah dependent upon his creation. Allah is all sufficient and is not in need of his creation, but his creation are in need of him! Subhanu wa tala!

Chris said...

GV,

>>I saw that Israel gave the vassal state of America PERMISSION to give 60 billion in weapons sales to Saudia Arabia recently.

Don't be silly. Getting permission from an ally before making a massive arms sale to a potential enemy in the region is simple courtesy. The notion that this makes us a "vassal" of Israel is patently absurd.

I do not support everything the nation of Israel does, and the US does at times need to take a firmer stance with them. But at the same time, Hamas is training kindergartners to believe that Jews are dogs and pigs and that the highest calling is the calling of martyrdom (suicide bombing). A majority of Palestinians believe suicide bombing against civilian targets is often or sometimes justified, and many of them say they feel "joy" when a martyrdom is reported in the news. Israel is faced with an intractable enemy and the threat of many other potential enemies in the region, such as Iran, which is developing nuclear weapons. Without US support, the nation of Israel would be utterly unable to stand against its enemies, and the result could be a bloodbath and possibly the extermination of the Jewish people. No US president with integrity could allow that.

Do I believe the US should be abetting Jewish grievances against Palestinians? No. We should take a firm stance against that and make our continued support conditional on it. But the horrifically racist and militaristic attitudes of so many of the region's Muslims really makes it impossible for the US to withdraw support altogether.

Peace,

-Chris

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord

Chris you said,

"Without US support, the nation of Israel would be utterly unable to stand against its enemies, and the result could be a bloodbath and possibly the extermination of the Jewish people."

With due respect you need to put down the comic books. Someone has been listening to a little bit too much Pat Robertson and reading a little bit too much Hal Lindsey.

Extermination of the Jewish people! That's a bit rich!

In case you didn't know some of the most vocal opponents of Israel are Jews themselves, and the Zionist are on the run because they are being exposed, and they are the one's who brutally oppress the palestinian people, routinely kill their civilians, do not answer to the United Nations. By Allah there is no nation on this earth I pray day and night for justice to be done to it as I do that rogue state!

How about Israel is a threat to the security of that region.

Btw I am sure that Israel or any Nuclear armed state (wonder how many they actually have) does not need the U.S military support.

Frankly speaking if our guys in Iraq or Afghanistan (special ops, seals, you name it) Israel would wipe the floor with those boys.

And yes the United States is currently a vassal of Israel we under their administration ....for the time being.

Hince that is why the growth of Islam in the United States is a life and death matter for the Zionist.

Muslims have no problem with the tribe of Judah or any of the other 11 tribes.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

The fact is 90% of the people who live in Israel are not even from the line of Shem. They are Ukrainians, Russians, French, Germans, Hungarians and so forth. They are Caucasian peoples.

Japan can't just come and stake a claim on Rhode Island it has no historical pretext. A bunch of Europeans who's ancestors converted to Judaism in Khazaria have absolutely no right to maintain a European colonial outpost that demonizes Islam and butchers children.

Allah sees and hears everything

Ken said...

This makes it very clear that the Sunna (Qur'an and Hadith and Sunna and example of the prophet in Sirat, Tarikh, etc.) has inspired the hatred of the ethnic Jews from the beginning of Islam.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jews.htm

Thanks Chris for adding to that part of the discussion.


GV19 wrote:
"The fact is 90% of the people who live in Israel are not even from the line of Shem. They are Ukrainians, Russians, French, Germans, Hungarians and so forth. They are Caucasian peoples."

Maybe that just proves that they are not racists.

The Hamas charter clearly quotes from the Qur'an and the Hadith of the hatred for the Jews and they will not even allow for the original 1948 borders with 2 states.

The Ottoman Turks were the political rulers of Palestine, the Palestinians did not have a sovereign political country. The Ottomans sided with German in World War I, so they deserved to be punished. And the Hosseini family sided with Hitler and his evil - so the true Allah (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) has allowed them to suffer because of their sins. As Chris said, Israel has done evil things too; and they are not the kingdom of God on earth anymore. (Jesus clearly took that away from them - Matthew 21:43-45; Acts 1:6-8)

The modern Palestinian/Arab conflict is complicated for sure - but the Muslims bear most of the guilt because

1. of their history of unjustly attacking the Byzantine Empire and conquering it by force and slaughter

2. Their "all or nothing" response to the 2 state solution in 1948; and their aggression and then they kept loosing. When one side wins, from the aggressor, they can't complain - yet all it is complaining and whining and baby attitudes instead of confessing their own sins of hatred in their heart.

The only solution for both Jews and Muslims is the gospel of Christ - Mark 7:14-23 - John 3:1-21

Christ breaks down the hatred and enmity and can created a "new man" of love and unity - Ephesians 2:1-22, especially verses 11-22.

You must born again - your heart must be changed - repent and believe - Mark 1:15

Ken said...

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

( I will have to find the exact reference later; but it is there, I have read it many times, both in Al Buhkari and Al Muslim)

You just cannot get away from the fact that real consistent Islam from the original sources is force and violence and agressive war and political state conquering of all the Dar Al Harb or Dar Al Fitneh. (areas that have not been conquered by Islam)

That seems to the real underlying psychological reasons for the defensiveness, anger, madness, violence, terrorism, etc. - deep down they are doubting that Islam is true, because for centuries one of the proofs for Islam was they conquered everything they put their Jihad/Qatal/Harb to do.

When they lost Spain, that was one thing, but when Israel was established in 1948, it seems to cause doubt in Muslims in Allah and Islam as truth, because if it is truth, Allah would not allow so many defeats in the "Dar Al Islam" vs. "Dar Al Harb" struggle.

Ken said...

As for Scriptural evidence that the God of the Bible is above and outside of time; and created time, matter, space, energy:

Genesis 1:1
Psalm 139
Rev. 1:8; 4:8
Isaiah 46:9-10
Isaiah chapter 40
Psalm 90:4
2 Peter 3:8
Isaiah 45:21
I Cor. 8:6
Colossians 1:16
Hebrews 1:2

"I am that I am" - Exodus 3:14
John 8:24, 8:58, and all the other "I am" statements in John.

John 1:1-5; 17:5

Read a good Systematic Theology such as Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, pages 156-261, including the Trinity; or Louis Berkhof or Robert Reymond.

see
www.monergism.com

specifically -
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Gods-Attributes/

The Son of God entered into time and creation and that is what so beautiful about the true God, who is Tri-unity.

Luke 1:34-35

34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
"I want our country to be off fosil fuels completely . . . "

Until the time when a new technology is developed, (the corn / ethanol thing worked really well, right?) the USA should take Sarah Palin and George W. Bush's advice and open up ANWAR in Alaska for drilling, and of course do as much as possible to be good stewards of the environment (Genesis 1:26-28), but the crazy radical environmentalists are truly "mentally ill", like the guy who took hostages at the Discovery Channel and the people who worship trees.

It is disgusting that our government and country is hampered and handcuffed from drilling our own oil (by environmental crazies and earth worshiping pagans; and liars like Al Gore) and telling the Saudis and Kuwaitis, etc. goodbye for good.

BP is not innocent either, so don't go down that road. The key is Christian ethics and honesty and crucifying power and greed in the heart. Unfortunately, Enron Execs, Rupert Murdock, Ted Turner, or other atheist/skeptics/libertarians without Christ, does not have those moral values that hold corporate greed in check, as it did better in the old days, when more industries were self-governed by moral values in the heart and sound laws.

Chris said...

GV,

Sadly, I think you underestimate the hatred of Jews that exists in that region. If the state of Israel were conquered, the result would be a bloodbath. And I say that as a moderate with a deep aversion to doomsday scenarios. Also, do you really believe the USA is a vassal of Israel? No offense, but that is an absurd proposition for which there is no evidence. Christian Zionism is certainly strong in the US, and there's no question that has influenced our foreign policy, but the relationship is clearly one of alliance, not vassalhood. You have simply bought into anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, my friend. I encourage you to consider Israelis with the sensitivity you demand from others when they assess Islam.

I believe that the only true road to Middle East peace is to significantly raise the standard of living for Palestinians, and to eliminate Hamas. Israel has made the mistake of trying to fight Hamas first, and raise the standard of living second. I can't blame them, since anything else will feel like rewarding your enemy and negotiating with evil terrorists who hate you, but it ultimately can never be effective. Israel will have to make significant concessions to raise the standard of living before Hamas can be destroyed, because otherwise it will continue to have the support of a large majority of the people. The US has a role to play in pressuring Israel to make such concessions, and we have been playing that role to the best of our abilities, but ultimately we cannot force a compromise.

Peace,

-Chris

Chris said...

One other thought, GV. You mentioned that as a nuclear-armed state, Israel does not need US support. Actually, as long as Israel has US support its nuclear armaments are unnecessary and no threat to anyone. An Israel without US support however, is less predictable. God only knows what they might do if they were in serious danger of losing a conflict. So A US withdrawal of support could lead to a bloodbath for Muslims, too.

Ken said...

Chris,
Those last 2 are 2 good posts.
Thanks for bringing balance to that discussion.

Ken said...

This is an excellent show of the debate of Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism - Michael Brown, a Jewish Christian, who defends the Trinity, with Dr. James White, against two Unitarians - and they address some of the things that David Waltz says about Subordinationism and the "God appointed representative" stuff - Elohim, etc.

Good for the GV19 to listen to also.

http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/09/16/update-on-tuesday-nights-trinity-debate-and-some-thoughts-on-the-tea-party/

The DVDs of the debate are supposed to be ready in November.

This defeats Jehovah's Witness and Islamic Unitarian theology and their rejection of the Deity of Christ.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
I call you to Tahweed and to stop assocating partners with Allah,

If the Trinity is true, which it is; then from all eternity past the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were God in nature/substance/essence (Spirit, invisible, non-material, above and outside of time and creation; Sovereign, Omniscient, etc.) - then saying that Jesus is God in the flesh or the Holy Spirit is God is NOT Shirk (ascribing partners to God).

and making Allah dependent upon his creation.

The Bible and orthodox Christianity have never done such a thing. You need to study sound theology better. God has no needs. He is eternally blessed and happy within Himself; within the fellowship of the Trinity.

Allah is all sufficient and is not in need of his creation, but his creation are in need of him!

Christians agree with that! Subhanu wa tala!

Chris said...

Uh oh, Ken is agreeing with me about something. The very balance of the universe is threatened! :)

Ken said...

Here is another verse for GV19 on the nature of God, that He is Spirit, above and outside of time, matter, and space:

I Kings 8:27

""But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!" NIV

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" ESV

See Also
John 4:23-24

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and truth"

But, the eternal Son of God, the eternal logos (Kalimeh) became flesh and entered into time and space and matter -became a human being, took on an additional nature, and retained His original nature, God, and so has 2 natures.
John 1:14; 1:18; Philippians 2:5-8

One person, Jesus Christ, who has 2 natures. All out of love for our sake.

That's truly beautiful; the one God who is Almighty, eternal, Soveriegn, humbled Himself for us sinners.

Which is what the heart of GV19 longs for, for even said, "one who dies for his enemies has greater love"

Christ died for helpless, ungodly sinners, enemies - Romans 5:6-11; and transforms us into His friends, if we repent of our sins and turn to Him in faith and trust Him and His work of redemption and atonement for our sins and His resurrection and power.

Ken said...

Yes, Chris,
I agree with balance and care and understanding the very complicated history on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict.

The problem is not only that there is a lot of ethnic hatred against the Jews by the Muslims in the area; but that this is hatred is based on clear texts in the Qur'an and the Sunna, and Hadith, especially the Hadith that I referenced above. (Both in Al Bukhari and Al Muslim)

Israeli really is in a difficult place and they really have no other choice right now, given the stance of Hamas and most of the Arab Muslims in the area.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

GV19 wrote:
"The fact is 90% of the people who live in Israel are not even from the line of Shem. They are Ukrainians, Russians, French, Germans, Hungarians and so forth. They are Caucasian peoples."

Ken "Maybe that just proves that they are not racists."

Ken we both know what it proves. It has huge implications for the state of Israel you know it and I know it. Ashkenazi are not Semetic peoples.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

I can confirm this narration. If you like I can tell you what is the Sunni Muslim view on this, but your most welcome to use this text as your continued proganda and bias towards Islam.

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews,who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and who have persecuted us severely. They are displeasing to God. They are enemies of the whole human race (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16) As I mentioned to you before Ken we all know how much fun Martin Luther had with those verses in his tirade against Jews don't we?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

"Not all of them are alike: of the People of the book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long and then prostrate themselves in adoration.They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and they (hasten in emulation) in (all) good works; they are in the ranks of the righteous.Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.Those who reject faith neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah; they will be companions of the fire dwelling therein (for ever).What they spend in the life of this (material) world may be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: it strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls; it is not Allah that hath wronged them but they wrong themselves. (Holy Qur'an chapter 3 verses 113-117)

‘Among the People of the Book there are some who, if you entrust them with a pile of gold, will return it to you. But there are others among them who, if you entrust them with just a single dinar, will not return it to you, unless you stay standing over them.’(Holy Qur'an chapter 3:74)

Those verses really tell me as Muslim that all the Jews are evil don't they Ken? You see this is why a Muslim takes the entire council of revelation into consideration and not isolated passages.

This inspite of the fact that the Qur'an commands Muslims to believe in a myriad of prophets who came from the line of Judah makes it a very anti-Jewish book indeed.

Interesting how all the anti-Arab comments do not get the label of anti-semetic in the west. After all the Arabs are Semites too.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

As for Chris my apologies for seeming a bit heavy in my response. I just think we have to becareful when we say that such and such a nation wants to 'annihilate' the Jews.

It is this rhetoric that has caused more hawkish elements in the U.S to propose 'annihiliate' the persians with pre-emptive war.

Chris you and Ken are preaching to the converted.

I was in Bahrain last year and I went to many Mosque that were very beautiful and tranquil. There was this one mosque close to my hotel where I went to pray and they had a plaque about Palestine and it had a picture of the cross and the six point star covered in blood. I was a pit peturbed by it.

However, that's politics and it can get ugly. Most of the time race, ethnicity, and religion is thrown in the mix to make emotions really simmer.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken thank you for the link to the Tri-theist vs di-theist debate.

The parts that were availble (always the Christian side of course) all I could hear was White going over the time limit. Can't the guy say what he needs to say within the alloted time?

As far as your diatrabe about Israel causing a loss of faith among the Muslims. Think again. Your people controlled every square inch of Muslim lands (it was called colonialism) remember that?

Christian flags, schools and missionaries had their way with Muslim lands, education and Muslim women.

It wasn't until that great product of Lutheranism Adolf Hitler that came about by God's providence that caused the great powers of Europe to fight among themselves.

If it wasn't for this, all the so called third world would still be calling the white man of Europe 'master'. The United States would still be dipping it's toe in the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico (are they even a state?) and so forth.

In fact I find it amusing the Christians who made a fuss over the movie 2012 that it didn't show Mecca get destroyed because of Muslim sensitivites.

All it shows is continued ignorance. The teachings of the Prophet (saw) clearly state that Mecca is destroyed in the future by Ar Rum (the Romans) and Juj and Majuj. The ones you call Gog and Magog.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

In fact I would say the morale of Muslims would be quite high taking the full context of global politics, economics and so forth into consideration.

Even people like Pat Buchanon "The Death of the West" say Islam has taken Europe. In fact every time I meet people from France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and talk frankly about birth rates and conversion rates, and immigration they all know their nations will be Muslim majorities.

Imagine that! The great lands of Calvinism praying five times a day to Allah. Mash'Allah :)


The United States is already being spoken of in the past tense participles.

When you got money to blow up and decimate other countries but don't have money for your own people something is wrong. The United States has been filled with hubris for a long time. Anyway doesn't the United States have some bills that need to be paid?

Well I guess that 60 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia recently may help the U.S pay the rent and utility bill for a while.

The Saudi funded Salafism is already in decline in the west and traditional Islam is taking root (Al hamdulillah)

The fact that Christian apologist who are well educated and studied have their hands full with Muslim apologist (who take a part-time approach to apologetics) and still those Christians have their hands full is more than convincing to me.

Christianity is doing a huge favour to Islam right now n South Korea n China. You people sure know how to win over the populace with those charming young men in their 20s on bicycles.

Plus your right Ken look at the liberty in Christ, after becoming a Christian no laws to weigh you down, no shari'ah!

Little wonder....but guess what the love affair won't last. In the Mosque where I work (your welcome to come see for yourself) the hundreds of Koreans who come (from Christian backgrounds) that tell me that the love affair with a deity constantly portrayed as blonde haired blue eyed caucasian male in his 30s is starting to ware off.

The concept of a mysognist deity in which love is portrayed as masculine relationship between father-son only goes so far in Far East Asia Ken.

But don't take my word for it I'm a Muslim (you know the bad guy)

Chris said...

>>Christianity is doing a huge favour to Islam right now n South Korea n China. You people sure know how to win over the populace with those charming young men in their 20s on bicycles.

On that note, this is funny: http://vodpod.com/watch/13156-al-qaeda-lds-mormon-missionary-parody.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

hahahaha @ Chris. That was hard core awesomeness! Total pwnage!

I usually approach western tourist in our mosque with the following,

"Today we are offering a special on Islam: if you convert now all your previous sins are forgiven, and you get the opportunity to have not one, not two, not three, but up to four wives".

*note* the 1-4 wifes is a sales pitch given to men only.

Now if only I can convince Ken to embrace Islam and walk around going door to door in Atlanta.....

Chris said...

lol, GV! With respect to your earlier comment about bicycles, that has actually been a quite successful missionary method, even in places where young men in suits tend to be viewed as agents of the CIA. Mormonism is huge in Brazil. Maybe they're doing Muslims a favor, maybe not; but they're certainly doing their own religion a favor!

You're probably right that Israeli Jews would never be "exterminated". I don't think the West would ever allow a systematic genocide against Israelis to occur, even if we had withdrawn political support for Israel, and even if a genocide were attempted. And hopefully not even a nuclear-armed apocalyptic Shi'ite like the Iranian president would be foolish enough to use nuclear weapons in a region with such a high Muslim population density and such sacred value to Islam.

>>Even people like Pat Buchanon "The Death of the West" say Islam has taken Europe. In fact every time I meet people from France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and talk frankly about birth rates and conversion rates, and immigration they all know their nations will be Muslim majorities.

This is true. Immigration and birth rates appear to have set Europe on the road to inevitable Islamization. On the other hand, the Pentecostals are taking Africa by conversion, and the real center of global political power is shifting to the largely Buddhist and Hindu states of China and India. I think it may be a little too early to proclaim the triumph of Islam.

>>The United States is already being spoken of in the past tense participles.

The US is definitely on its way out as the global superpower, but it will remain the dominant power in the Western hemisphere unless European political union is successful. No Western nation has the population to be a serious contender with the US, and most Western nations are relatively satisfied with US leadership anyway.

>>Ashkenazi are not Semetic peoples.

This is not really true. DNA studies of Ashkenazis have found surprisingly low rates of admixture. They have more in common genetically with other Jewish diaspora populations than with their European neighbors. Not that I really believe blood or race have any bearing on the political situation in the Middle East.

By the way, to call Hitler a "product of Lutheranism" is a real stretch. He was raised nominally Catholic, not Lutheran, and even then his anti-semitism seems to have had more to do with German nationalism and the "scientific" eugenics movement. He definitely made use of Christianity for his own purposes, though, turning Lutheran churches into dispensers of Nazi propaganda, and outlawing the "Confessing Churches" that resisted Nazism. Incidentally, he is also purported to have been an admirer of Muhammad. According to Albert Speer, Hitler once said in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Anyway, GV, I think you've been influenced by a lot of popular anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American myths and rhetoric that may not really have much substance to them. Just be careful, and be critical.

Peace,

-Chris

Chris said...

Sorry about all the comment deletions. Blogger was having problems when I was trying to post my comments, and I ended up posting several duplicate copies.

David Waltz said...

Hi Chris,

I have taken care of the "comment deletions". Blogger can be fickle at times, but thanks to a recent thread posted by James Swan (HERE), I/we at least now know why the vanishing posts are happening.


Grace and peace,

David

Chris said...

Thanks, David. Good to know!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Chris I would caution you against some of your more bigoted remarks.

I do understand that the LDS has had problems with racism before in the past and we have pointed out to the elders before things in the Book of Mormon that are just not acceptable in terms of race relation.

For example I would caution you against statements like,

"You're probably right that Israeli Jews would never be "exterminated". I don't think the West would ever allow a systematic genocide against Israelis to occur,"

saying that the "West would never allow it" as if the West as some kind of moral ascendancy is something you need to be very careful about saying in the future especially if you plan on being an academic.

The fact that the so called 'extermination' of Jews is something that only military action would prevent is also inuendo directed at Arabs, Turks, Persians, Kurds, Armenians, and a plethora of other people in the region. Islam would not stand for it, and people of good conscious believe it or not Chris can be other than Caucasian.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Anyway, GV, I think you've been influenced by a lot of popular anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American myths and rhetoric that may not really have much substance to them. Just be careful, and be critical

Such as? When I see you make sweeping statements that Iran would annihiliate the Jews, when Iran itself has one of the largest Jewish populations in the world is just short of ridiculous.

So I would encourage you not to drink from the cup of anti-Semetic, Anti-Islamic and Anti-Everyone But America rhetoric that seems to permeate the culture these days.

Make friends with an Arab, a Black Man, or a Hispanic it probably wouldn't hurt :)

Chris said...

Hey GV,

I have a number of black, Hispanic, and Arab friends. And I am well aware that there are people of good conscience in all races, religions, and nationalities. However, it remains true that there exists extreme resentment toward Israel in the Middle East. Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have demonstrated that they are more than willing to kill civilians, and even prefer civilian targets to military ones. Frankly, the political situation in the region doesn't leave me confident that a genocide would not occur, despite the Islamic ideals of most of Israel's neighbors. (And Palestinian and Lebanese Christians tend to be about as hostile to Jews as the Muslims are!)

Also, if a genocide of Jews were attempted, "the West" seems more likely than Israel's neighbors to have the resources and feel the responsibility to stop it. I suppose I could be wrong. Maybe Egypt or Turkey would intervene before the US did.

Anyway, this is not about moral ascendancy, race, or religion. This is about politics and a history of conflict between two peoples. So please don't paint me as a racist just because I'm painfully aware of the statistics concerning attitudes toward Israelis among neighboring nations. I think you are allowing your loyalty to the Islamic cause to blind you to the political dangers that exist when real people, regardless of ideology, have deep and abiding grievances against a rhetorically-dehumanized Other.

Peace,

-Chris

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

My loyalty to the cause of Islam in my view Chris is my loyalty to the cause of humanity.

I just found it interesting that you felt the 'West' as opposed to India, Russia, China, The Koreas, Japan, Serbia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine, etc....would not step in.

Also if you had been reading my post I think it becomes painfully obvious that I do not give blind patronate to anyone political side or faction.

But please do not confuse the cause of Islam with the cause of Hamas, Hezbollah or any other political group.

Just as I will try not to confuse seperate congregations for blacks and whites as a mandate from God for the LDS.

One small correction unless you have the info: Hezbollah does not engage civilian targets that is the only thing respectable about them in my view. Hamas applies what is called equivocation or the torah laws of 'eye for an eye'. Which I disagree with.

Chris said...

GV,

I understand the distinction between Hamas and Islam.

Russia, China, the Koreas, and Eastern Europe do not really have a history of humanitarian intervention, especially on behalf of Jews in the Middle East. Russia is the most interventionist of the states you listed, but it has tended to side against Israel, and lately it seems to be limiting its activity to its own backyard. The governments of Turkey and Egypt might act to prevent a genocide-- especially if they were among the occupiers-- but people in those countries also tend have highly unfavorable views of Jews, which makes intervention less likely. (95% of Egyptians, for example, report unfavorable views of Jews. Turkey is better, at 76%.) So when I suggest that "the West" would be the most likely to intervene, I'm not being racist or morally superior. I'm just being politically realistic.

(I'm not sure what you mean about the LDS. They have never had separate congregations for blacks and whites, so far as I am aware, though they've certainly had other racial issues. In any event, I'm not LDS.)

>>One small correction unless you have the info: Hezbollah does not engage civilian targets that is the only thing respectable about them in my view.

Thanks for the correction. A little poking around on the Internet reveals that Lebanese support for violence against civilian targets has decreased from 74% in 2002 to 32% today. If Hezbollah is partly responsible for bringing about this change in attitudes, then they should be applauded for it.

Allah Ma'ak,

-Chris