The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. POISON IVY “At a summer religious camp for children one of the counselors was leading a discussion on the purpose God has for all of his creation. They began to find good reasons for clouds and trees and rocks and rivers and animals and just about everything else in nature. Finally, one of the children said, “If God has a good purpose for everything, then why did He create poison ivy?” The discussion leader gulped and, as he struggled with the question, one of the other children came to his rescue, saying, “The reason God made poison ivy is that He wanted us to know there are certain things we should keep our cotton-pickin’ hands off of.”

Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”

  1. IT’LL NEVER HAPPEN “Speed: “What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?” (The Quarterly Review, 1825)

Television: “While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially, I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need not waste time dreaming.”(Lee Deforest, scientist and inventor, 1926)

Transportation: “As a means of rapid transit, aerial navigation could not begin to compete with the railroad.” (William Baxter, Jr., Popular Science, 1901)

Automobiles: “The ordinary ‘horseless carriage’ is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the near future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle.” (The Literary Digest, 1889)”

  1. LIVE RIGHT “So live that you wouldn’t be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.” — Unknown
  2. BALANCE “I’ve seen too many men and women cheat their families only to find that the companies they worked for weren’t nearly as loyal to them as they were to the companies.

Loyalty in the marketplace is rarely reciprocated. It’s sad when men or women are forced out of organizations they bled for to return home to the families they’ve neglected.

Why give your ultimate loyalty to an organization where your value is conditional upon your ability to perform? Why betray those whose loyalty is unconditional? Why devote so much of yourself to something you know you’ll leave, and so little time to those you’ll eventually come home to? It doesn’t make sense, does it? Yet without a conscious decision to do otherwise, that’s exactly what most of us are prone to do.”

Excerpt From: Stanley, Andy. “When Work and Family Collide.”

  1. DANIEL’S BUDDIES “God had not merely delivered the three friends from the fire – though he could have done so, as they had said earlier to Nebuchadnezzar. God had delivered them in the fire. Their suffering was real, but it all occurred before they got to the fire. The horrors that they had naturally anticipated and surely feared had not occurred.

There is an important matter of principle here. God is a great deliverer – but he will not deliver us from having to make our own decisions. This is not because he is impotent but because he wants us to be strong. The development of our character depends crucially on the fact that we make responsible decisions before God for ourselves. For God to “decide” for us would be to de-humanize us and essentially turn us into amoral robots.

When children are very small, parents often have to decide for them in order to teach them. But it is sad when we see a situation where parents have to decide for grown-up children, since that is often a sign that something has gone wrong in the development of their character.

So there is a sense in which God, precisely because he loves us, will not save us either from the need to make such decisions or from the decisions themselves. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had to make up their own minds as to whether they were going to put God first. That does not mean they had no guidance. Their guidance was all the accumulated experience of God’s trustworthiness up to that fateful moment. They therefore had decided to trust him once more, no matter what it cost. Then God convincingly vindicated them.”

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. HOW CHANGE HALF THE WORLD? If you wrote 9 people today & each of them wrote to 9 different people tomorrow and this continued for just 10 days—you’d reach 3,486,784,401. The other 4 billion could be reached on day 11.

The modality for change is so easy – communicate. And when it is done in a personal way with a note – preferably handwritten – the influence we can have is tremendous. Go out of your way to communicate encouragement to one person a day by sending them a snail mail note, and see what life-changing things occur. [jw]

  1. REAL TRUST “Trust in the LORD with all your heart,

and  do not lean on your own understanding.” — Prov. 3:5

“With all your heart indicates that trust goes beyond intellectual assent to a deep reliance on the Lord, a settled confidence in his care and his faithfulness to his Word. Do not lean on your own understanding further explains trusting in the Lord. One’s “understanding” in Proverbs is his perception of the right course of action. The wise will govern themselves by what the Lord himself declares, and will not set their own finite and often-mistaken understanding against his.”

Excerpt From: Crossway. “ESV Study Bible.”

  1. MODERN TECH VS. YESTERYEAR “Is it really so different from when we were teens ourselves? After all, we listened to the opinions of our peers—or of celebrities we read about or saw on television. The vast difference lies in quantity! Today’s young people are coping with a deluge of widely divergent influences, while we had a much smaller circle of people influencing us, and they were probably more unified in their preferences. And the influence is nearly constant! Before there were cell phones, young people had time off from their peers—times when they were at home with just their families. Now teens are with their peers and with online influences 24/7 since they can access their social media and the Internet all day long.

Because of this large array of influences in their daily experience, today’s young people tend to be more conflicted about who they are and what they value. It’s even harder for parents to know their kids well—and for teens to benefit from the opinions and wisdom of the parents who love them because they’re listening to so many voices.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. RULES BRING FREEDOM “When does a train move most freely? A train is most free when it stays on the tracks that have been set out for it, not when it is trying to move through a field. The same is true with us. Like the train on its tracks, we move most freely when we have clearly defined tracks or standards by which to live.”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

  1. JESUS’ PURCHASE PRICE “The word ‘redemption’ comes from agora, the Greek word for “the marketplace.” In its verb form in Revelation 5:9, the word indicates that Jesus Christ entered the marketplace and purchased us out of the market to be His very own. How much do you think you are worth to Him? What would He pay for you? Our redemption had a large price tag affixed. The cost was Christ’s own blood.”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

What’s really the problem with which the Pope should be concerned: is it income inequality or poverty? Philosopher Ed Feser, who happens to be Catholic himself, brilliantly points out that inequality is not only a reality, but a necessary one.  Society would be impossible without certain inequalities in talents and income.

Quoting scholars and previous Popes, Feser makes the case that it’s poverty not income inequality that is the problem. Here’s an excerpt from Feser’s post:

The basic idea is very simple and not really original (I’ve made it before myself, e.g. here) but cannot be restated too often given that so many people appear to lack a grasp of the obvious. It is that equality as such is not a good thing and inequality as such is not a bad thing. Suppose everyone was so poor that it was difficult for anyone even to secure basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing, but no one had any more than anyone else. It would be ridiculous to say “Well, at least there’s a silver lining here for which we can be grateful: Everyone’s equal.” Or suppose everyone had a standard of living at least as good as that of the average millionaire, but some were multi-billionaires. It would be ridiculous to say “It is unjust that so many have to make do with mere millions while a few get to enjoy billions.”

When people complain about economic inequality, this can make sense from a moral point of view only if talk of inequality is really a proxy for something else. Most obviously, it certainly makes sense to lament that some people live in poverty, and it makes sense to call on those who have wealth (and indeed in some cases and to some extent to require those who have wealth) to help those who live in poverty. But the problem here is not that the poor have less than others. The problem is that they have less than they need. The problem, that is to say, is poverty, not inequality.

It’s well worth reading his entire post here.  Also, download the CrossExamined App to listen to my interview with Dr. Feser on the “Unmoved Mover.”

For the best book I’ve seen on the intersection between economics and Christianity, pick up a copy of Money Greed and God by Jay Richards.  You can also hear my interviews with Jay on the app.

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. BOUNDARIES “God’s boundaries come out of His love for us. Right and wrong are established to protect us from consequences that will hurt us. For instance, “Do not steal” protects us from losing the trust of others, and “Do not have sex before marriage” protects us from sexually transmitted diseases and being physically bonded to someone other than our spouse for life. In general, we need to see and present authority as a blessing to our teens. Specifically, we need to present the Word of God as the most trustworthy standard. It is reliable, consistent, and complete. We have freedom because He gives us free will, but that’s also a reason He provides boundaries.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. HOW KNOW GETTING OLD? “You know you’re getting older when: Everything hurts, and what doesn’t hurt, doesn’t work.

The gleam in your eyes is from the sun hitting your bifocals.

Your little black book contains only names ending in M.D.

You get winded playing chess.

Your children begin to look middle-aged.

Your mind makes contracts your body can’t meet.

You know all the answers, but nobody asks you the questions.

You look forward to a dull evening at home.

You’re turning out lights for economic rather than romantic reasons.

Your knees buckle and your belt won’t.

The best part of your day is over when the alarm goes off.

Your back goes out more than you do.

A fortune teller offers to read your face.

You’ve got too much room in the house and not enough room in the medicine cabinet.

You sink your teeth in a steak, and they stay there.”

Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”

  1. A HEARTBEAT AWAY “Many seem to have the idea that heaven is a long way off. Not really. It is only one heartbeat away. James asked, “What is your life?” Then he answered his own question by indicating that life is really just a vapor. It appears for a little while and then vanishes away (James 4:14). For each of us, one of these days that old heart is going to stop. Then, in the wink of an eye, we will begin eternity . . . somewhere.”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

  1. ABSOLUTIZING “Even though there is a drive to relativize absolutes, men and women cannot live without them. So they eventually take something of relative value and absolutize it. That is, they regard it as the core value that determines their attitude to everything else. From time immemorial the obvious candidates have been the state, power, wealth, and sex.”

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. WHAT U WANT? “If you don’t get everything you want, think of the things you don’t get that you don’t want.” — Unknown
  2. MARTYRS  “As far as Christianity is concerned, it is easy for some of us to forget that, at the moment, persecution is raging in many parts of the world.

For 27 years, the International Bulletin of Missionary Research has published an annual Status of Global Mission report, which attempts to quantify the world Christian reality, comparing Christianity’s circumstances to those of other faiths, and assaying how Christianity’s various expressions are faring when measured against the recent (and not-so-recent) past. The report is unfailingly interesting, sometimes jarring, and occasionally provocative. The provocation in the 2011 report involves martyrdom. For purposes of research the report defines “martyrs” as “believers in Christ who have lost their lives, prematurely, in situations of witness, as a result of human hostility.” The report estimates that there were, on average, 270 new Christian martyrs every 24 hours over the past decade, such that “the number of martyrs [in the period 2000–2010] was approximately 1 million.”

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. GO FOR IT “Consider how the forward pass became a part of football. It was legalized in 1906 but hardly ever deployed until 1913, seven years later, when a small, obscure Midwestern school, Notre Dame, had to travel east to face mighty Army, a heavily favored powerhouse. With little to lose, the Fighting Irish coach, Jesse Harper, decided to employ this risky, newfangled strategy by using his quarterback, Charlie “Gus” Dorais, and his end, a kid named Knute Rockne. The summer before, Dorais and Rockne had been lifeguards on a Lake Erie beach near Sandusky, Ohio, who passed the time throwing a football back and forth. The Army players were stunned as the Irish threw for 243 yards, which was unheard of at the time. Notre Dame won easily, 35–13. After that, the Irish no longer resided in college football obscurity, Dorais and Rockne became one of the first and best passing tandems of all time, and the forward pass was here to stay. Dorais and Rockne would both go on to become revered Hall of Fame coaches, in large part because they continued deploying their passing tactics at the coaching level.”

Excerpt From: Tobias Moskowitz & L. Jon Wertheim. “Scorecasting.”

  1. OBEY “The blessings of God are never attained by violating the principles of God.”

— Andy Stanley

  1. TRUTH If it is true that “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,” then is it possible that if you don’t know the truth, it’s absence can place you in bondage? –Unknown
  2. CRY BABY “Our friend Lynda Pearce says she never regrets taking a couple years off to care for her new baby.

“I thought the crying and whining would drive me crazy at first,” she explains, “but my boss eventually calmed down.”

–Michael Hodgin

 

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. KIDS: “I AM MY OWN AUTHORITY” “There are three parenting styles that play into this authority lie: the Friend Parent, the Absent Parent, and the Inconsistent Parent.

Friend Parents are so devoted they almost worship their kids. They want to be their children’s friends! They allow their teens to do what they want, believe they can do no wrong, and have a hard time saying no. These parents either don’t bother teaching standards for right and wrong, or they do try to establish such standards but in confusing ways. These children don’t experience much authority, if any, and this freedom communicates to them, You don’t need authority. You can do what you want.

The children of Absent Parents draw the same conclusion but for different reasons. These parents just aren’t there for their kids. They’re too busy with work or with personal problems, or they can’t be bothered. They force early independence upon their children and cause them to parent themselves. Essentially these teens become their own authority by default.

Inconsistent Parents might treat children like friends one minute, but not the next. They may be heavy-handed one day, but then lighten up as they feel guilty over the way they just responded to their children. Sometimes they may order their kids around and at other times be completely absent. These children have a warped view of authority and may think, If that’s what authority is and does, I don’t need any. In these situations, the children will be confused, drifting, and argumentative.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. WE WILL KNOW “We will know one another in heaven. In fact, the Bible says we will be known as we are known. When Peter, James, and John stood with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appeared before them in their glorified forms and were readily recognized (Matthew 17). No one will have to introduce me to Paul or Peter or anyone else— and these heroes of the faith will know you and me. It is one thing for us to know the president of the United States, but it is quite something different for him to know us, to call us by name. In heaven we will know and be known.

Recently a NASA scientist speculated about the possibility of alien life on other planets. I have news for him. There is alien life on our planet. Those of us who are Christians are aliens in this world for “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). We are citizens of another kingdom. We are simply passing through on our way home.”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

  1. COLD STAGE “A husband’s reactions to his wife’s colds during the first seven years of marriage: 1ST YEAR: “Sugar Dumpling, I’m really worried about my baby girl. You’ve got a bad sniffle and there’s no telling about these things with all the strep going around. I’m putting you in the hospital. I know the food’s lousy, but I’ll be bringing your meals in from Rozzini’s. I’ve already got it all arranged with the floor superintendent.” 2D YEAR: “Listen, Darling, I don’t like the sound of that cough and I’ve called the doctor to rush over here. Now you go to bed like a good girl, just for Pappa.” 3D YEAR: “Maybe you’d better lie down, Honey. Nothing like a little rest when you feel lousy. I’ll bring you something. Have we got any canned soup?” 4TH YEAR: “Now look, Dear, be sensible. After you feed the kids, do the dishes and mop the floor, you’d better rest.” 5TH YEAR: “Why don’t you take a couple aspirin?” 6TH YEAR: “If you’d just gargle or something instead of sitting around barking like a seal all evening…” 7TH YEAR: “For Pete’s sake, stop that sneezing. What are you trying to do, give me pneumonia?”

Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”

  1. FACEBOOK “Do less Facebook and spend more time with [your] face in a book.” – K. Koch
  2. PROPRIETY “While it may seem outdated or paranoid, and often is inconvenient, I submit that a married person is wise never to ride—or work, travel, dine, etc.—alone with a member of the opposite sex.

My informal manifesto to our first woman executive ran something like this: “We will never meet alone with the door closed. If at the end of a day we are the last two in the office, one of us goes home. No lunches or dinners alone together. No shared rides to the airport, and no sitting together on the flight” (forfeiting valuable pre-meeting time). “When renting cars out of town,” I said, “we’ll rent two—our client will reimburse us for one, and our firm will pay for

the other.”

Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”

  1. ALL THERE IS? “My father used to tell the story of a discussion with a law school

student about his future plans. The conversation went something like this:

“Son, tell me about your plans after law school.”

“I hope to get a job with a good firm and start making some money.”

“That sounds fine. And then what?”

“Well, at some point, and hopefully not too late, I want to get married.”

“I hope you do, son. And then what?”

“I want to get a nice house and start a family.”

“Of course, and then?”

“And then I want to raise my kids in good schools and earn enough money to save for a second home.”

“Right . . . right. What then?”

“Then I hope to be making enough money to slow down and take vacations with my wife and children.”

“And then?”

“Well, I guess I’d like to see my kids get married and start their own families. I’d like to see them become independent and financially secure.”

“Good goals, all. But what then?”

“If I’ve taken care of myself, I can hope to live long enough to raise my grandchildren. I hear that’s even better than having children.”

“I hear that, too. Then what?”

“Well, I hope I’ll be healthy enough to enjoy my later years, maybe travel some with my wife and see the world. I want to make the most of retirement and pass along my money to my children so they can benefit as I have.”

“And then?”

The young man paused. “I guess, eventually . . . I’ll die.”

“Yes, you will. And then what?”

The compelling thing about this story is that it chronicles the standard-issue American Dream. Who doesn’t identify with some or most of the scenic overlooks on this young man’s life path? Maybe you’ve long since graduated from college, married happily, are well into your career,

and just bought a vacation home. Maybe you’re already blessed with grandchildren and an investment portfolio Charles Schwab would like to see. But somewhere on the inexorable line of time, every one of us will face the final “and then what?”

What would your answer be?”

Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”

  1. FAMILLIONAIRE “In the 1980s it was fashionable to put the family aside for the greater good of the family. Accumulate more for their benefit. But this was a myth of the highest order. Families who put financial success ahead of emotional success get shortchanged. A famillionaire is a person who finds his/her fortune in their family by being true to themselves.

Author Joan Peters says that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce when couples do not balance their lives at home with the demands of work.

In the end, the biggest thought about your career has to be what it is and what it is not. It may be your livelihood, but your family is your life. If you’re smart, you’ll never forget the distinction.”

Excerpt From: Reiman, Joey. “Thinking for a Living.”

  1. “NATURE’S LAW” “Americans know, the Declaration of Independence declared not only the colonies’ independence from Britain, but also a dependence on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” These had been defined by historic legal writers, such as Sir William Blackstone, as the laws that God had established for the governance of people, nations, and nature. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, the primary law book of the Founding Fathers, defined “the laws of nature” as the will of God for man. Blackstone explained:

“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. . . . And consequently . . . it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. . ..”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. PC THINKING “Jesus sacrificed Himself for us because we did NOT deserve it; not because we deserved it, which is what political correctness would say. When a culture and its populace become more self-obsessed, they will do a lot to keep that train rolling. If there’s

truth beyond us, we have to answer to it. Jesus claimed to be that truth. And people did not want to answer to Him then, and they don’t want to answer to Him today.

Our current generation is being raised to believe that there is no moral plumb line (absolute truth), so we do whatever we “feel” is right based on any number of influences we allow into our lives to mold and shape those beliefs. PC thinking opens the floodgates of the dam because of the belief that there are no boundaries. Problem is, if anything goes, you’ll get drowned in the

aftermath.

That’s what we are experiencing today. We are being drowned in the flood of moral decay, and I’m not talking about sex, drugs, or rock ’n’ roll. I’m talking about the decay that comes as a result of deciding there’s no longer “true” truth. And when that happens, the crumbling begins.”

Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”

  1. WHAT’S IN A NAME? “If you were forced to drink a beaker of dihydrogen oxide, your response would probably be negative. If you asked for a glass of water, you might enjoy

it.”

Excerpt From: Al Ries & Jack Trout. “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”

 

jonathandebatingA few days ago, I posted a response to a review of my recent debate with Dr. Shabir Ally on the doctrine of the Trinity vs. Tawhid, written by Muslim blogger Ijaz Ahmad. Not long after my article appeared, so did Ijaz’s response. I noted previously that Ijaz appears to have developed a peculiar habit of mishearing or misreading things that I say and write. I make it my policy to be charitable whenever possible, and so I am not going to at this point allege any malintention on the part of Ijaz. What we are talking about, however, is not merely one or two instances of misrepresentation of my statements, views and arguments — it is a habit that plagues much of his writing. At the very least, this does seem to impugn his competence in basic reading comprehension skills (that is the only alternative I can envision to the charge of dishonesty — which I would rather not consider). Even more unfortunate is that Ijaz often continues to defend his incorrect readings even after he has received correction.

Yesterday, a debate broke out on Ijaz’s “Calling Christians” Facebook page when he posted a statement claiming that Modus Ponens is circular reasoning, and that, since I had used this argument form, I was guilty of circular reasoning. Note that this comment appeared after I had already corrected him on this matter in my previous blog. In his blog post responding to my article, he even went so far as to say,

“Unfortunately, all he had to do was think about what he argued, or at the very least, read what he wrote and he’d realise why it was circular. I’ll try to help him in this case. If X, then Y. X, therefore Y.This is the exact form his argument takes, and this is known as circular reasoning. Ergo, Jonathan does not know what circular reasoning is, and was unable to break down his argument into syllogistic form to understand what he was saying in logical terms.”

I and some others took Ijaz to task on Facebook for this ridiculous claim, but Ijaz was adamant that he was right, and that I clearly did not understand logic. Finally, after much tooth pulling, Ijaz admitted to being in error on this point — but only after he had attempted to settle the matter by blocking myself and his other critics from commenting on his page and deleting our comments. He has since deleted the entire thread from his Facebook page. After having consulted his “resident scholar” and being told that I was right and he was wrong, he went into damage control mode. The above-quoted statement from his blog has now been replaced with the following:

“I incorrectly referred to this form of argumentation as circular because I viewed the first premise as entailing itself, “If Tawheed is inconsistent”, which is self-reliant and thus circular. In other words it entailed itself, despite being in the form of modus ponens. After discussing with our resident scholar, I (Br. Ijaz) am indeed wrong. Although the first premise is indeed invalid (it does not logically follow if Tawheed could be inconsistent, that the Trinity is true), and needs to be qualified, the form is valid, but the first premise needs to be proven. So the argument itself is invalid, but the form correct. Apologies to Jonathan for this error.”

Well, that’s all well and good. Ijaz exercised some humility in conceding and correcting his mistake. But notice that in his correction he still manages to misrepresent me. Again. When did I ever state that it logically follows that “if Tawheed could be inconsistent, that the Trinity is true”? I didn’t. He also asserts that “the argument itself is invalid” — which is a technical inaccuracy (I think he means to claim it is unsound). On his Facebook page he also seemed to confuse a circular argument with Agrippa’s Trilemma, which is something quite different. As one Christian apologist put it to me, “Ijaz is a perfect example of someone who tries to sound logical by looking up logic terms and posting them in his responses without having the slightest clue how to use them.”

So what other blunders did Ijaz make in his response to me at his blog? The first two paragraphs were nothing more than a personal attack on yours truly. He starts by saying,

“After finding no one from the Christian community willing to perform a review of his debate with Dr. Shabir Ally, Jonathan McLatchie has finally taken the onus upon himself to “review” my review of their debate.”

Firstly, so far as I know, Ijaz is the only person to write a review of the debate in toto. I know of no other reviews, whether from Muslims or Christians. Second, how does Ijaz come to the conclusion that no one from the Christian community are “willing” to write a review? Perhaps they are just busy. By the same token I could also argue that no one from the Muslim community, besides Ijaz, has been “willing” to write a review of the debate. He goes on:

“It is unfortunate that Jonathan believes that I “misheard” or “misread” him, as this is a common excuse he uses when confronted with any criticism.”

That’s not quite true. Most of my critics read and comprehend what I say and write just fine. It is only a small number who seem to have this problem. He continues:

“Last month it was brought to the inter-faith community’s attention that Jonathan had described Muslim communities in France as a virus and a cancer to European society. If one were to compare his “review” of his debate, with the excuses used when confronted with his xenophobic statements, we’d quickly realise that Jonathan is being perpetually misunderstood by everyone. At first he claimed he never made such a statement, everyone had simply lied about him! Then, it was a statement he made, but everyone simply misunderstood him! Then, it was a statement he made, but it was not referring to Muslims but a cultural structure of extremism, everyone simply hadn’t given him enough time to explain himself!”

Wrong again. As I explained here, I did not make the statement attributed to me at all. Although my word-choice was unquestionably unfortunate, I neither described Muslim communities nor any individuals as “cancer” or a “virus”. Ijaz, as he always does, simply represented what I said in the most uncharitable way conceivable. As far as I recall, I never claimed that anyone had “lied” about me. In fact, I have correspondence with those responsible for propagating these claims wherein I specifically said that I did not think they were being deliberately deceitful, but that they had simply misunderstood what I said. Given that I have now clarified what I said several times and the claim nonetheless continues to be made, I am frankly starting to wonder. He goes on:

“Then, he posts a video in which Muslims who practise Islam are compared to ISIS terrorists and we’re not supposed to be offended by that. The 19,000 people who viewed that article and the 3500 people that watched that video, all seem to have “misheard” and “misunderstood” him.”

Wrong again. I defy anyone to show me where “Muslims who practice Islam are compared to ISIS terrorists” in any video I have shared. He then claims that,

“As one Christian apologist put it, “Jonathan is simply oblivious to any form of self criticism”.”

I am doubtful of this, since I often seek criticism from other apologists of my arguments, presentations and writing. But we can be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt. He goes on:

“When I announced news that a Christian had accepted Islam following the debate between Dr. Shabir and Jonathan, Jonathan found it impossible that anyone would disagree with his remarks in that debate, such to the extent their faith would be questioned. I remarked to him at that point, that it doesn’t matter what you think of your own arguments, it is up to the audience to decide that. He disagreed, that just could not be a possibility, his remarks were without fault.”

Wrong again. I never said this at all. Nothing I have ever written could be construed as having said that. The relevant thread was a while ago though, and so we can put it down to a failure on Ijaz’s part to accurately recall the conversation. What I did remark is that I was highly surprised that any Christian’s faith would be rocked by Shabir’s presentation at that particular debate. I said nothing, so far as I recall, about my own remarks in the debate. Ijaz continues:

“Jonathan lives in a world, where everyone who disagrees with him, either perpetually misunderstands him, or they misread him, or they mishear him. It’s almost never the case that he has said something wrong, or that he has made a mistake, and this is exactly what we find in his “review” of my review.”

That’s not true either. Shabir Ally, for example, is quite capable of interacting with what I say. Most of my critics are.

“What sort of debater, reviews someone’s review? I mean, there’s the occasional post-debate rejoinder, but I’ve never seen anyone who considers themselves to be a professional, review their own debate. That’s what the community does, that’s not what the debaters themselves do. Jonathan though, does not like to be criticized, and so when my review criticized him, he could not contain himself.”

Well, Shabir Ally has reviewed some of his own debates for example (see this one for instance). William Lane Craig often does as well. So does James White. So Ijaz is simply wrong about this. My response to Ijaz, however, was not really a review of the debate per se, but a response specifically to criticisms of my opening presentation raised by Ijaz. Furthermore, the fact that I respond to criticism in no way entails that I do not like to be criticized.

Ijaz Ahmad accuses me of deception because I stated that he failed to mention any of Shabir’s weaknesses in his opening statement, such as his misuse of Greek grammar in relation to John 1:1 (documented here). Ijaz says that I am dishonest because he did mention John 1:1 in his review of the debate. Here’s what he wrote:

At this point, Dr. Shabir began to speak on the language used in regard to Jesus in the Gospel ascribed to John. John 1:1c is problematic as the attribution of total deity to the Word (later identified as Jesus), is uncertain due to Colwell’s rule. Grammarians do dispute about the definiteness of attributing deity to the Word in this verse due to the absence of a defining article which the original author purposely left out, this opened the wording and subsequent understanding of the verse to dispute. If the author wanted to ascribe total deity to the Word, then they would not have intentionally left out the defining article and thus, total deity cannot be ascribed to Jesus the Christ given the author’s grammatical intentions.

But this is precisely the point. Ijaz simply repeated this poor argument, despite the fact that it has been refuted ad nauseum.

Ijaz then quotes one of my critiques of his review:

The first point to note here is that I never stated that “the Bible is a wholly Trinitarian text”. It is my view that one can demonstrate a multiplicity of divine persons from both the Old and New Testaments, while the doctrine of the Trinity reaches its fullest expression in the New Testament where we read of the incarnation of the Son of God.

He accuses me again of not correctly representing what he said. He claims that “Yet, this is exactly what he said.” He then directed his readers to a timestamp on the debate video where I had stated that “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.” Ijaz further remarks,

If Jonathan believes that the words “thoroughly” and “wholly”, are different, then he must consult a dictionary. They mean the same thing. He should also note, that in my very review, I quoted him as saying, “thoroughly”, so on that basis, where exactly does he believe this was something he did not say? Strangely enough, he proceeded to argue that Dr. Shabir did not pre-empt his appeal to the Bible (read as “scripture”), but he did. One of Dr. Shabir’s most important points was “the texts of scripture”. So while Jonathan may disagree, it doesn’t make him right, to the contrary it makes him seem desperate to create points of imaginative disagreement.

The issue of contention, however, is not over the meaning of “thoroughly” and “wholly”, but over the difference between “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the Bible”. Those are not the same thing. I never claimed that Shabir did not argue that the Trinity was contrary to the Old Testament. He did claim that. I happen to think he is wrong in claiming that, but Ijaz contends that Shabir in claiming this pre-empted this statement from my opening remarks, which is simply not the case.

He then claims that he did not in fact misrepresent my syllogism regarding Tawhid, even accusing me of being “deceitful”. He simply reasserted what he had said before, however, and failed to interact with my criticism. I did not say “If Tawhid is true, then it must be consistent.” I said, “If Tawhid is true, then it must be consistent with the Qur’an.”

Ijaz then back peddles with his claim from his review that I had made the argument about the eternality of the Qur’an in my opening statement. He said “In my review, I did not claim that he made this argument, I specifically said that he referred to it.”

Really, Ijaz?

Let’s have a look at his original review. Here is what he wrote:

“In attempting to do this, Jonathan disappointed me greatly. All he did was refer (timestamp in video, he says “Those who saw Shabir’s debate with Nabeel Qureishi would’ve been exposed to the problems with reconciling the eternality of the Qur’an with the doctrine of Tawhid.”) to the argument that Nabeel used regarding the Qur’an being the eternal word of Allah, yet physical and created. I was disappointed because this is an argument copied from Jay Smith, which Samuel Green tried to use on me in my debate with him, which Nabeel later picked up and tried to use against Dr. Shabir. The problem here is that Dr. Shabir already addressed this argument, and so have I. Jonathan merely repeated Nabeel’s poor argument. He did not try to revamp the argument, he did not add anything to the argument, he did not articulate it differently, he did not try to incorporate Dr. Shabir’s response to Nabeel into the argument. He quite literally just repeated the argument, which was already responded to. Naturally, I would expect, that if he did his homework and decided to use an argument which was already refuted, that he’d adjust the argument in some way. He didn’t do that. He presented nothing new. It was at that point I wondered why he even offered to debate the same topic if he was merely going to repeat the same points from the previous debate of the same topic by offering nothing new.”

I will leave it to readers to judge for themselves.

He then goes on to say that “Reading comprehension is not difficult and it should not be this difficult for Jonathan.” Oh the irony.

He then claimed that,

“He then spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to validate his bad argument that the Spirit (of God) is the same as Allah. Yet, he does not validate his bad argument, he merely repeats it without meaningfully responding to the criticism leveled against it.”

I will allow my readers to go back to my previous article and determine for themselves whether or not I interacted with the criticism.

Ijaz points out that the Qur’an uses “Spirit” in different contexts. I am quite aware of this, but in the texts that I cited, the Spirit is an agent that is breathed out by Allah in order to create life. This same Spirit is also identified as a personal, conscious, entity in Surah 19. Ijaz also contends that, if I am consistent, I would have to say that the angel of death is a fourth member of the Trinity. But this is simply mistaken — there is no verse in the Bible to my knowledge where we are told that God alone actively brings about death, whereas there are many verses in the Qur’an that emphasise that Allah alone is the sole life-giver, and that Allah has no partners. If Allah had a partner in the creation of life, what might that look like? If one divine God, comprised of at least two divine persons, creates, then this conundrum is resolved.

The next portion of his response is the part we have already addressed regarding his false charges of circular reasoning, which he later had to retract.

He then comments on Surah 3:55 and 61:14. He writes,

“Where does it specify what form the dominance would take? It doesn’t. Which is what I mentioned in my review of the debate. Where does it specify in the Qur’an what form the dominance takes? He chose not to answer this question, even though claiming this is what he was doing, rather he chose to mention that some Tafseer commentators agreed with him. Perhaps he should mention that those commentators presuppose that belief, with first believing that Paul’s true teachings, like Christ’s, became corrupted by later Christians. I fully believe he did not do his research on this topic and at this point, he’s repeating himself without addressing my criticisms.”

I am giving the historical interpretation of this text. Is Ijaz really prepared to say that ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurturbi and ibn Ishaq all got it wrong, and that we had to all wait for Ijaz to show up in order to give us the correct meaning of the text? The meaning of the text that I gave seems to me to be clearly the most plausible and the most clear-reading of the texts. Ijaz’s explanation seems rather ad hoc. In any case, even if Ijaz is completely correct about this, he still needs to address my argument that the disciples (whom the Qur’an purports to have been Muslims) were quite clearly not subscribers to Islamic doctrines such as Tawhid.

Ijaz then quoted my statement that,

“Ijaz offered no comment on the third argument I presented in the debate, namely that the Injeel (i.e. the gospel) is Trinitarian and that the Injeel is affirmed by the Qur’an.”

He then replies,

“I actually did offer a comment on it, from my review, I said:

“If we were to identify his main arguments, they would be easily recognizable by anyone who is familiar with Islamic and Christian inter-faith discourse,namely that the Qur’an validates the New Testament, that the disciples believed Jesus was God and that the Bible is historically accurate. He did not present any new arguments, nor any new research, nor did he seek to upgrade any of the arguments he copied from other Christian debaters.””

He may have mentioned it, but he certainly offered no comment by way of response to the argument.

With a large grain of irony, Ijaz concludes:

In conclusion, Jonathan’s review of my review, is a bad attempt at trying to defend his poor arguments used in his debate with Dr. Shabir. At the most, he merely repeated himself, and at the worst he claimed he was misheard. Unfortunately for him, I was able to quote him word for word, and cite numerous places from my review in which I did address the concerns outlined in this review of his. All in all, this comes down to a lack of professionalism. If the Christian community is unwilling to do a review of his debate, and he is left to respond personally to everyone who criticizes him, this says a lot about the community’s perception of his role as a Christian apologist.

I have to say that I am rather disappointed with Ijaz’s review and his interaction with my criticisms. I was even more disappointed to see Ijaz’s original tagging of his blog post (which he subsequently changed). Still, here is the screen shot:

naziracist

 

That’s right. He called me a “nazi” and a “racist”. I hope that, if Ijaz continues to further interact with my material, that he can exercise greater maturity in the future.

 

Ijaz Ahmad is a Muslim blogger wishabir debateth whom I have had some level of interaction. He runs a website called “Calling Christians.” It is unfortunate that Ijaz has developed a peculiar habit of mishearing, or misreading, things that I say and write. It was no different in his review of my debate in London from last month with Dr. Shabir Ally on Tawhid vs. the Trinity. Almost none of his comments pertaining to the argumentation I presented in the debate fairly represented what I had said. I have been quite busy over the last month, and so have not had as much opportunity as I would have liked to comment on the debate more fully. Here, I am going to offer a rebuttal to Ijaz’s critique of my opening statement from the debate.

Ijaz briefly summarises Shabir’s opening statement, curiously omitting any mention of the numerous problems with Shabir’s Biblical argumentation (such as his misuse of Greek grammar in regards to John 1:1). He then begins his critique of my opening statement:

He began by defining the doctrine of the Trinity was. This is something I strongly agree with, opening a debate by delimiting the scope of the discussion. As a proponent of socratic thinking, this was a pleasant and welcomed feature of his presentation. As previously mentioned, it was expected that Jonathan would base his arguments about the nature of God by mainly appealing to the Bible. He opened by declaring that the Bible was a wholly Trinitarian text (timestamp in video, he says, “The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.”), which unfortunately for him, was pre-empted by Dr. Shabir who demonstrated it was not, thus Jonathan’s first argument was already weakened by Dr. Shabir. Jonathan then presented three other arguments which he felt negated the validity of the doctrine of Tawhid.

The first point to note here is that I never stated that “the Bible is a wholly Trinitarian text”. It is my view that one can demonstrate a multiplicity of divine persons from both the Old and New Testaments, while the doctrine of the Trinity reaches its fullest expression in the New Testament where we read of the incarnation of the Son of God. Ijaz was thus not far off my position, but he is incorrect to claim that this statement had been pre-empted by Shabir, since it is simply not what I said in my opening statement. What I said is that “the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.” The “Gospel” is not synonymous with “the Bible.” Ijaz claims that this was my “first argument”, but it was not an argument at all. It was a part of my introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity, before I got to my three-tiered argument.

Ijaz goes on to list the three main arguments I presented in the debate:

  • Tawhid has its own internal problems.
  • The disciples were Trinitarian.
  • The Injeel is Trinitarian.

He then represents my first argument as follows:

Of his first argument, he stated:

P1 – If Tawhid is true, it must be consistent.
P2 – Tawhid is not consistent.
C  – Therefore Tawhid must not be true.

That’s not quite what I said. My first premise was that, from a Muslim perspective, “If Tawhid is true, it must be consistent with the Qur’an.” My second premise was that Tawhid is not consistent with the Qur’an.

Ijaz goes on:

“Technically, this (form of argument) is referred to as Modus Tollens. The problem here, is that you have to prove the premises before you can qualify and validate your conclusion which is expected to be a tautology.”

Yes, this is a Modus Tollens argument. I don’t know why Ijaz seems to think that the need to demonstrate the truth of the premises in order to support the conclusion is a problem with this manner of argumentation. Anyway, he goes on:

“In attempting to do this, Jonathan disappointed me greatly. All he did was refer (timestamp in video, he says “Those who saw Shabir’s debate with Nabeel Qureishi would’ve been exposed to the problems with reconciling the eternality of the Qur’an with the doctrine of Tawhid.”) to the argument that Nabeel used regarding the Qur’an being the eternal word of Allah, yet physical and created. I was disappointed because this is an argument copied from Jay Smith, which Samuel Green tried to use on me in my debate with him, which Nabeel later picked up and tried to use against Dr. Shabir. The problem here is that Dr. Shabir already addressed this argument, and so have I. Jonathan merely repeated Nabeel’s poor argument. He did not try to revamp the argument, he did not add anything to the argument, he did not articulate it differently, he did not try to incorporate Dr. Shabir’s response to Nabeel into the argument. He quite literally just repeated the argument, which was already responded to. Naturally, I would expect, that if he did his homework and decided to use an argument which was already refuted, that he’d adjust the argument in some way. He didn’t do that. He presented nothing new. It was at that point I wondered why he even offered to debate the same topic if he was merely going to repeat the same points from the previous debate of the same topic by offering nothing new.”

The only problem is that I did not make this argument in my opening statement at all. I noted that Nabeel had made this argument in his debate with Shabir, and that I was going to be making a different argument instead. I do happen to think that this argument has something going for it, but I think the argument I did present in the debate is stronger.

He goes on:

“At this point, he presented another argument, namely that there are other creators other than Allah. He did not seem to understand that what he presented was the fallacy of false equivalency, wherein the Qur’an mentioned numerous times that there were agents of God who had abilities attained by the “leave/ permission of Allah”, which are temporal and not absolute. Logically, this would mean their abilities are not inherent and eternal, but appropriated by God, thus his argument was non-sequitur from the get go. I firmly believe that he did not critically consider this argument beyond a cursory copy and paste from Answering Islam’s website. Ironically, he attempted to present this argument in syllogistic form, but the argument was inherently non-sequitur due to its format including the fallacy of false equivalency. How he did not realise this, was impossible to understand, if he is using logic, he should know what fallacies are and how they inhibit his premises. What’s troubling is that in the same sentence he declares that Allah has no partners, then states in the same breath that the Holy Spirit shares in the divinity of God. That’s a contradiction, so either it is his argument and conclusions were wrong, or he forced a false conclusion which he himself did not notice.”

Briefly, the argument I presented in the debate is as follows: According to various texts in the Qur’an (e.g. Surah 2:28; 22:6), Allah is the creator of life. Surah 15:23 tells us,

“It is indeed We, and only We, who give life and bring death, and We are the ultimate inheritor.”

Surah 2:228 tells us that Allah is the one who creates life in the womb.

We also read that Allah creates life by breathing his spirit.

Surah 21:91:

“And (remember) her who protected her private part. So, We blew in her through Our Spirit, and made her and her son a sign for all the worlds.”

Surah 66:12:

“And Maryam, daughter of ‘Imran who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her Our Spirit, and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and His books, and she was one of the devout.”

Surah 15:28-29 also tells us about the creation of Adam:

“Recall when your Lord said to the angels, “I am going to create a human being from a ringing clay made of decayed mud. When I form him perfect, and blow in him of My spirit, then you must fall down before him in prostration.”

Surah 19:16-21 narrates the story of Allah’s Spirit appearing before Mary in the form of a perfect human being to announce the birth of Jesus and to tell her that he is going to give her a boy. This indicates that the Spirit is personal. Here is the text:

“And mention in the Book (the story of) Maryam, when she secluded herself from her people to a place towards East. Then she used a barrier to hide herself from them. Then We sent to her Our Spirit, and he took before her the form of a perfect human being. She said, “I seek refuge with the All Merciful (Allah) against you, if you are God-fearing.” He said “I am but a message-bearer of your Lord (sent) to give you a boy, purified.” She said, “How shall I have a boy while no human has ever touched me, nor have I ever been unchaste? He said, “So it is; your Lord said, ‘It is easy for Me, and (We will do this) so that We make it a sign for people and a mercy from Us, and this is a matter already destined.”

The Arabic word for “give” (Wahaba) means to give/grant/bestow/present etc.

Thus, the Holy Spirit also appears to have been the agent that created life in Mary’s womb and also brought life to Adam. In syllogistic form, I presented my argument as follows:

Premise 1: The Holy Spirit was who created life in Mary’s womb and brought Adam to life.

Premise 2: Allah also created life in Mary’s womb and brought Adam to life.

Premise 3: Therefore, one of three things is true: either the Holy Spirit is identical with Allah, or Allah has a separate co-creator, or one divine God creates life, and the Holy Spirit shares in that divinity.

Premise 4: Now of course, those first two options are not acceptable. The Spirit cannot be identical to Allah, since he describes himself as a message-bearer and also appears to be able to assume human form. Nor can the Spirit be a separate co-creator, since the Qur’an also affirms that God has no partners (Surah 4:116).

Conclusion: Therefore, the only option left is that the Holy Spirit shares in the Divinity, because only God creates.

I then showed that Surah 58:22 suggests that the Spirit has divine characteristics such as omnipresence:

“[Believers] are such that Allah has inscribed faith on their hearts, and has strengthened them with a spirit from Him.”

This text uses the same verb “to strengthen” as 2:87 and 5:110, in reference to the Spirit strengthening Jesus. If the Spirit strengthens all believers everywhere, I argued, does that not at least suggest that the Spirit is omnipresent and omnipotent – being present everywhere and being all powerful? Those are attributes that are thought to be uniquely associated with the divine. This portion of my argument was never addressed by Shabir in the debate.

Now, as to Ijaz’s comments on my argument, I am quite aware of the Qur’an speaking of agents of God who had abilities attained by the “leave/permission of Allah” which are temporal in nature — such as Jesus’ ability to perform miracles for instance. This is the point raised by Shabir in his rebuttal, which is a response that I had anticipated to be his most likely defence. In response, I had cited Surah 32:6-9:

“That One is the All-knower of the Unseen and the seen, the All-Mighty, the Very-Merciful, who made well whatever He created, and started the creation of man from clay. Then He made his progeny from a drop of semen, from despised water. Then He gave him a proportioned shape, and breathed into him of His spirit. And He granted you the (power of) hearing and the eyes and the hearts. Little you give thanks.”

Breathing of the divine Spirit thus appears to be the common mechanism by which Allah creates life. It is by breathing the divine Spirit that, according to Surah 66:12, Allah created life in Mary’s womb — and yet we know from Surah 19 that this same divine Spirit is a personal entity. Shabir accused me at this point of having misread the text of Surah 32, since verse 4 stresses that Allah alone is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all contained therein. But this was precisely my point. If Allah does not have a separate co-creator, then the Spirit must share in the divinity with Allah — in a similar way to the manner in which Christians believe that Yahweh alone is the creator of the heavens and the earth, whereas the Son and Spirit share in the divinity with the Father, three persons making up one divine being. I did not have time to do this in the debate, but let me at this time support my interpretation of Surah 32 by citing a respected Quranic commentator. Maulana Muhammad Ali notes in his comments on Surah 32:9 that,

“This verse shows that the spirit of God is breathed into every man. This points to a mystical relation between human nature and Divine nature. The word ruh does not here mean the animal soul, because the animal soul is common to man and the animal kingdom. It is something that distinguishes man from the animal world. It is due to the spirit Divine that he rules creation and its due to the same Divine spirit in him that he receives a new life after death – a life which he lives in God and with God – the meeting with God or liqa Allah, as it is called in v. 10.”

Continuing our analysis of Ijaz’s review, Ijaz goes on:

His second argument was that the disciples of Jesus were Trinitarian. Interestingly, I had a debate on this topic earlier in the year and demonstrated that according to the proto-orthodox Christian tradition, the disciples were definitely not Trinitarian. At this point he introduced a very strange argument.

P1 – If the Disciples of Jesus were Trinitarian then the Islamic concept of God is false.
P2 – The Disciples of Christ were Trinitarian.
C   – Therefore the Islamic concept of God is false.

Bizarrely, Ijaz goes on to accuse me of making a circular argument:

“Jonathan cannot make such an argument and believe that he is arguing logically. This is known as the fallacy of circular reasoning.”

There is no way in which the above argument can possibly be construed as circular. The Qur’an makes a prediction about what we should expect to find (namely, that the disciples believed Islamic doctrines such as Tawhid). I then set out to falsify this prediction, in my judgement successfully. Nothing circular about it. It seems to me that Ijaz needs to study some logic.

Ijaz continues:

“What is worse was his attempt at drawing out the logical routes. He presumed that Dr. Shabir could refute his argument in one of two ways, firstly that the disciples were later misled or secondly, that the disciples were overcome (by other groups). Jonathan posited that the second option was impossible as the Qur’an says they were victors. The problem therein with his reasoning is that the Qur’an does not say in what way they were victors. He assumes that it has to be in the promulgation of their beliefs, which the Qur’an does not state itself.

But the Qur’an does specify that Allah would “place those who follow [Jesus] above those who disbelieve up to the Day of Resurrection.” This strongly suggests a continuity of dominance, right from day one. It was the Christianity represented by Paul and the other apostles that achieved dominance. Furthermore, several early highly respected Quranic commentators were led to praise the apostle Paul as a direct result of these verses, as I pointed out in my first rebuttal. Among them are ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurturbi, and ibn Ishaq. Since all of those respected commentators affirm my interpretation of these verses, I think that puts me in good company.

Ijaz goes on:

“It is alleged that the early Christians were persecuted and the religion did not become “accepted” until Constantine’s conversion. According to Jonathan’s appeal to the Qur’an, he alleged that the Qur’an mentioned the disciples of Christ were victorious. Yet the Church was not accepted or mainstream until 300 years after them, so in what way were the disciples victorious according to his reading of the Qur’an?”

I would disagree with this historical point, although it would take a while to demonstrate. Perhaps this is a topic for a future debate. I refer interested readers to The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Michael Kruger and Andreas Kostenberger, for a review of this view popularised by Walter Bauer and, more recently, Bart Ehrman.

Ijaz goes on to say,

“At this point, he began to appeal to the New Testament as a historical witness, but for those of you familiar with Dr. Shabir’s works and my own, we already know that the New Testament en toto is not historically viable nor accurate. I have explicitly explained this in great detail in my debate with Steven on the very topic of the beliefs of the disciples using palaeography, papyrology, form criticism, textual criticism and historical criticism.”

My appeals to the New Testament, however, were all prefaced with argumentation as to why we should take the documents I cited (namely, the non-disputed works of Paul, the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John) seriously. Ijaz did not interact with the material I presented (nor really did Shabir). I have argued extensively elsewhere for the general historical credibility of the New Testament, and so I need not reiterate myself here.

Ijaz continues,

“He began to close his argument by referring to hadith criticism’s use of the isnad or chain of transmission. Unfortunately, he merely referred to the use of the chain of transmission by Islamic scholarship, what he utterly failed to do was qualify the authority of these alleged chains of transmission by applying the methods of hadith criticism to the chains themselves. I myself did this in my debate with Steven, in fact this was one of the arguments I researched in great detail and whose historicity the early Church itself disputed. Thus, by both Christian historical traditions and the methodology of hadith criticism, the chains of transmission in regard to John used by Jonathan are known to have been falsified and are historically inaccurate. I do not believe that Jonathan spent more than a few minutes constructing this argument, nor do I believe he consulted any major works of Patristic criticism, especially due to the reason his sole academic source seemed to be Richard Bauckham, whom I also referenced in my debate. I do believe he rushed through this portion of his opening statement, and I do not believe he himself knew in any great detail the methodologies of hadith criticism, and so his appeal to this Christian isnad was mere buzz word dropping.”

I did not apply methods of hadith criticisms to the chains themselves largely due to the time constraints in my opening statement, and also because I was not challenged on it throughout the debate. If Ijaz really wants to do a debate with me on whether the gospels or the Sahih ahadith are better representatives of the sayings and deeds of Jesus and Muhammad respectively, I would be happy to do that.

Ijaz offered no comment on the third argument I presented in the debate, namely that the Injeel (i.e. the gospel) is Trinitarian and that the Injeel is affirmed by the Qur’an.

Ijaz finishes his review by claiming that I did not put much thought into my opening statement, that I did not present any new material, and that I did not present the Trinity. I would disagree with him strongly on all three of those points. As time permits, I will put out some further reviews of the argumentation covered in the debate.

Should Christians ever disobey their government? Some say no. But Kim Davis sides with Martin Luther King and thinks civil disobedience is justified. Ms. Davis is the Rowan County Kentucky clerk who spent five days in jail for refusing to put her name on same sex marriage licenses. Claiming to be a new Christian, Ms. Davis is also a long-time Democrat.

In court last week, Judge David Bunning told Davis: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He said that “if you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”

Judge Bunning is absolutely right. This is the kind of chaos that results when people do not respect the law. But I’m not referring to Kim Davis—I’m referring to the United States Supreme Court. As I’ve written before, and the multiple dissents state more eloquently, there is no justification in the Constitution for judicially imposing genderless marriage on every state in the union. Five unelected justices simply imposed their own law on 330 million people.

But does that justify civil disobedience? Where do you draw the line?

Certainly, there is a line somewhere. After all, we laud those behind the Underground Railroad who freed slaves and those who protected Jews in Nazi Germany. While bad marriage laws are obviously not as serious, consider a more equivalent scenario: Suppose the Supreme Court decided to drop the age of consent in every state to twelve years old (a position Ruth Bader Ginsberg supported before she became a Supreme Court Justice). Would you think that Kim Davis should be forced to endorse the marriage of a 75 year-old man who brought a twelve year-old girl into her office? I hope you can see that there is a line and it’s not far from Kim Davis.

Liberals believe in civil disobedience—when it suits their causes. Despite chanting, “Do your job!” outside Kim Davis’s office, liberals were rejoicing when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to violate California law and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2004. They certainly were not chanting “Do your job” outside of Attorney General Eric Holder’s office when he told the states last year to ignore their own laws that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And liberals were not asking a federal judge to throw President Obama in jail when he refused to do his job by defending the Defense of Marriage Act in Court.

So just ten minutes ago liberals believed that defying marriage laws was heroic! Now their blatant double standard is all too obvious—they laud civil disobedience when it’s used to advance the religion of sex and denounce it when it’s used to protect Christian or natural law beliefs.

But on what authority does one defy the government? One man who wanted a same-sex marriage license asked Kim Davis on “what authority” was she not issuing licenses. She cited God.

Yet, the question needs to be asked of both sides. By what authority did Newsom, Holder, Obama and other liberal politicians defy the law? They certainly weren’t citing God or the Creator cited in our Declaration of Independence who gives us unalienable rights. But without an authority beyond man’s law, there is no authority for their actions nor is there any objective standard to ground unalienable rights. Without God, every right claim is merely a human opinion. At least Kim Davis, agree with her or not, is citing an authority beyond herself.

Civil disobedience has rich precedent in the United States. In fact, our country was founded on it largely to secure religious freedom. Civil disobedience also has precedent in the Bible. When Pharaoh ordered Hebrew midwives to murder all Hebrew boys, they disobeyed and even lied to the authorities (Exodus 1). And Daniel and his friends peacefully defied laws that contracted God’s commands. Likewise, when the Jewish authorities told John and Peter to stop telling people the good news that Jesus paid for your sins and rose from the dead, they disobeyed saying that they would obey God rather than men (Acts 4).

Therefore, the principle for Christians is this: civil disobedience is necessary when a government compels you to sin or prevents you from doing something God commands you to do. You don’t disobey the government merely because it permits others to sin—only when it compels you to do so. Kim Davis thinks that line has been crossed.

It’s actually not hard to avoid crossing the line. Both parties can be accommodated as Judge Bunning finally figured out when he released Davis yesterday. In North Carolina, we passed a law to allow people like Kim Davis to opt out of endorsing relationships that violated their religious or moral beliefs. Since other government employees are more than happy to issue licenses, no one is inconvenienced or forced to violate conscience. We do this for far more serious issues than weddings. For example, even during a time of war when we draft people to defend the country, we allow for conscientious objectors to opt out. If we can allow exemptions for government employees involved in protecting the very existence of our nation, we can certainly allow exemptions for government employees involved in weddings!

Will the Kentucky legislature act when it returns in January to pass such a law? Unfortunately, I doubt the activists who are always demanding tolerance will tolerate such reasonableness. It seems that some people just can’t live and let live. They will not rest until all opposition is crushed and everyone is forced to celebrate what they are doing.

If that’s your position, I have a question for you: Why would you want anyone who disagrees with your wedding to have anything to do with it? Go to another clerk, another florist, another photographer. Why force people to violate their conscience when there are so many other people willing to help you and celebrate with you?  After all, isn’t this supposed to be a time when “love wins?”

Apparently not. For some liberals “love wins” as long as everyone agrees with them. Those that disagree will not like the kind of “love” some liberals dish out. Are the same people who are chanting “love wins” some of the same people who issued death threats to Kim Davis? It’s certainly wasn’t the Christians.

The truth is Kim Davis and other victims of “tolerance” don’t want a holy war. Davis just doesn’t want her signature on the license. She suggested other government officials sign, and Judge Bunning finally agreed. But a law needs to be passed to prevent future problems.

North Carolina has led the way. It remains to be seen if liberals in Kentucky will accept that way. If their recent history is a guide, I’m afraid they will demand that every knee bow and every tongue confess the dogma of their secular religion.

(This column also appears at Townhall.com) and Stream.org 

En mi nuevo libro, “La Escena de Crimen de Dios: Un Detective de Homicidios Examina Evidencia para un Universo Divinamente Creado”, yo examino ocho trazos de evidencia en el universo mientras pregunto algo simple que usamos en investigaciones: “¿Puedo explicar la evidencia ‘en la habitación’ (del universo natural) mientras me quedo dentro de la habitación?”. Esta es la pregunta que uso en cada escena de muerte para determinar si en verdad es una escena de crimen. Cuando la evidencia “en la habitación” no se puede explicar al permanecer “en la habitación”, tengo que considerar la participación de un intruso. Si la evidencia dentro del universo no puede explicarse al mantenerse “dentro” de la esfera natural del universo, debemos tener en cuenta igualmente la participación de un intruso cósmico. Una pieza de evidencia crítica en el universo es la existencia de morales objetivos que son transcendentes. ¿Podemos nosotros explicar estas verdades mientras nos quedamos “dentro de la habitación”?

Muchos filósofos y pensadores ateos buscan explicar las verdades morales desde “dentro de la habitación” del universo natural. Ellos ofrecen que las sociedades y culturas son la fuente de la moralidad. De acuerdo con este punto de vista (llamado “relativismo moral”), la moralidad varía de cultura a cultura. No hay morales  universales que son objetivas ni transcendentes para “todas las personas todo el tiempo.” Los relativistas morales creen que las culturas y los grupos de personas son los que crean sus propios códigos morales en vez de descubrirlos. Los códigos morales son una construcción social diseñada por la mayoría para ayudar a que el grupo mantenga la armonía social y aumenta su capacidad de supervivencia. Pero si el acuerdo cultural determina las verdades morales, varios problemas emergen:

Este enfoque confunde la diversidad cultural con la claridad moral

El relativismo moral reconoce correctamente la diversidad cultural y moral del mundo, pero esta observación falla en falsificar la existencia de morales transcendentes y objetivos. Las culturas pueden diferir en sus creencias acerca de lo que causa la tuberculosis, pero esto no significa que no haya una verdad objetiva acerca de la causa y la naturaleza de la enfermedad. La diversidad de las creencias subjetivas tiene muy poco que ver con la existencia de la verdad objetiva.

Este enfoque falla en identificar qué “cultura” rige qué

Si las verdades morales emergen del consenso de los grupos de personas, ¿qué grupo de personas es el que decide? ¿El tamaño o cuán poderoso es un grupo es lo que decide cuál grupo es calificado para ser la autoridad? El relativismo moral nos niega la habilidad para declarar que un grupo tiene más autoridad que otro, a menos que estemos dispuestos a apelar a una autoridad que transciende todos los grupos.

Este enfoque silencia la critica intercultural

Si las verdades morales son un producto del consenso cultural, ninguna cultura está en una posición para criticar o alabar el comportamiento de otra cultura. El relativismo moral no nos permite decir, “La tortura es objetivamente mala.” Lo mejor que podemos hacer es simplemente decir, “No nos gusta la tortura aquí en nuestra cultura”. Pero ¿cuál es la razón por lo cual le debe importar a alguien lo que pensamos si las verdades morales son relativas en cada cultura? Si la moral es simplemente un producto de la opinión cultural, las proclamaciones acerca de los verdades morales son como declaraciones sobre nuestras preferencias de comida: interesantes, pero en última instancia, no importan.

Este enfoque depende demasiado en el acuerdo

Si los grupos de personas deciden qué es lo que es moralmente correcto o incorrecto, ¿cómo debemos considerar un acto en particular si no hay un acuerdo cultural definitivo? ¿Significa esto que un acto no tiene estatus moral hasta que la mayoría se puede poner de acuerdo es ello? ¿Y qué tan grande tiene que ser la mayoría? Si el relativismo moral es verdad, no podemos hacer una declaración acerca del estatus moral de cualquier acto hasta que hemos llegado a un consenso cultural.

Este enfoque margina a los reformadores morales

Si las verdades morales son decididas por el acuerdo cultural, basadas en las creencias de la mayoría – ¿cómo debemos evaluar aquellos individuos en la minoría? ¿No serían considerados inmorales por definición? Los reformadores morales como Ghandi y Martin Luther King Jr., quienes empezaron sus esfuerzos de reforma moral como individuos defendiendo un punto de vista minoritario, serían impotentes para lograr un cambio si la verdad moral fuera realmente establecida como los relativistas morales proponen. Los Reformadores como éstos apelan hacia las verdades morales que transcienden la opinión de la mayoría cuando argumentan por el cambio. Si la verdad moral empieza en el nivel de la cultura, no hay una autoridad más allá de la sociedad a quien podemos recurrir.

Este enfoque alienta y emplea el comportamiento inmoral

Si los códigos morales son creados sistemáticamente y aceptados por las culturas como un esfuerzo para mantener la armonía social y para aumentar su supervivencia, ¿cómo podremos evitar los actos culturalmente egoístas? Si una actividad en particular aumenta la armonía social y la supervivencia de nuestra cultura, pero logra esto en detrimento de la cultura vecina, ¿hace esto el comportamiento moralmente aceptable? La esclavitud puede aumentar la supervivencia de una cultura en vez de otra – especialmente en vez de la cultura que esta esclavizado. De hecho, un argumento para la continuación de la esclavitud en América giraba alrededor de los beneficios que tuvo para la economía. Los retos para la supervivencia, incluyendo la supervivencia económica, pueden y han sido utilizados para excusar comportamientos inmorales egoístas.

Este enfoque confunde el reconocimiento con la existencia

Mientras está claro que los grupos de personas emplean principios morales para promover su bienestar y su supervivencia, los que reclaman que las sociedades son la fuente de estos principios –ya sea a través de algún proceso de  progreso social o evolución psicológica– están confundiendo el reconocimiento moral con la existencia moral. Aun las propuestas evolutivas más robustas relacionadas con el origen de la verdad moral simplemente ofrecen una descripción del por qué y cómo los humanos han empleado los principios morales para aumentar su supervivencia. Las culturas reconocen y emplean los principios morales, pero esto no significa que fueron creados a través de estos principios. De hecho, muchos científicos y filósofos son sospechosos de cualquier relación entre la evolución y la virtud moral. El proceso evolutivo muchas veces resulta en la falta de armonía y en conflictos; parece que la moralidad requiere que nosotros superemos el “monstruo evolutivo” dentro de cada uno de nosotros.

El relativismo moral es simplemente otro intento fallido de “permanecer dentro de la habitación” del universo natural para explicar la existencia de las verdades morales objetivas. La mejor explicación para la existencia de la verdad moral transcendente es simplemente la existencia de la fuente transcendente de la obligación moral que esta “afuera” de la habitación del universo natural.

 


J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Traducido por Bryan Woodward.

Beyond surpassing wonder about God or mere inquiry about Him and His truth, doubt digs much deeper. Doubt doesn’t just ask, “What is real?” It poses the challenge, “Is my faith real?” Is what I believe really valid? Or is it simply a modified myth, an uber-marketed religious fairy tale supported by millions of gullible minds throughout history?

Doubt trumps wondering, and it body-slams mere curiosity. In its worst form, it goes beyond simply searching for answers to questions, inevitably denying the legitimacy of the questions themselves.

FREE “Doubting Toward Faith” Chapter – Click here to DOWNLOAD NOW!

For Christians, doubt can either serve us or sink us. It can drive us to seek truth or it can drown us in despair, hopelessness, and confusion. If ignored or left unchecked, it can bore into our brain, releasing a virus of unbelief, infecting and eventually destroying every healthy thought about God. It can take us to the place where nothing else matters. Where we find ourselves loathing even life itself.

If left unchecked, intellectual doubt metastasizes, seeping its way into our emotions and collecting a wide array of fears, worries, anxieties, anger, confusion, depression, and ultimately despair at the thought of being played or duped or envisioning a life without our once “cherished belief” in God.

Horrifying so, doubt is no stranger to our time. And capturing the zeitgeist of our changing times is quite the project. We live in a multi-textured culture that is replete with innumerable beliefs, opinions, ideas, and life philosophies. Ours is a culture of doubt and longing, faith and questioning, searching and probing. And much of the doubt has been accelerated by fast-paced change. Our culture is living between the tension of what we once were and what we are now becoming. And for many, waiting in the blank space between the definition of what we were and the search to define what we are becoming feels for the moment confusing, and even a bit uncomfortable.

Echoing this angst, Os Guinness writes, “We live in an age of doubt, disillusion and disaffiliation, which naturally prizes what has been described as ‘the faith that you go to when you don’t know where to go.”[i] Both our pluralistic and secularized culture has produced a fragilized-self as it pertains to doubt.[ii] We’ve shifted from Christianity to Anyanity (pluralism) or Noanity (atheism).

Belief isn’t nearly as comfortable and cozy as it once seemed. There’s an irritant to it; like a pebble in a shoe, these competing beliefs have made the faith walk a little less comfortable. Today, record numbers of those who once professed faith in Christ are walking away from the church, even limping, in the name of doubt.

Such torturous doubt splits the mind. And contrary to popular belief, intellectual doubt is not the opposite of faith; unbelief is. Doubt is in between, seesawing and dangling in the middle.

Yet, make no mistake. Doubt never stays put. It’s not neutral.

It makes up its mind.

It’s directional.

It’s going somewhere.

This means a person will either doubt toward unbelief or they will doubt toward faith. You’ll waver one way or another. But thankfully God can discern the nature of our doubts. There’s skeptical doubt and sincere doubt. There is antagonistic doubt and authentic doubt. And the difference between them is worlds apart. Those who hold to the latter want their doubts solved so they can go forward with God, while the former want their doubts confirmed so they can move beyond God.

Next time you find yourself experiencing a bout with doubt, or the angst of a splintered mind let me encourage you to doubt toward faith. And I’m not talking about an empty existential faith that takes a leap into the darkness, but rather a bona fide trusting faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. Yes, next time you doubt.

Doubt.

Toward.

Jesus!

[i] Os Guinness, Renaissance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 25.

[ii] Philosopher James K.A. Smith describes fragilization as follows, “In the face of different options, where people who lead ‘normal’ lives do not share my faith (and perhaps believe something different), my own faith commitment becomes fragile—put into question, dubitable.” How (Not) To Be Secular (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2014), 141.

[iii] Adapted from: DOUBTING TOWARD FAITH

Copyright © 2015 Bobby Conway

Published by Harvest House Publishers

Eugene, Oregon

www.harvesthousepublishers.com

Used by Permission.

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. QUESTION FOR UR TEEN “Rather than asking, “What are you going to do when you grow up?” and “Where are you going to college?” we could ask today’s multitalented, multipassionate teens a question like, “What problems would you like to help solve?” I’ve had some amazing conversations with youth that began with this question. In their answers we’ll often see connections to high school electives, college majors, and careers, so it can stimulate a great conversation.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. PLACE OF REST “When we walk down heaven’s golden streets, we will never see a hospital. There will be no more sickness. We will never see a counseling center. There will be no more depression or mental illness. We will never see a funeral home. There will be no more death there. We will never see a policeman in uniform or a police station. There is no crime there. There will be no courthouses on the square. There will be no lawsuits and no one seeking to cheat anyone else out of something that is rightfully theirs. We will never hear the shrill sound of an ambulance siren. There will be no more emergencies. We will never have to lock our homes or look behind us to see who is following us as we walk along. There will be no more fear. We will never see a handicapped parking place or a ramp for a wheelchair. There will be no nursing homes there for we will never grow old. Heaven is a place of rest.”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

  1. HAPPY BDAY “A man entered a stationery store and asked the clerk for a “birthday-anniversary” card. The clerk replied, “We have birthday cards, and we have anniversary cards. Why not take one of each?” He said, “You don’t understand. I need a card that covers both events. You see, we’re celebrating the fifth anniversary of my wife’s thirty-fourth birthday.

Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”

  1. REARING CHILDREN “If you neglect to instruct them in the way of holiness, will the devil neglect to instruct them in the way of wickedness? No, no, if you will not teach them to pray, he will teach them to curse, swear and lie. If ground be uncultivated, weeds will spring up.

If the season of their youth is neglected, how little probability is there of any good fruit afterwards? Youth is the molding age (Proverbs 22:6). How few are converted in old age? A twig is brought to any form, but grown limbs will not bend.

There is none in the world so likely as you to be instruments of their eternal good. You have peculiar advantages that no one else has; such as the interest you have in their affections; your opportunities to instill the knowledge of Christ into them, being daily with them (Deuteronomy 6:7); your knowledge of their character. If therefore you neglect, who shall help them?

Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”

  1. PC AND TRUTH “Political correctness, which foists upon us a common language for postmodern thinking that encourages the notion that all truth is defined by man subjectively, rather than being defined outside of man, who is then subject to that truth. Since we don’t like being anyone’s subjects (that smacks of kings and despots), we rebel to think we are bound by anything. After all, independence is core to America’s national identity.

Political correctness likes the road to truth to be wide, very wide, with many roads to it so that

anyone can build their own road. The obvious end result is the dissolution of absolutes. But Jesus said He was the truth. Absolutely.

Political correctness, when confronted logically, is confusing and intellectually dishonest in its attempt to relegate truth to the wide road. Truth, by definition, must be narrow and not wide. It only allows for one way.”

Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”

  1. SIMPLE OBSERVATION “The world is round,” said Christopher Columbus. “No, it’s not,” said the public, “it’s flat.”

To convince the public otherwise, fifteenth century scientists first had to prove that the world wasn’t flat. One of their more convincing arguments was the fact that sailors at sea were first able to observe the tops of the masts of an approaching ship, then the sails, then the hull. If the world were flat, they would see the whole ship at once.

All the mathematical arguments in the world weren’t as effective as a simple observation the public could verify themselves.”

Excerpt From: Al Ries & Jack Trout. “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”

  1. FLAG DAY Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent nineteenth-century Congregationalist clergyman and social reformer, stated this:

“A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation’s flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the government, the rinciples, the truths, the history which belongs to the nation that sets it forth.”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. CHRISTIAN FOUNDERS “It wasn’t long after the colonists defeated the Red Coats that the state governments that had been controlled by the British had to be established with new state constitutions. It is interesting to read what many of the men who signed the founding documents placed in their original new state constitutions. Delaware provides one example, but other states were similar:

“Every person appointed to public office shall say, “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do knowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. EVIL FAITH? “I think that a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion.” -Richard Dawkins

It would be a mistake to think that this extreme view is typical. Many atheists are far from happy with its militancy, not to mention its repressive, even totalitarian, overtones.

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. WISDOM “To acquire information, much less wisdom, one’s lips cannot be moving. Moreover, as we listen to learn, we learn to listen.”

Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”