The debate is as 12pm EDT – you can get directions to the chat channel it’s being held in here. The thesis: “Is the Qur’an the Word of God?”

I was struck, this morning, by Jamin’s article, also reposted to AOMin. Let me explain. I’m in agreement with Jamin 99% of the time – I even contributed to his book – “The Portable Presuppositionalist”. However, there are some statements in this article that I’d like to address. He has been dialoguing via email to Fred Butler, of Hip and Thigh, and decided to share his recent response as a blog post. In this article, he has the following statement:

We can calculate some numbers back to Adam, and that’s pretty cool. But that in no way results in “inerrancy and old earth creationism can never mix.” Again, must we really take the lead of Morris, Hovind, Ham, Chaffey, and others on the old-earth debate just because they had some good things to say instead of thinking more critically and realizing that the age of the earth just is not a hill worth dying on?

When I examined the article a bit closer, I noticed a few issues.

In his response concerning the uniqueness of the Genesis account, I read this:

A. The primary (e.g. most explicit and obvious) internal structure of the book is the Toledoth formula – “these are the generations of” …, which is mentioned 11 times from 2:4 to the end of the book. This heading not only “indicates a historical impulse” (Introduction to OT, 54), but it encapsulates the whole book into one category…except Gen 1, which is the only chapter in the book not to have this introduction. … Gen. 1 is unique in that respect.

B. The only citation of Gen 1 in the NT is of man being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27 in Matt 19 and Mark 10), a strongly theological point; there is no reference to chronology of Gen 1 in any of the NT, and (as far as I remember) any of the OT. Instead, Genesis 1 has some other literary features and “Hebrew parallelism”:

Maybe I’m missing something… but wouldn’t it be a bit tough to have the Toledoth formula in the chapter where the progenitors of those generations are created? It reminds me (forgive me!) of the argument that is often presented in regards to the period of enscripturation of the NT. It is, by it’s nature, an exception – which leads me to the next point.

Maybe, again, I’m missing something – but isn’t there another formula in Genesis 1 that is inherently chronological? “And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.” That would seem to me the formula that binds this together, and makes it a chronological account, all at once.

But it is to say that if we have a question specifically about chronology, Gen. 2 would probably be the first place we should go, and if we have a general question about theology and the origins of all things – from birds to water – we should probably go to Gen. 1.
So, those are a couple of “the ways” I was referring to, and this is why I am hesitant to say “I’m a literal 24-hr 6-day young earth creationist” even though much of what I believe falls into that camp.

As pointed out above, I think that we’re forgetting something very important here. Morning, evening, day. The context for “day” is clearly presented, by “morning and evening”. So I’m not hesitant to subscribe to my confession at all in the matter of 6-day creationism.

The genealogies provide a reliable chronological line that ruins any assertions of an old man, for the people are the concern of the genealogies, not the earth. Granted, there is a link between people and events in history and areas of the earth, etc., but, again, the primary purpose of genealogies are to show who lived when and from what persons they came. And, you seemed to have missed what I said about time itself being created during the creation account, and how there are countless assumptions about the time-space continuum that we bring to the table when making arguments about time and creation.

Well, for the first point, obviously I agree. That’s really not the point of an OEC, however – a TE, yes, but not an OEC. As for the second – of course people are the focus of genealogies – but the chapter in question is what is the *foundation for* those genealogies. Which really points out the central reason I’m writing this. My concern is for two things. First, whether or not we are examining this with Biblical presuppositions. Second, whether or not we are *truly defending Christianity as a system*, or “as a unit” – NOT in “block house” fashion. My concern is that we are *overlooking* the presuppositions that OEC brings to Scripture, as well as *failing to see* the presuppositions *in* Scripture at this very point. As to the time issue – I think the above also solves that issue. We’re talking days. Evening, morning. Day. God created time, obviously, but finitude requires it – so, as creation begins, time, at that instant, begins.

The next section is where the rubber hits the road for me.

But I challenge you and other Christians to think more clearly about what is more significant; the war we wage is not the age of the earth because there’s no clear, direct line being crossed. Not only is the science under debate, but the Christians of the OT and NT would be rather baffled about how the age of the universe is so central to defending the faith. But, they would, however, give birth to a royal conniption if someone told them “man came from animals and they’re still made in God’s image.”

I would disagree on several points here. First, we’re being given a choice – the age of the earth, or man came from animals, and they’re still made in God’s image. Second, we are told there is no clear line being crossed. Third, I haven’t mentioned a word about science yet, in my response. Fourth, this is a modern debate in this particular context.

First: Is it our goal, as Covenantal Apologists, to argue on this level? Don’t we have to look at the *presuppositions underlying the assertion*? Here’s the deal – and this is where I want the reader to pay attention, if they’ve been on cruise control thus far. The underlying presupposition of *both* Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism is that autonomous man is the primary authority on matters of empirical/natural science. There is no reason that I can see to assert an old earth, whatsoever, apart from naturalistic assumptions. The same assumptions, I’d assert, that are *more consistently* applied by the TE advocate, and even more consistently by a secular naturalist. The assertion is human autonomy, and it regulates the pages of Scripture.

“The relation between science and Scripture is not one of synthesis between two tentative theories; rather, it must be one of subordination. If science is not subordinate of Scripture, then Scripture must be subordinate to science and science itself will be autonomous. If science is independent of revelation, then nature must be assumed to be self-sufficient and containing in itself the principles for its own interpretation. Thus God is either identified with nature (the error of pantheism) or is shoved out of the picture altogether (the practical result of deism). Either God is God, or science deifies itself.”

~Greg Bahnsen

While Van Til notes, of course, that unbelievers are “in principle” autonomous, while believers “in principle” think God’s thoughts after Him; in practice, we are inconsistent. What we’re seeing here is either more or less “in practice” denial of the principles of believers – in favor of the practical adoption of autonomous principles. In this area – and remember, we defend Christianity as a unit – they have atomized their position, and are standing on enemy ground in their examination of Scripture. Since this is the case – be it severe, in the case of the unbelieving evolutionist, great, in the case of a theistic evolutionist, or small, in the case of an Old-Earther, the principle is the same. The extent of consistency to be found is the difference we see here.

Second, the line is clear, and has been crossed. The line, however, is not the age of the earth, it is the dividing line between man’s theology and God’s. In one case, we are affirming that the earth is relatively young, because we have the history of that relatively young earth in our hands, in the Scriptures. In the second, we have naturalistic principles being used as the “colored glasses” through which we see the world. We have God as center, and we have man as center – I would respectfully submit that the central issue is one of presupposition – and that brings OEC into a light other than that presented in this article.

Third, the problem is the naturalistic assumptions which underpin the desire of the OEC advocates to *adhere to this stance in the first place*. The desire is, as Bahnsen pointed out earlier, to “synthesize” science and Scripture. What ends up happening, however, is that Scripture is *subordinated to* science. This is, as I’ve pointed out, the *same presuppositional issue* found in TE. The difference is in their level of consistency.

Fourth, would Jamin make this same argument concerning the ECFs not addressing later controversies? Since this is a modern argument, we won’t find it addressed in history in the context we are in today. Every generation has it’s own apologetic context in which it has to give an answer – and, as I’ve argued, the central issue is *the* central issue of our apologetic and the theology from which it springs – who God is, and what He has revealed about Himself and His creation. Is our view on this subject God-centered or man-centered? A subject similar was addressed by Augustine, as has been argued ad nauseum elsewhere thus won’t be detailed here, but it was not the same context at all.

And that is, indeed, the true line that is being crossed with theistic evolution, and as such, it is where our attention should be directed. The BioLogos forum needs to be held accountable not for their standard evolutionary view of the age of the earth, but for their anti-Christian view of God’s images. Even though some more popular apologists, thinkers, and Christians are finally waking up to the sheer absurdity of this primary thesis of BioLogos, I am still surprised more Christians aren’t as upset and aren’t more proactive in trying to set up a moderated debate with someone from the BioLogos Forum over this issue.

Here’s where I’d like to point out that the line being set is a bit arbitrary. I agree that the problem is not the age of the earth – but once again, I think this article has mistaken the correct focus of the debate. It is not on the age of the earth – but on the presuppositions underlying our position on the age of the earth. The image of God in man is our point of contact with the believer, yes? Well, since when are we saying it’s satisfactory to give into the presupposition that naturalism can be the interpretive grid by which we exegete Scripture? The extent of consistency to that position is less than the TE would go, true – but is it not the same presupposition? When we say that man’s autonomy, presuppositionally, is the root – we can, to some extent, “prioritize” – but I don’t see the root issue as anything other than the same root issue of Arminianism, evidentialism, or other topics we’re more than happy to address, and spend a great deal of time in so doing. Van Til, as I’m sure Jamin knows, spent an extensive amount of time tracing down autonomy as the root for a great number of issues – and this fits that pattern like a glove.

Here’s a great illustration from Van Til. If they are, as I claim, embracing autonomy on this point – “…the… apologist would not be in a position to wipe out any of the signs that point in the wrong direction. An… apologist meeting the natural man as both stop at one of the service stations is in a strange predicament. Since he is a Christian, he should really speak to the natural man about the fact that he is following the wrong signs. But since he himself holds to a measure of autonomy for man, and since this undermines his own belief in creation, he can at best say to his friend that is it doubtful which signs are right. Then as far as his “neutral” apologetic method is concerned, … in the interest of getting his friend to go in the right direction, admits that the signs that point in the wrong direction are right. He himself goes in the wrong direction for some distance too with the natural man. He fully agrees with the natural man when together they start on their wrong course, and he still fully agrees on the way to the city of destruction. Then suddenly he puts on the brakes and turns around, expecting his friend will do the same. Thus in the whole business he has dishonored his God (a) by practically admitting that his revelation is not plain and (b) by himself running away from God in his interpretation of natural revelation and in his subjection of supernatural revelation to the illegitimate requirements of the natural man.” (Defense of the Faith, pg 135)

Just to note something interesting – and a bit providential – just moments before the link to this posted in #pros, I was reading an article on Justin Taylor’s blog touting Tim Keller’s “Reason for God” DVD. Nic had posted a comment related to whether or not something Dr. Keller said in that trailer was a violation of the myth of neutrality. We were discussing that issue, and I was posting a comment to Dr. Keller right then. Like you, I would be glad to see a debate with BioLogos – but I’d also like to see a more presuppositional tack – and heat – applied to the OEC position, as well. He replied, incidentally, and my response was to ask him whether his naturalistic presuppositions were capable of providing him a consistent position from which to defend.

While I understand your approach to priority, I disagree with the emphasis. I’m concerned with the presuppositions they are bringing to the table by embracing OEC; since, as I’ve argued, they are the *same* presuppositions the naturalist, be they secular or theistic, bring to the table. As you and I both know, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument – my intent here was to point out that the same root issue is beneath OEC that is under Arminianism, Roman Catholicism, Evidentialism, and a host of other man-centered movements and positions – autonomy. Thank you for your patience in looking through my response.

~RK

Addendum: I’ve had one criticism thus far, and they say about my post, “it reads like a criticism of Hubner over Old Earth creationism”. While it is, in a sense, it’s a criticism of his position concerning challenging said OEC position. The criticism is of OEC, yes – but to point out how it’s presuppositions are the same as TEs, just not taken as consistently – and that, in order to point out that it should be critiqued on the same basis as TE. Whatever view the critique’s author holds (and he doesn’t say, other than to tell us that this doesn’t apply to him), he is left with the same dilemma as always. He can say that man is old – which Jamin specifically rebuts: “The genealogies provide a reliable chronological line that ruins any assertions of an old man, for the people are the concern of the genealogies, not the earth.” Or, he can appeal to “days” not being “days” (which seems to be his tack, given this quote: “the age of mankind and the age of the earth are not the same thing”). In that case, I refer him to the confession he claims to subscribe to, which specifically states that “In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible,in the space of six days, and all very good.” I don’t see how he escapes the dilemma of subverting Scripture’s statement that creation was in 6 days, save by the presupposition of naturalistic presuppositions. He says that is not what he has – and says that he does subordinate science to Scripture – but how do you do such a thing when Scripture *says otherwise*? In any case, I note that he accedes to my argument, as stated, and as directed. “For those Old Earth creationists who do this (and I think that the majority of them do; e.g., Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe), the criticism Whipps raises is spot on.”

A response was offered on facebook to my post, and I’ll respond to those comments to follow

That’s… not a very good defense, is it?

You reject me asking for proof because I don’t know how I exist?

There was quite a bit more to it than that, obviously. That is a valid argument, however.

You are right. I do not know for certain that my senses do not deceive me. I do not know if everything I have ever experienced is merely an illusion, or truly life. However, my senses are all I have to go on, and I will not reject them because of uncertainty. I often find that the most foolish of people are also the most certain, and will never make the mistake of claiming infallibility.

Some interesting comments here.

1) The options are presented as “illusion” or “truly life”, which seems to be a false dichotomy.

I’m not sure what relationship this has to my post, as I did not say anything about illusion at all, nor did I intend any relationship to be drawn from this.

2) There is discussion of sensory data deceiving – that was not part of my discussion at all.

The discussion was related to the justification we have, or do not have, for our knowledge, existence, predication, thinking, or what have you. Sensory data, of course, is interpreted, but I am talking about topics *below* and *foundational to* all discussions of sensory data interpretation. Thus, I’m not sure what this has to do with the subject.

3) There was no discussion of senses being rejected, and nothing concerning “uncertainty” as being the reason for this.

There is no discussion of uncertainty or rejection of the senses in view, so once again, I’m not sure why he is discussing it.

4) The claim is made that “certain” people are the most “foolish”.

By what standard of “foolish” is this asserted? The standard of the world’s wisdom, or of God’s wisdom? If it is from the viewpoint of the world, isn’t that the subject under dispute?

5) The author claims that he never claims infallibility.

I’m glad, as I do not do so either.

However, I have made no philosophical claims of existence. I have merely rejected your spiritual claim of existence, being no reasonably acceptable evidence has been brought forth.

By using the word “I”, one is, in fact, making a philosophical statement of existence. What I am questioning is the justification for doing so. By “merely” rejecting something, you are providing your own replacement for the thing rejected – which is what I am challenging. As the initial assertor, the burden of proof lies with him. My challenge is to his basis for even making the claim “Only a fool believes something without proof. To simplify that for you: only a fool relies on faith.”

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” — Carl Sagan

By what standards, respectively for:
a) Extraordinary
b) Require
c) Evidence

What epistemic obligation exists to obey this assertions? What duty do I have to accept the above as true? What standard of “extraordinary” is being used, and is it being assumed that I am somehow obliged to accept Sagan’s worldview, and thereby agree? By what standard of “require” am I obliged to accede to his demands? Is he asserting that there is a universal epistemic duty I am beholden to, exemplified by this statement? Which standard of “evidence” applies to what am I being told to provide, and by what standard is it considered such? Shouldn’t we deal with 1) Our disparate claims to epistemic justification 2) Our contradictory worldviews, in which evidence is likely to have different connotation, and 3) Whether or not the worldview asking for evidence has any claim over another person to begin with?

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” — Christopher Hitchens

Once again – by whose standard? I don’t consider Hitchens’ statement to be accurate, let alone binding. Whose standard of evidence are we using? How do we know there is none?

And no, the Bible is not acceptable evidence, just as the Koran is not, nor the Vedas.

So, you insist, a priori, that I agree with you, in order to disagree with you? You do understand that I have directly asserted that the Scripture is my epistemological justification, do you not? Is this clear to you? I said, quite clearly, that the only possible precondition for knowledge, or anything else, for that matter, is the Triune God of Scripture. Yet, you have a priori rejected my claim, while ignoring the argument made on it’s behalf. Further, you have insisted that I abandon my own epistemological basis to even discuss something with you. On the contrary, I have addressed your epistemological basis, and offered an argument to show that self is an insufficient basis for your epistemology. I offered an argument, which demands an answer, not a dismissal. Yet, apparently, you can assert, without evidence – but I can’t dismiss it without evidence? It seems to me that you are the one arguing contrary to Hitchens’ maxim. Further, *by what standard* is the Bible unacceptable evidence? Says you? Well, by your standard (and this is an internal critique here) I can just as easily say “says me, the Bible is sufficient”, and that is an equally valid claim – by your own standard. Now, back to my worldview, I gave several reasons why the Scripture is sufficient. Please deal with those.

My response in the comment thread:

But you are? Your self is? Any particular person is sufficient personal awesomesauce to impose his subjective opinion of anything whatsoever on anyone whatsoever, and his personal opinion is such as is sufficient for being believed? You don’t have a claim to induction, either, as per Hume, so your sense experience is not reliable – which is why I included it. I “merely” reject all of your subjective non-claims, because they are made by a non-being, by your own non-standards. There is no such thing as evidence, there is no such thing as acceptable, as we are disparate beings, with no objective standard to conform our opinions to. There is no ordinary, and there is no extraordinary. There is no grounds by which to reject, or to affirm. You cannot claim infallibility, or fallibility, because everything is subjective.

There are no brute facts. Facts are interpreted a priori, and your interpretative ability, by your own (subjective) standard, is what is being called into question.

In fact, by your own standard – there is no such thing as a fool, because there is no such thing as truth.

His reply:

And we may very well be constructs in the Matrix. However, I generally do not find this to be a reliably found solution. Not having a “claim to induction” does not make my senses unreliable.

Perhaps I should clarify here – I said “sense experience” above – and what I was referring to was the concept that sense experience is contributory to knowledge. The problem of induction is that we have no justification for our expectation that the future will be like the past. Since this is so, we have no justification for assuming that what we experience via the senses is actually a means to acquire knowledge.

There are facts. Facts are what happened. If a blue fish is blue, it is blue. It *probably* reflects electromagnetic wavelengths with around a 450 nm wavelength, if you want to get technical.

Now, how people interpret these facts is where things can go wrong. We could just assume we ARE in fact in the Matrix, and go about our lives. We could just assume we are in the blue fishes mind in the last example, and we are imagining ourselves look at the blue fish.

We could also realize that this isn’t anything we have brought up at all. For some reason, he seems to want to go back to “the Matrix”, or some similarly absurd counter example, when in fact the objection is related to epistemology, not sense-reliability. We are not talking about the relationship of sense to illusion, or sense to deception. We are talking about the relationship of sense to knowledge. Since induction is unjustified in the unbelieving worldview, there is no justification for *using* it – and it is irrational to do that which is unjustified. Not only that, but there is no relationship that *can* be made between past and future!

These aren’t useful speculations, though. These have no evidence (Such as being able to see the blue fish, to weigh it, to make various measurements of it. These are useful abilities, which often make very good evidence for things).

But, no. Don’t twist what I say into something you want it to be. I’m sure you can take whatever you want and make it sound foolish, but doing that doesn’t actually make the original idea foolish.

The problem is, all of the things listed above *have no justification from your own worldview*. That is why I brought it up. You cannot assume a constant system of measurement. You cannot assume that things remain uniform. You cannot assume “use” is something that has tenacity for day to day. All of these things – and basically all of human thinking whatsoever – are utterly destroyed by the lack of a justified induction.

My response in the comments:

Or, the fact that your worldview can’t account for induction, deduction, or even the slightest portion of your everyday experience means that your worldview is what is at issue. Note: I’m not saying induction has no explanation – I’m saying *you* don’t have one. I’m not saying existence has no explanation – I’m saying *you* don’t have one. An argument from silence does not give the preconditions of intelligibility. What you have offered is not an explanation, but seems very much to be wishful thinking, while I, on the other hand, gave a thumbnail sketch of my epistemological basis for all of the above. If your worldview can’t account for that which you say gives you knowledge, what good is it?

I found his next set of comments very illustrative. They are posted to follow.

And now you’ve shown that you don’t actually understand my position. Great job.

No, I do not have an answer. To quote Dawkins, “We’re working on it.”

So, here we are given the quintessential unbelieving answer for this problem: “I don’t know, but we will!” I’m sorry, but isn’t this a bit more of a problem than that, as we’ve already illustrated? I’ve coined this as “the argument from optimism” previously, and it seems so very apropos. The unbelieving worldview has no answer for what knowledge is, how induction is justified, how immaterials such as concepts exist, the source and nature of logical laws, the relation between facts, how the one and the many problem is solved, the mind-body relationship, not to mention the dilemma posed by a subjectivist observer claiming to know objective truths. “We’re working on it”? Well, it’s been 3 or 4 centuries. Let us know how it’s working for you, skeptics.

You are taking an argument from ignorance.
…”Because we don’t know something, it had to be *this thing I want to believe*.”

You have no real evidence. You just seem to have taken a liking to one of the many, many religious texts there have been in history that claims to know.

I’d like to know what, in this long string of assertions, is factual. I’d also like to know what in this string would accord with even his definition of evidence. They are naked assertions, inconvenienced by any real relationship to my position.

I will gladly take my “I don’t know yet.” I will gladly try and figure out how it happened. I will come up with theories on what has happened, and I will test them. I will improve, them, change them when new evidence comes along. I will make them the best I can.

I will gladly let you, when you justify the things that allow you to make conclusions, or prove anything, about anything. Since that is what is being questioned, and we are being told “I don’t know” concerning, on what basis are we to do anything save ask, yet again, whether we are to be given any basis for what you claim to have no answer to justify, but irrationally claim to be utilizing?

You will take your book. You will claim it to be infallible. You will never change your ideas, even in the face of contradicting evidence. You will sink like a stone.

I’ve yet to see the standard by which (whatever it is) is claimed to be evidence, let alone why we should accept it.

*Note: The “I” and “You” are merely representative of our different arguments, not each other*

Noted.

To reiterate, I’m fine with “We’re working on it.” Your thumbnail sketch hold no bearing without evidence.

Your “evidence” is both meaningless and irrational, holding the worldview you do, until demonstrated otherwise. I’d be fine with an answer, instead of “pie in the sky, by and by”. As Greg Bahnsen used to say – “that is the problem with you atheists, you live too much by faith.” I think it applies here. Ironic.

My answer in the comment section:

Evidence by what standard of evidence? Saying “we don’t know, but we know you’re wrong” is… more than bit contradictory? If you have no basis for sense experience’s reliability or intelligibility, how can you then use that to critique… anything?

If you don’t have a basis for induction, why should I give the results of it any validity to critique my worldview? Further, if you don’t have a basis on which to assert that your interpretation of data results in incontrovertible “facts” – why should I accept your assertions? Even further, if you can’t explain the existence of concepts such as the laws of logic, by your own standard, why should I grant you the valid use of them, and not assert that you are borrowing from my worldview to use them, and as such, are using them wrongly?

His reply:

Look, I’ll believe you when you prove it. I didn’t say, “I don’t know, but I know you’re wrong.” I said, “I don’t know, figure it out and show me how.”

That is the sense of our entire conversation. “I don’t need to know that I’m rational to say you’re a fool”. On the contrary, I say you do.

Look at it this way. We’re driving in a truck. We’re both thinking, “I wonder how this truck works?” You provide a “thumbnail sketch” of how you think it works, and I decide that I want to look inside of it before I decide. I have no reason to believe you until I know you are right. I don’t currently know; this doesn’t make you right, and it doesn’t make my curiosity wrong.

See, being right is not a conditional on whether or not you check. If I give the right answer, I’m right whether or not you check. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong whether or not you check. However, once again, only within my worldview, not yours, because your worldview doesn’t provide the preconditions for that conversation to be intelligible, despite the fact that you’re having it. Therefore, having said precondition, whose worldview are you borrowing from, to object to it? As Van Til says, “Antitheism presupposes theism” – and this is the reason he said that.

And yes, I can still think you’re foolish for being pleased with your own answer, even though you don’t rightly know.

By what standard? That’s what inquiring minds needs to know.

My reply in the comments:

I’m making a specific argument here. The proof I am offering is that without the Triune God of Scripture you can’t prove anything. Proof via the impossibility of the contrary. Thus far, your argument has given precisely that. “We’re working on it” singularly fails to impress me as factual, especially coming from Dawkins, who is otherwise so impressed with factuality. His problem, and yours, is that most folks fail to study the epistemology of science, and have failed to do so for an inordinate amount of time. If scientists were still natural philosophers, as they used to be called, perhaps they would pay more attention to the foundations of their claims.

When the emperor has no clothes, I’m going to point it out. Induction – trusting the future to be like the past, has *no basis in your worldview*. Deduction – causal relationships of one to another – has no basis in your worldview. Therefore, sense experience is intrinsically unreliable, and unaccounted for. Until it is, you can’t begin to critique another worldview, let alone advance your own.

His reply:

You see, the only thing I’m assuming is that my senses are accurate. You are assuming that your book is accurate as well. I can very easily write a novel that claims proof of existence. It’s not very hard to do.

So, you are claiming the accuracy of your senses are your epistemological justification? How would that work, as an argument, using the senses, interpreted by the mind, as the justification for being able to think? “My senses are accurate, so I can think”? If you’re talking about empiricism, I think you’re confused as to the level I’m arguing on. This is prior to, and precedes any talk of *what* we consider knowledge.

As to the “write a book to prove existence” – I’m making a serious argument. Please be good enough to offer something substantive, rather than sophmoric. Thanks.

Can you prove it? What undeniable proof– outside of the bible– do you have? Wouldn’t, if it were true, it have so much more evidence? Just the fact that it is a religion’s holy book doesn’t make it valid. Islam has a holy book. Muslims claim that Allah is their reason for existence in the same way you claim your God is.

1) Prove it – by what standard? I don’t assume we have the same standard of proof, and you shouldn’t either. We espouse antithetical worldviews – and as such, will necessarily have different standards. How is your standard of proof – which I’ve already argued you don’t have, in any intelligible sense – applicable to me? This is what I mean when I tell people they are making unargued assertions. Is it clear, by now, that you are asking me to provide that which I’ve already demonstrated you can’t even process, by your own worldview? When I make the case that you *cannot prove anything at all apart from the Triune God of Scripture* – that doesn’t mean you say “so prove it by my standards!” That means *give me a standard at all, and then we’ll talk*. If even induction is unjustified, you have no schema by which proof *can* be considered, let alone considered valid.

2) Undeniable? By what standard? Mine or yours?

3) Outside the Bible? Didn’t I already say that outside of the Biblical worldview, you can’t prove anything? Weren’t you paying attention when I said that? I wasn’t saying it rhetorically – that’s why it came accompanied by an argument. Since the unbelieving worldview cannot justify knowledge, or proof, and the Christian worldview can, the only proofs offered are those *from* the Christian worldview. So I’m not very well going to argue as an unbeliever.

4) Sure, there’s evidence. In fact, every fact whatsoever is evidence for the God of Scripture. But by whose standard? This is an argument that attacks *whether* you can know anything – so asking me to give you stuff you can know *by that impossible standard* isn’t very helpful. I don’t think you’ve grasped the nature of the argument. I’m saying that only BY my standard CAN you know anything – and your claims to the contrary are self-deceptive assertions with no basis in reality.

5) Muslims do not argue as I do. How do I know? Because I debate Muslims, as well. They have no counterpart to this argument whatsoever.

Which one am I to believe? Ooh, I know!

The one that is predominant in the region I was born in!

Well, that may be true for you. I’m from Arizona, not from the Bible Belt. I didn’t grow up Reformed, I didn’t grow up with the same faith I’m in now. I didn’t grow up with this conception, although I did grow up in a Christian home, although not a Christian myself. I had an extended bout with unbelief when I was near your age, and I was saved out of it. The consistent Christian doctrinal standard I espouse was “predominant” in the 17th and 18th centuries – in England. That’s about it. What I believe is the sole provenance of my adherence to Scripture, and the consistent application of it. So, it’s hardly an unthinking and unreasoned position I am holding. It’s not something I just “adopted” one day – but something it took me years of study to come to. Forgive me, but it seems rather brash to assume so many things about someone you don’t know very well. There is a sense in which nominative Christianity is “prevalent” in the United States – the problem is, those who actually believe what the Bible says, as I do, are a significant minority of those claiming the name of Christian. You can count out Roman Catholics (I’m a Protestant in the historic sense – Calvinistic and Reformed) you can count out Unitarians, you can count out Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the greater part of the mainline denominations, as they do not hold to anything resembling historic Christianity. I’ve taught Church History, and it rather obvious that such is the case.

So, don’t assume. I’m not from around here, so you really don’t have that information accessible.

So, to sum up – my objection to your objection – is that without epistemic justification, you can’t *make* your objection. Since this is the case, by the impossibility of the contrary (ie: since it’s therefore impossible for the contrary to be true) your initial objection fails. To put it technically – for any x – any claim whatseover – y (The Christian Worldview, explicated within the Scripture) is the precondition for it’s intelligibility. Since ~y is demonstrated to be impossible, y is true, via the impossibility of the contrary, for any x.

Plus, on a side note, you’ve shown yourself to be far more reliant on faith, and with a less worthy object, than you could possibly assert I am. I at least have faith in an absolute. You have faith in a maybe someday – but we’re working on it. May I venture to say that atheism teaches us to be satisfied – not with an answer, but with a blind faith that there will be one someday?

My faith rests in the absolute, triune, revelatory, unchanging, eternal, sovereign, omnipotent, good, just, infinite, transcendent, and perfect God – in whom we all live, move, and have our being. Contrasted with “we’re working on it”? I know where I place my trust.

Ephesians 3:14-21 – For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; [and] that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him [be] the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

‎

“Only a fool believes something without proof. To simplify that for you: only a fool relies on faith.”

Interesting assertion.

1 Cor 2:1-5 – And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

1 Cor 2:10-14 – For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Note: The assertion of the atheist I quoted seems to be that they have something else to rest their knowledge on. They are merely making a negative epistemological claim, with no positive claim to be found, however. In fact, their claim is in accordance with the Scripture above – that our epistemological claim is foolishness to them. The reason this is so, is because it is *spiritually* discerned. On the contrary, we claim that their epistemological claims are foolishness, from the standard of our worldview. This is the antithesis that exists between the wisdom of the world, and the wisdom of God.

Here is where transcendental argument comes in. Their claim to knowledge is unintelligible from their worldview. There is no basis to assume that 1) They exist to know what they claim to know 2) That what they claim to know has any sort of intelligible relationship to anything else they claim to know 3) That their epistemological basis (self) is capable of providing the preconditions of intelligibility.

The claim “I know” (x) has a precondition – (y) the Triune God of Scripture. That is the only means by which “I know” has the preconditions of intelligibility. Only in the revelation of the Triune God in His Scripture is there is an absolute, self-sufficient, self-existent, eternal and immutable (not excluding attributes, but eliding for the sake of space – see here for more on this topic) source who can communicate with us, and gives us those preconditions. Since x is only preconditioned by y, y is true, and ~y is impossible.

Since we have this absolute, objective epistemological foundation, and the unbeliever has no foundation whatsoever to stand on, epistemologically, on what basis does “a fool rely on faith”? Self has no epistemological foundation. Self has no absolute reference. Self can’t justify self, induction, deduction, or intelligibility, for that matter. Yet, we’re told that Descartes “I think, therefore I am” is a starting point? What does “I think” assume? The consequent, “I am”. It’s circular. My existence is only made intelligible by the Triune God of Scripture. The unbeliever’s existence is made intelligible by what, by His standard? Until the unbeliever can offer me a justification for his own claims, and demonstrate that he knows what he’s denying, we can safely say that this assertion is empty rhetoric, countered by an argument with content.

P1) There are no brute facts
P2) We are asserting that only by the Triune God of Scripture can we know anything properly
P3) The only argument which does not assume neutrality is a transcendental argument
C) If we are arguing any fact with an unbeliever, we must argue transcendentally – from the Impossibility of the Contrary, due to the nature of our respective presuppositions
C1) On any fact where the opponent’s view of facts does not accord with the Christian Scripture, our argument must be from the Impossibility of the Contrary

Discuss 🙂

The purpose of this post is to address a response to the above presentation, wherein presuppositional apologetics seems to be misunderstood by the author. The author’s response can be found here, but I will address most of the post, if not all, in the following article.

James White recently argued for presuppositional apologetics and against evidential apologetics. (link) He starts out with an analysis of Colossians 1:16-18, and Colossians 2:2-9, which focus on the Lordship of Christ. James White points out that the gospel is a radical claim, which unbelievers reject.

If you watched the above video (or heard the show), you’d note that Dr. White makes a specific point of not using either term until he’s made his argument. Why does he do so? To demonstrate that presuppositionalism is directly exegeted from the text of Scripture. That’s a minor note, so I’ll move on.

What caught my attention was James White’s denial that unbelievers can have ‘true knowledge’

It’s a rather open thing that Dr. White is a presuppositionalist. I’m confused as to why this would be noteworthy.

“If Jesus is who we claim He was, then He is the standard in all of human knowledge. You may be familiar with the term epistemology – the study of knowledge – how we know what we know. For so many Christians today, philosophy, history, science, epistemology, it’s all over in that realm, and Jesus is over here. That is not Biblical Christianity. Full orbed Biblical Christianity recognizes the absolute Lordship of Christ in every aspect of our lives because Christ is Lord in all of the universe and over everything because he created everything. In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. That is an amazing statement – and if you’re going to defend the faith, you have to defend the whole faith, the Biblical faith – not a cut down, watered down, simplified, minimalized, just a few facts faith – try to trick someone into accepting a skeleton of Christianity, and once you get ’em in, hope you can try to convince them of the rest of it over time. That is a certain form of apologetics, but it’s not a Biblical form of apologetics.”

Also note this, this, this, this – we could go on. Just recently, he went through the Price debate, outlining his presuppositional methodology in engaging Dr. Price.

As to the denial that unbelievers can have “true knowledge” – this is merely Biblical. Pro 1:7 – “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” – If you don’t have the beginning, how can you have the result? Pro 2:6 – “For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” – Do unbelievers have true wisdom? From whence do they hear it? Isa 47:10 – “”You felt secure in your wickedness and said, ‘No one sees me,’ Your wisdom and your knowledge, they have deluded you; For you have said in your heart, ‘I am, and there is no one besides me.'” Can “I think, therefore I am” be harmonized with this? Phil. 1:9 – “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment” “Real knowledge” is ‘epignosis’ – a precise, correct knowledge. What does that imply? There there is a false knowledge, correct? Not to mention Col 2, which Dr. White discussed, in detail. If all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ – how does an unbeliever find them? Note also this verse – Col 3:10. “and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him” – also uses epignosis. Remember who Paul is writing to. Gnostics, who claim to possess a secret knowledge. What is Paul’s response? ALL knowledge is *Christ’s.* Note also this verse: I Timothy 6:20 – “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” There is a true and false knowledge. So, when unbelievers “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” are they knowing correctly? Are they not suppressing “true knowledge” – in favor of “knowledge so-called”?

and his objection to the approach of starting from common ground between believers and unbelievers to show the reasonableness of believing in the God of the Bible and other Christian doctrines.

Honestly? There’s a very simple answer to this. The only common ground you have is God’s ground. The image of God in you both. “What partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” We are to act, and *think* differently from the world. If your philosophy is indistinguishable from the world, and doesn’t have at it’s heart the Scriptures of the Triune God… you’re in trouble. Big trouble.

We don’t make the Gospel “more palatable” to sinners – it’s *supposed* to be offense and foolishness to unbelievers. So is our apologetic – because we are defending *the Gospel*. It should be offensive to them, strike at the heart of their unlawful thinking, undercut the fortresses they erect against the knowledge of God, and tear them down – how? “in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left.”

God makes *foolish* the wisdom of the world. His word is His voice, speaking to men – and we are to speak it boldly on His behalf. We have *no other message*, folks. If you don’t argue FROM Scripture, FROM the God who IS there, you gave up the field to start with – and you did NOT, having done all, stand. If you pretend that we’re all neutral, and we just have to present the right evidence to convince them… you’ve already failed. Unbelievers *are not reasonable*. They *suppress* the truth in unrighteousness. They have become futile in their speculations.

Since this is so, and since they *do not think as a Christian does*, they WILL reject any evidence they deem to be unsuitable – by their OWN standard. We have a different standard, and we must argue by HIS standard, not ours.

There is no neutral ground. The picture in Eph. 6 is of a soldier holding the line *he was assigned to hold*. You do NOT advance to no-man’s land and parlay. You hold the line. You don’t advance without orders, and you don’t retreat. Advancing to “common ground” is simply to isolate yourself, and invite defeat in detail. When you are in line, you are covered by the shield of the man to your right, and cover the man to your left. You *stand*. “Common ground” is only defection or an invitation to surround you.

Presuppostionalism, as I understand it, has two distinct schools of thought; the Gordon Clark camp and the Cornelius Van Til camp. Clarinan (sic) presuppositionalism is not my cup of tea, but it’s fairly innocuous. My main complaint against Clark’s presuppositionalism is that he presupposes the truth of sola scripture,

Well, here’s the deal. The author doesn’t seem to understand the nature of Clarkian “presuppositionalism”, nor it’s actual differences from Van Tillian. Allow me to quote from a book I’ve quoted a good bit from recently.

“With all due respect for these three men, (inserted: Clark, Schaeffer, Carnell) their sincerity, Christian commitment, and hard work, we must press on to see why their apologetical systems are not fully satisfactory. Although many fine points of presuppositional character can be found scattered throughout their writings, we regretfully note that their positions as a whole are inconsistent with these points. This inconsistency might might make it appear that criticisms offered below could be rebutted by retreating to the better parts of the writer under scrutiny; however, after trying to harmonize the conflicting assertions and to read them in a sympathetic spirit, I am simply unable to reconcile the major differences or eliminate the tension among them.”
~Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, Part 2, Introduction, pg 135

In this recent post, wherein I quote from a nearby section of the same book, we see that Clark does not, in fact, “presuppose sola scriptura” – how can he, when he doesn’t even presuppose the Word of God AS the Word of God? This is the fundamental, bedrock principle OF presuppositional apologetics. Here is another example, in case one doesn’t convince my readers. Directly following a discussion of Clark’s comments on statements from R.G. Collingwood, Bahnsen states “In all this Clark has not made the truth of Scripture an absolute and necessary presupposition, a genuine transcendental of meaningfulness for all science, history, etc. Indeed, by contrast, one could easily be led to believe that logic per se is his transcendental rather than Scripture. Instead of the attempt to be independent of God’s Word, ‘the denial of the law of non-contradiction, or even the failure to establish it as a universal truth, was the downfall of secular philosophy.'” (Quoting Clark, The Axiom of Revelation, 64) (pg 144, PA: S&D)

Bahnsen continues in the next section, entitled “Possibility vs. Necessity.”

“God should be taken by the Christian as the source and standard of all material, as well as logical possibility; He is the one who determines all things (even the operation of the human mind and its limits). But for Clark the possibilities of human imagination and the bare possibilities dictated by formal logic have precedence to God (at least in Clark’s writings). God too seems to be drawn into an environment of ‘possibility’ (i.e., made subject to the conditions thereof); of course, then, this must also be the case for God’s Word. Instead of demanding that Barth, for example, must recognize the subordination of all thinking to God’s Word because it is our absolute, transcendental presupposition that makes intelligibility, thinking, evaluating, and meaning possible, Clark wants Barth, in considering such a subordination, not to “bluntly rule out this possibility.”

A more skeptical view of the amount of truth obtainable by experimentation, with the help of operationalism, might bring the idea of subordinationism back again within the limits of possibility. The Scripture is a better source than experimentation is for the norms of ethics and politics; perhaps there is some way to bring physics and zoology under this authority. (Clark, Karl Barth’s Theological Method, 68)

Because Clark, thus, does not take the truth of God’s Word as an absolutely essential presupposition to which all thought must (not merely possibly) be subordinated, it is not surprising that he should write, “From a logical standpoint it is equal whether one’s assumptions are philosophical or theological, Christian or not.” (Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, 8) This is not the case! Cristianity and unbelief are not on an equal footing, for unbelief has no fotting whatsoever. And even logical possibility cannot be a common background to Christian and pagan systems of thought, for Christianity alone makes logic possible. With this quote, whatever absolute character Clark’s presupposition of God’s Word may have had is completely dissolved.” (PA:S&D, 145-146)

Bahnsen, as you may know, was the “heir apparent” to Van Til. He is the definitive exegete of, and successor to, Van Til. As you can see, it is the Van Tillian school that believes that Scripture Alone is presupposed. This may not be considered ideal by the author to which we are responding, but this is certainly the case. Clark, like most modern day apologists, has conceded the absolute truth of the Word of God to a “possibility” – we do not, and cannot.

whereas I think the evidence for the truth of scripture and problems of other sources (Pope’s, Councils, the Koran…) is very strong.

Let me just ask a single, simple question. By what standard? This is the real topic of any debate with anyone. What is your standard? To a Romanist, it is the magesterium, which mediates Scripture by it’s authority. For a Muslim, it is the Quran, which likewise mediates Scripture by it’s authority. For Clark, it is logic that mediates the truth of Scripture. As Bahnsen says shortly thereafter, “By not viewing the truth of Scripture as a presupposition that is absolutely necessary, Clark reduces the status of the Bible to a hypothesis.”

While everyone has some presuppositions, I generally try to minimize what I presuppose and if something can be demonstrated, there’s no need to presuppose it. On the other hand, Van Til’s version of presuppositionalism is marked with antinomy and skepticism.

I agree that everyone presupposes something – I would like to know what the author would define as “some”, however. I likewise minimize what I presuppose – to what God has revealed in His Word! I would also like to know how, precisely, Van Tillian presuppositionalism is “marked by antinomy and skepticism”. I would agree that we Van Tillians are highly skeptical of any “falsely called knowledge” that results from any thinking not in accordance with the Word of God. If that’s what he means, I’m happy to plead “guilty”.

While James White didn’t declare himself to be in either Gordon Clark’s or Van Til’s camp, and generally didn’t get into much detail about presuppositionalism, but his denial that unbelievers can have ‘true knowledge’ and his objection to common ground between believers and unbelievers seems to show more influence from Van Til than Clark, since Van Til famously denied the same things.

I know for a fact that Dr. White is Van Tillian in method, just so you know. Note that neither Van Til nor Bahnsen denied common ground *completely* – but common ground as *popularly conceived.* Our common ground is in the fact that all men are created in the image of God – and it is to that Imago Dei that we appeal, as Paul did in Acts 17. As to knowledge, remember that we don’t deny that unbelievers can have *any* knowledge – they can know the truth, but they *suppress* it, and believe, instead, a lie. However, even when you believe something that is objectively true – but for subjective reasons – you do not believe the *truth*, as it is, for the reasons you *should* believe it – and therefore do not truly know it. There’s more to it, including another post where he responds to a page James Anderson linked him, but that’ll do for now.

I have a couple more issues I’d like to address. In the comments of the above post, A.M. Mallett says the following:

…it is my opinion that presuppositional apologetics is the leaven that fuels the advancement of Calvinism’s carnal flavor. It’s premise is founded on the ability to dissuade the merits of other belief systems rather than relying on the scriptural evidences of God’s power and truth. The LORD did not instruct us to go out and argue against the merits and beliefs of other systems. He tells us instead “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isa 55:11 AV). He tells us again “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1Co 1:18-21 AV)
I do not believe presuppositionalism has any ground in scripture.

First off, the presuppositions of the comment’s author are abundantly clear. “Calvinism’s carnal flavor”. I’d like to hear how, exactly, his man-centered system of theology has a basis to critique a system with “Sola Deo Gloria” at it’s heart. His caricature of presuppositionalism is also manifest. While the author may, as he states, have this opinion – it is an eminently foolish opinion to hold. First, he seems to be saying that all we do is tear down the systems of others. While this is incorrect; we are arguing FROM Scripture, and positively arguing the intrinsic truth of the Scripture in response to our opponents as well, it is also incorrect to say tearing down the idolatrous systems of others is NOT commanded in Scripture. How would he explain 2 Cor 10:3-5, if this is the case? Further, note the verses he quotes. How DOES God destroy the foolish wisdom of the world? Through the defense of the faith by His people. Just as God uses means to spread the Gospel, so He uses means to destroy the wisdom of the world. Notice it is His WORD that does not return void. Since our task is to destroy the world’s wisdom by the use of the Scriptures, is that not the very essence of not returning void? I also note that the passage he quotes actually militates against his desire to use evidences as neutral facts. *Anything we say that is grounded in the Word* is foolishness to unbelievers. Unless you are conformed to this world, the world *will* scoff at it. If you are conformed, they may very well accept it – but have you not read 1 Cor 1:17? “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” NOT in cleverness of speech, my friend. If your apologetic is not consistent with the Gospel, it is no apologetic. As for it having “no ground in Scripture” – I suggest you take a gander at Acts 17, Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, and Galatians. Also see Jesus’ words to the Saducees; “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.” What is Paul’s answer to the Athenians? “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you”. You don’t know – so I’m going to tell you. Then, he tells them – right out of the Scripture. So, let me repeat – you, sir, are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, nor the power of God.

One more thing to add – recently Christopher Weaver left a comment on this post where he stated the following: “the nonbasic source of knowledge that is scripture”. I’d just like to point out that Scripture, to a presuppositionalist, is THE basis of knowledge, period. This is the fundamental problem with non-Scriptural apologetics, as a rule. They don’t believe Sola Scriptura applies to all of life – just in compartmentalized areas. I bring this up because I left a comment to his initial objection (which boils down to “there can be a counter-factual to the counter-factual which you already denied, so you’re wrong” (aka: I assume counter-factuals)). When you assume what Scripture denies, you also denied Sola Scriptura (not that I have any evidence to believe that he holds to that position in any meaningful fashion in the first place).

Since neutrality is unattainable for either the unbeliever or believer, and since they have conflicting ultimate standards for judging claims to knowledge, the task of apologetics will ultimately be carried on at a presuppositional level. Contrasting worldviews are being debated. Each worldview has its presuppositions about reality, knowledge, and ethics; these mutually influence and support each other. There are no facts or uses of reason which are available outside of the interpretive system of basic commitments or assumptions which appeals to them; the presuppositions used by Christian and non-Christian determine what they will accept as factual and reasonable, and their respective presuppositions about fact and logic will determine what they say about reality. Thus there can be no direct proof offered for the truth of either perspective; direct appeals to fact and reason are emptied of argumentative strength by the opponent’s presuppositions (with which he understands and accepts facts and logic in a different light altogether). The argument between believer and unbeliever must then be indirect, admitting the impossibility of a neutral approach to reasoning and facts which allegedly outside of an interpretive system. The argument must pit the unbeliever’s system of thought as a unit over and against the believer’s system of thought as a unit. Their overall perspectives will have to contend with each other, rather than debating isolated points in a piecemeal fashion.

When the Christian sets forth his outlook he will stress the kind of God to whom he is committed, the nature of the world in relation to God, and the nature of man as God’s creature.

~Greg Bahnsen (Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended; ch 1, pgs 15-16)

Recently, Hussein Wario was challenged to call into the Dividing Line to answer for his recent accusations, some of which were in conversation with me. The transcript of that call on June 10th (which I did myself) is included here.

James: We received a call a number of weeks ago from Hussein Wario, who himself is a former Muslim, who from my understanding converted when he was in 8th grade, or something like that and is living in the United States now, and we had a discussion about some things; as I recall it had to do with using a restroom as a place for Muslim prayers.

Well, since then Mr. Wario has had a lot to say in regards to some of my statements, so he’s been kind enough to call in today. Let’s make sure that we’ve got a good connection here and let’s talk with Hussein. Can you hear me?

Hussein: Yes, I can hear you.

James: Good, excellent, thank you for calling in. I know you don’t have a lot of time. (…) I’ll get right to some of the things you’ve said here. After the June 6th Dividing Line, actually there was no June 6th Dividing Line, but on June 6th you made the statement on the web that you can prove that (I) “made at least 20% contradictions…

Hussein: (laughs)

James: …in (my) recent DL webcast – does that make him less Christian?” Now, even my worst opponents grant me a little better than 80% accuracy could you explain what you were referring to there?

Hussein: Well first of all, like I said before, I’m not going to be here to talk about either of the Caner brothers, that is irrelevant. As a Reformed Christian, I’m very concerned about how you run your ministry, and how far you go with it. I was going to first write a blog entry on that 20% I am talking about, but I
haven’t come to that.

——–
(For the reader’s context, this is what he tweeted just prior to the comment to DSpratlin about 20% contradictions, and the mention of a blog entry to @hereiblog)
@erguncaner saga almost over. Muslims critics have taken to their heels. Can his Christian critics handle their misstatements? Stay tuned… Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:48:22 PM via web
@hereiblog @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze his critics and see if they can explain their “misstatements.” Can you handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:45:00 PM via web in reply to hereiblog
@JeremiahBailey @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze critics and see if they can explain their misstatements. Can they handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:44:22 PM via web in reply to JeremiahBailey
@Shinar_Squirrel @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze critics and see if they can explain their misstatements. Can they handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:43:53 PM via web in reply to Shinar_Squirrel
@pregador27 @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze his critics and see if they can explain their misstatements. Can they handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:42:22 PM via web in reply to pregador27

Now, note this – he tends to “hype” his posts repeatedly. What is this called, when the statements are in fact untrue? Libel.

Back to the transcript.
————

Hussein: The reason I am calling is just because there are a few concerns that I have. It’s only (probably that?) 1, 2, 3, 4 of them, and I’ve only been listening to the Dividing Line for probably.. for less than 2 months. And I’ve already found like 4 things in here that raise questions about, you know, your integrity, or it could be just about how you do things, especially with people that you don’t agree with, so maybe we could just go to that, because I just want…

—-
Note: Hussein has said previously: “Christians bickering in public needs to stop.” He has also said: “Dr. White is the only apologist I know who openly criticizes people he disagrees with by name.” Now you can add yourself to that list, Mr. Wario. Further, remember this? “I believe in restoration of a fallen Christian and not gossip them in public.” yet, you took the majority of this show – his show – to slanderously revile this man personally. As I said in a previous post – “I find it amazing that he attacks Dr. White himself throughout this piece, the comments, and via twitter – while trying to say that we can never publicly respond to public comments. Further, he is making public rebukes to me – while saying that we shouldn’t publicly rebuke people”
——–

James: So you’re not going to answer any of the accusations you’ve made, then?

Hussein: Hey! This is 4 out of how many dividing lines you have done, or how many interviews you have given. This will be enough to… equal to 20% of what you have done. And it’s like, less than two months.

——–
Let’s examine this one. Let’s remember that there are two Dividing Lines a week. 4 weeks in a month. 2 months. 2x4x2. There’s 16. That’s about 25%, give or take – if he made only one statement per show, of course. However, add an interview. Only one. It’s now 23.5%. Add another interview. 22.22%. Further, this doesn’t count videos, blog entries, or any of the other things that Dr. White engages in. Now, add in, say, 2 videos in the same time. Then you’re at 20%. At my count, he has done 15 videos in the last 2 months. So, we’re at what percentage now? Counting 2 interviews, 16 Dividing Lines, 15 videos – and 4 errors – we’re at 12%. How many blog entries did he author in that time? Let’s say, a dozen, even though I highly doubt it’s that few. Now we’re down to 8.8% – and that is just counting by a simple formula. Even granting that Dr. White made 4 factual errors – how does this even approach 20% of what he has said? How is it even remotely close? There’s a deeper problem with this, however. How many statements are made on each Dividing Line? A few dozen? A hundred? A couple hundred? That’s the real issue here. Let’s say that he makes 2 dozen statements on a Dividing Line. That’s 384 statements in 2 months, by that conservative estimate. Let’s use the same average for a blog entry, and a video. So, 45 (for the sake of argument) pieces of media produced. 2 dozen statements apiece. That gives us a .0037% error rate.

However, when we’re talking about Ergun Caner, he *makes up almost his entire history*. Do you see the problem? How many statements is that to get wrong in one lecture/sermon/speech, in every speech he gives which includes his history? An even bigger problem is, as you will see, that he fails to substantiate a *single error* – while dodging all of his *own* claims! I’m not going to give a particular percentage, because it really doesn’t matter. The arbitrary usage of statistics is demonstrated to be useless, in any case. The problem is not statistical, it is ethical. Ethical by the terms of Scripture, not opinion. The systemic falsehoods are the issue. Hussein is comparing systemic, widespread falsehoods to what are apparently isolated statements – and I have a suspicion that he gave his examples of those in this particular call. If this is so, he is left with nothing whatsoever to demonstrate this. It is apples and oranges – and Dr. White was very right to insist that he answer for his accusations by directly making them and defending them.
————

James: Okay, so the entire list of things that I had here, you don’t want to talk about them, you want to talk about your points, is that the case?

————–
Here is what Dr. White is referring to: In response to the 20% claim, Dr. White sent this: @HusseinWario Why don’t you call the DL and attempt to back up your accusations? Your attempt to parallel me to EC’s overt lies offensive.

His reply was as follows: @DrOakley1689 If you let me talk, I will call the Diving Line. Would you please go back to doing what you do best? In the end, you lose.

Back to Dr. White: @HusseinWario Of course I will let you talk, if you will provide a logical, rational defense of your new accusations. (Note this – it’s important)
Again: @HusseinWario “In the end, you lose.” If being consistent at personal cost means losing, then may we all start losing together.

This was on the morning of the 7th. On the evening of the 9th, he posted these:
@RazorsKiss I have never sensed Reformed Christians this passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:22:46 PM via web in reply to RazorsKiss
@LaneChaplin I have never sensed Reformed Christians this passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:22:31 PM via web in reply to LaneChaplin
@internetbible I have never sensed Reformed Christians this passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:21:58 PM via web in reply to internetbible
@Tomjunlee I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:21:00 PM via web in reply to Tomjunlee
@Jerry_Kirby I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:20:41 PM via web in reply to Jerry_Kirby
@reformata I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:20:22 PM via web in reply to reformata
@stepcraig I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:19:52 PM via web in reply to stepcraig
@CapitalistObsvr I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:19:36 PM via web in reply to CapitalistObsvr
@ThApologeticHub I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:19:10 PM via web in reply to ThApologeticHub
@sjcamp I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:18:25 PM via web in reply to sjcamp
@thecrosschurch I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:18:15 PM via web in reply to thecrosschurch
@faithfulnews I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:17:55 PM via web in reply to faithfulnews
@jfontes0217 I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority.

As for me, I replied with the following: @HusseinWario You’ve never seen me deal with the proper place of all of God’s attributes in apologetics before then 😉 Caner’s a side issue

I received this reply: @RazorsKiss You need to start putting your energy into reaching Muslims. They are never satisfied. Enough has been said about @erguncaner

Now, honestly; since when does Hussein dictate what ministry I engage in? What does his opinion of what I should be doing have to do with what I should be doing? Muslims are not the only group in the world to which we minister, nor are they the only ones that we should minister to. Just because they are the ones he ministers to does not mean that everyone should be like him, or have the same ministry. I told him as much. @HusseinWario I address Muslims occasionally. I address a wide variety of groups. Therein lies balance. I think it would do you good too.

Later, when he tweeted Dr. White again, with more accusations, he was once again challenged to call the Dividing Line (he didn’t call in on the 8th). @HusseinWario I challenge you to call the DL today. Your fallacious reasoning evaporates when you are forced to answer direct questions.

—–

Hussein: No, no no, when I made that statement, I was going to do a blog entry on you. I talked to other Christians, and they told me there is no place for it. Other Reformed Christians have told me. This is not about… I’m not going after you, okay? I just don’t like it the way you just go about talking about other
Christians. You have been (unintelligible) some of them…

James: Who?

Hussein: You wrote something about me.

James: Who?

Hussein: You did write about me.

James: You’ve been raising a lot of questions, and I have had to point out that some of your arguing is… not rational.

Hussein: But well, you put me in the same line as Ahmed Deedat, you know?

James: No I didn’t.

Hussein: C’mon, you did say that I remind you of Ahmed Deedat. That’s really bad

James: No, I never said that. Where did I say I remind you of Ahmed Deedat.

Hussein: Oh my. Your blog entry didn’t do that?

——
Note: He did not even try to argue his point. Not even an argument advanced for why this was so. he just stated it. When challenged, he simply repeated it. I can understand why someone might say it looked that way, but he didn’t even make an argument to demonstrate that such was the case. What are we supposed to think, since he won’t even argue his point?

On the other hand, Dr. White has documented, just about every time that we go through a Muslim speaker’s presentation, that the shallow argumentation they provide is in many respects a cultural thing. You are encouraged to examine the archives of that program where he more fully explains that phenomenon.
——

James: No, it didn’t. In fact sir, this morning you said that I shouldn’t have made parody videos about Ergun Caner. I’ve never made a parody video, so sometimes I’m not certain if you’re completely aware of what you’re looking at.

—–
Dr. White, as did I, believed that he was referring to the viral “Dr. Ergun Caner” videos that have been making their rounds lately. There have been comments in multiple places throughout the blogs that confusedly think that Dr. White is making those. This is apparently not what Hussein is referring to, however.
—–

Hussein: Oh, you know what? Some of the Arabic stuff you have done now muslims are after it.

James: Uh, yeah. (laughs) If you can be after a Christian, who’s not a former Muslim, missing one phrase in quoting from memory…

Hussein: Uh-huh

James: …Surah Al-Fatihah, and think that that’s relevant to everything (Hussein interjects something I can’t make out) else we’ve said… that’s a good example of what I’m talking about here. But wait a minute, where have I ever made a parody video of Ergun Caner, can you tell me that.

Hussein: Okay, you know what? You are… all I can just say is this. The way you are making fun of the Arabic, they way you have this Arabic tutor, that is like totally out of line. Like how much have you pointed out about these brothers. It’s almost like you’re not giving grace.

—–
I believe he is saying that the video with the tutor is a parody video. This gives us a clue, I think: Muslims are laughing at Christians on Facebook because of @DROAKLEY1689 videos. Visit @erguncaner fan page on #fb Comedy central dissing!
It’s a parody because people laugh at it? William Shatner is therefore a first rate satirist – of himself 😉
——-

James: Okay, okay, Hussein… we responded to his claims, we played them…

Hussein: But who are you to… But who are you.

——-
Once again, he assumes this is personal. “Who are you to…” Does everything have to be an appeal to authority? Even so, he is a minister of the Gospel, responding to one who puts the Gospel to open shame. He is an apologist to Muslims as well as to other groups, responding to one whose falsehoods *were already mocked* by unbelievers. We are not only to exhort and teach, but to reprove and rebuke. You will see further where Hussein affirms this is personal. In the past he has said “This issue would not have gained any traction had Dr. James White and Dr. Ergun Caner been in good terms.”
———

James: …and many people commented on the fact that we were very fair and in fact inserted all sorts of other discussions about other things. In fact, I bent over backwards to say maybe you could possibly look at it this way – it still isn’t Arabic, but I bent over backwards. I just… I cannot even begin to comprehend why it is we have all this data that demonstrates that Ergun Caner has lied about his past and lied about what he is, and if anyone points that out, somehow they’re wrong, rather than the person who has stood behind a pulpit and connected this stuff with the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand your way of thinking Hussein. I really don’t.

Hussein: I don’t understand you either. Here you are, a Christian, and a caller calls you. On April 22nd. He called you up, and you discussed this on the Dividing Line.

James: Uh-huh!

Hussein: and you praised Kennedy, okay. John Kennedy.

James: Praised John Kennedy?

Hussein: You did praise him, you said the guy is the expert on…

James: Oh, you mean he’d done his.. he’d demonstrated that he’d actually read some stuff, yeah, I did say that he’d clearly read some stuff.

Hussein: You said he has written over a thousand articles.

James: That’s not praising, that’s just giving factual background! (laughs)

Hussein: Okay, okay, that’s fine, that’s fine! But, once the article came out, and didn’t meet your satisfaction. As a minister of the Gospel, you kinda went ahead and started (couldn’t make it out) some kind of (couldn’t make it out) you know what I mean?

James: You mean when I pointed out that it did not exactly deal with all the issues, somehow there’s a contradiction there?

Hussein: Well! I can say that there can be a problem, because like, here you are, you speculated, saying that Liberty University must be like the main advertiser of Christianity Today.

James: That’s true.

Hussein: Maybe they didn’t get to the bottom of the matter.

James: That’s a possibility.

Hussein: Yeah, but I cannot accept that from a Christian Minister to say that is a possibility!

James: Why? Why would a minister be so naive not to recognize that Christianity Today is a profit-driven organization?

Hussein: Ay, yi yi yi yi. You are a minister of the Gospel.

James: Yeah, I am. That doesn’t mean I’m naive.

Hussein: But why would you even make that kind of a statement?

James: Because it’s a factual statement. Follow the money, Hussein. Follow the money. It’s just a factual statement.

Hussein: Oh my word.

James: Ministers do not become naive, sir.

Hussein: No, no, but here you are talking publicly about something you don’t even know, such as how much Liberty university advertises on Christianity Today, and you are talking as if…

—–
What I find amazing here is the willingness to consider Dr. White to be “out to make a name for himself” – but he is defending a corporate entity from the possibility of defending their bottom line. What?
—–

James: So I raise the possibility that the reason that it didn’t go into the depth the way it did was because… something a lot of other people had noticed, and you somehow think that’s wrong. Okay, fine. I will leave that to the audience to determine whether that is simply being naive, or if it’s something wrong, as you said. But your reasoning, in your argumentation. For example, you have argued that you have debunked TurretinFan’s Hadith listing. I’d like to ask you, since you’re a former Muslim, could you tell me, please, could you explain to me, Hadith 2982?

Hussein: You know what, if it is mentioned in the body of the writing, whatever it is about, Hadith 28, or whatever it is you said

James: 2982, can you tell me what it says.

Hussein: I cannot tell you offhand, I have to look for it, okay?

James: How would you find it?

Hussein: Hold on just a second. I just have to look through my Hadith books. Your Hadith 957, it didn’t take me that long to find it.

James: Hussein, Hussein – you and I both know that there’s no way you can find Hadith 2982. Because there’s a piece of information missing. You and I both know that.

———
Note: Search “Hadith 2982“. You get al Bukhari here. You also get this. (Muslim, I believe) You also get this from AOMin. (Jami At-Tirmidhi) You also have two here, both 2982, Muslim and Ahmad. Yusuf Ali can be found here.

Now, which one am I supposed to be referencing? This is what Dr. White is talking about.
——–

Hussein: Yeah, but Dr. White you’re not justified here, for you can just say that’s just one way to quote the Hadith. In fact, even a Muslim did not make that an issue. (I couldn’t make this out)

James: Hussein, Hussein – you could not find Hadith 2982, could you?

Hussein: Anyway.

James: Could you?

Hussein: No, I have to look in the books!

James: You still couldn’t find it because it’s not giving you enough information to know what it is I’m referring to. You know that.

Hussein: James White cannot find it if he doesn’t have the Hadith books, okay?

James: I have the Hadith books sir, but you know, and I know, that there are different collections…

Hussein: So what are you saying here, I’m lying?

James: …of Hadith books; and therefore, you need to know what the collection is, don’t you?

Hussein: Hey, if it’s mentioned in the body I can find… you just, the whole time you were talking about it

James: No sir, you could not!

(talked over each other for a second)

Hussein: Anyway

James: Sir, there is more than one Hadith 2982…

Hussein: Anyway

James: …because there are different collections

Hussein: Anyway, anyway, anyway

James: See what you’re doing here, see what you’re doing here. See, you have not debunked the problem there.

Hussein: Hey, I have debunked the problem!

James: Okay, then answer the question – quote to me, quote to me Hadith 2982. If you can’t do it, then you are not answering my question honestly.

Hussein: I am a former Muslim, I’m supposed to be memorizing Bible verses, okay? You can’t be asking me on air…

James: I’m not asking you to quote it, I’m simply pointing out to you, Hussein…

—–
Just two notes here. When Dr. White asks him to quote it the first time, he is expecting him to look it up and quote it. That is the sense of “quote” meant there. In case anyone is wondering, I asked him. In the second case, he’s saying it in the sense of “quote from memory” – it was unclear, it’s live, and mistakes happen. Obviously he didn’t expect Hussein to “quote from memory”, which was what he intended in the “not asking you to quote it”. He was making the point above – *which* Hadith 2982?

Secondly, note the “anyway” whenever he doesn’t want to answer the question. I was not the only one to notice this. The entire chat channel was commenting on it only a few seconds after the third time he said it.
—–

Hussein: Anyway

James: …You could not find a reference…

Hussein: Anyway, Dr. White, you know what…

James: See, there ya go folks, there ya go, there is the illustration…

Hussein: Yeah, it is! It’s is always James White. He’s never wrong!

—–
Where does this come from? Did he respond to the argument? No. What has he been doing for a solid few minutes? “Anyway”. But James is never wrong?
—–

James: …one side has the facts…

Hussein: You are never wrong.

James: …in the argument, and the other side is just not going to answer the question

Hussein: Yeah, but you are never wrong! The Muslims are telling you, you have messed up a chapter from the Qur’an.

—–
Red herring.
—–

James: No sir, no sir I did not!

Hussein: No, but you are, hey! Your.. tutor..

James: Issam…

Hussein: Hold on…

James: …in quoting from memory as a Christian…

Hussein: …will you let me finish please?…

James: as an illustration of how this flows through the Syrian culture, missed one phrase…

Hussein: No, no!

James: and this is relevant?

Hussein: I’m not making that an issue! What I’m making an issue is, and the Muslims have a problem with you is, the way that chapter appears, you should have corrected your tutor, and you did not correct him, and you’re not willing to take into…

James: You know what, I will gladly let the listening audience compare…

Hussein: (loud interjection, can’t make it out)

James: what you just brought up with the fact that I have demonstrated that you.. that quoting Hadith 2982, or 957, is the same as saying Bible 3:16, it’s gibberish, you know it, and I know it..

—–
Personally, I would compare it to saying “commentary 5,18”. Which commentary? Is that a chapter? Page? It doesn’t matter, because you have no idea which commentary to use!
—–

Hussein: You know what, James White… hey

James: and the people listening know that, Hussein

Hussein: Dr. White, I know this is all about you. That’s why you have a problem.

—–
This is not the first time he’s made this sort of statement, nor is it the first time he’s been corrected. For instance: “I am convinced that he cares less about the Caner Brothers’ repentance but score some popularity from this saga.” Is that not criticizing a Christian in public? As well as: “All Christian leaders I have talked with who also work directly with Muslims agree with me that Dr. White has some major issues.” and “Dr. White is all about himself.” and “That was when I realized that Dr. White has an underlying problem, perhaps beyond these accusations of Dr. Caner being a liar.” and “I am utterly ashamed of Dr. White. In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the Reformed faith—sola scriptura—because of his meddling in this matter and his disregard of the scripture. He is tacitly helping Muslims with their war against Muslim converts to Christianity.” and “Oh my! I am glad to know I am not the only one. He is nuts.” Now, by this point, I hope you see the pattern of ad hominem argumentation. His responses are “to the man”, not to the argument.

Just a quick additional note to possibly help Hussein recognize what the problem here is.

Argument ad hominem is “to the person”. It is directed at who a person is, or to a person’s character, not to the statements or arguments of the person. For instance: Here is Dr. White addressing Ahmed Deedat: “Ahmed Deedat is a great example of this. So often his arguments were so shallow, so poor, so disjointed, and yet you will find men shouting Allahu akhbar! in response.” Is that ad hominem, or ad argumentum? Ad argumentum, of course. Compare that to “He is nuts.”

When I bring up fallacious argumentation, I am doing so in order to point out inconsistency. When one argues from one standard and applies it to someone else, yet do not apply those same standards to yourself, you are demonstrating that this is not what you yourself ascribe to functionally. It is inconsistency, and the sign of a failed argument. If Hussein wishes his arguments to be considered irrational, he should argue rationally.
——-

James: It’s all about me.

Hussein: Dr. White is never wrong. Yeah! Just like you are after these brothers, and it is all about making a name for yourself.

James: Oh, oh yeah, that’s, that’s what it’s all about. That’s why I somehow forced Ergun Caner to falsely claim to have debated Shabir Ally?

Hussein: oh my word, look at this, I mean you say they brag about this, that’s why no one is taking you seriously. You just say to them, they are the ones that are bragging about this, but you are the one who actually does it…

James: Yeah, that’s true.

Hussein: I mean, what does that say?

James: What does that say? It says that the next time I debate Shabir Ally, I’ll be able to look him in the eye and say I have sought to be consistent as a Christian in answering Islam, and in exposing those who are dishonest in what they say about Islam, and how they go about the ministry. That’s something that’s absolutely necessary to do.

Hussein: Yeah, but is debate really the only way to reach out to these people?

James: Where… again, how does that flow from what I just said?

—–
I’d like the reader to note that Dr. White has engaged in evangelism to Mormons for over 25 years. He has had very few debates with LDS representatives. His passion for evangelism to all kinds of men is very well-attested, and numerous examples of that passion for the Gospel can be found in his videos, articles, and yes, even his debates.
—–

Hussein: No, no!

James: Where did I just say that the only way to reach out to these people is by a debate? Where did I say that?

Hussein: You are talking about integrity in the way to debating muslims, but for me I just don’t get it I see a lot of you into all this, and sometimes you even…

James: Well sir, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong about that.

Hussein: (Loud interjection, can’t make it out)

James: You don’t know my heart… you don’t know my heart…

Hussein: I don’t know your heart, but you don’t…

James: But you’re simply…

Hussein: …know Caner’s heart either!

James: …wrong, that’s not the case. I would love to have avoided this entire mess, but there’s something called integrity, sir, there’s something called standing up for what’s right…

Hussein: Which only James White has.

James: and when someone stands before an audience and makes up his entire…

Hussein: Which only James White has. That’s what bothers me.

James: No, thankfully there are others who likewise have recognized that there is a real problem here.

—–
This is amazing. Dr. White has linked to very many people throughout the course of this – and some have also worked along similar lines and have not been linked to. TurretinFan, Gene Clyatt, Jason Smathers, Walt Chantry, and many, many others have also weighed in on this affair. To simply assert that Dr. White thinks he is the only one to possess integrity is absurd. Now, if you were to ask “which well-known apologists have shown integrity in this affair”, the list would be significantly smaller.
—–

Hussein: But who are others out there, Muslim scholars, who are Christians, I mean Islamic scholars, who are speaking out against it, against James White, and his followers

—–
Hussein faults Christians: “Dr. White is tacitly helping Muslims with their war against Muslim converts to Christianity.” Also, he has said: “Muslims look for opportunities to discredit ex-Muslims and even some Christians. He has given them a foothold and that should not widen the rift between Christians.”

Now, he is using Muslim argumentation? How is that consistent with his own position? How is this not “widening the rift between Christians”, by his own standard? How is he not “tacitly helping Muslims” here? How is he not taking advantage of “opportunities to discredit … *even some Christians*?”

This is inconsistent. Let me demonstrate. After this show, he sends this message to the originator of the accusations concerning Dr. White’s tutor. @YahyaSnow Who argues with @droakley1689, self-home-schooled student of Islam? You know very well, Yahya. What does he do, after all that talk about accepting things from Muslims? Note this: @HusseinWario…thanks for pointing my blog post out to white… It is in response to this: @DrOakley1689 You are in big trouble with Muslims over your debunking of @erguncaner Arabic http://tinyurl.com/22um3gp

Let me remind him of his own statement, and see if he is consistent with it. “Muslims are on a mission, please let us not aid and abet to their tactics that attempt to discredit the Caner Brothers, other Christians of Muslim background, Dr. James White, et al. We should give our brothers the benefit of the doubt before going global with what Muslims bring to our attention.”
—–

James: Islamic scholars who are what? I don’t have followers, first of all, sir, so I really don’t appreciate that kind of language.

Hussein: Okay, fine, fine, I take it back.

—–
I prefer friend, myself. If you’re going to be pejorative, however, at least use “loyal minion!”
—–

James: But the fact of the matter is, most people don’t even know about what’s going on with Ergun Caner. The news is gonna get out, if the right things are not done, and repentance and confession does not take place, but, I think even that’s too late now as far as the information getting out. The fact of the matter is, for you to accuse me of wanting to use this to get my name out there, is so amazingly absurd, and I can just simply tell you, it’s ridiculous.

Hussein: It looks like that to you, but it looks that way to me, okay?

—–
That’s a very postmodern comment. Not only that, but he just insinuated that Dr. White is lying about his intentions. Note earlier that he was offended by his (mistaken) impression that Dr. White was calling him a liar – but now he has no compunctions about doing the same.
—–

James: Well, I think for some reason you seem to be incredibly biased about this issue. Why is it? Do you have any evidence that Ergun Caner lived in Turkey, and was trained as a jihadist?

Hussein: Hey, you have no idea what happens in a madrassa, okay?

James: Do you…

Hussein: Hey, I cannot…

James: …have any evidence…

Hussein: I cannot say that he lived in Turkey, okay?

James: You can’t say that.

Hussein: Court papers say that he went to madrassa.

James: Okay, let me ask you a simple question. How do you explain, Hussein, that the same time that Ergun Caner is standing in front of audiences and television cameras, and telling them he lived in Turkey until 1978 or 1979, he’s telling AP reporters, and Turkish reporters, that he moved to the United States in 1969? How do you explain that?

Hussein: Hey, that Turkish reporter guy? I’m having it translated for me by a Turkish lawyer, okay? I don’t think that was a direct interview.

James: How about AP then?

Hussein: What I can say is this, Ergun Caner can answer his questions

James: So you’re not going to answer the question.

Hussein: Why am I going to answer for him? The problem I have is, you dismiss him, that he’s a fake, ex-devout muslim. And you don’t have any evidence to prove that.

—–
Note the diversion here. He has an answer for the first – or a potential answer, at least, but has no answer for the second. He was willing to answer the first, but now not willing to answer his questions? Inconsistency.
—–

James: I have tons of…

Hussein: You don’t have any!

James: …evidence, you just ignore it.

Hussein: You do not know this guy, you did not know this guy, okay?

James: So if the only evidence you can have is that I had to know him back then.

Hussein: no, no, no, Dr. White

James: Then you can’t know anything about history.

—–
For those who weren’t there, this was a principal argument in the Robert Price debate. Robert Price argued that we simply cannot know anything for certain from the Biblical accounts – or from anything in history. In fact, we couldn’t know anything unless we had multiple video attestations of an event!

If we have systematic doubt about historical events, even though we have documentation of them provided – we cannot know anything about history. Here Hussein is making a similar case to Robert Price. Despite the fact that we have documentation of where he was, when, we cannot know. This is what we speak of when we address “balance” in apologetics. If you are zeroed in on a certain topic, to the exclusion of all others, you tend to develop tunnel vision, and lose your balance as an overall apologist. Dr. White very, very often cautions his listeners not to only address one group of people. His consistency as an apologist, by the grace of God, lies in the fact that he not only engages with Muslims, but with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Atheists, and a large variety of other groups. I attempt to vary my personal engagements as well.
—–

Hussein: This is where we have a problem. He went to madrassa. I gave an example of a 3-year-old, I have a link, on my blog, who was asked questions on tv, about some aspects of Islam, okay? Prophet Muhammad say, when a kid is 7 year old they have to be instructed, when they are ten (I can’t follow it, I know some is Arabic) and all that, they have to be, you know, (can’t make it out). He talk about that, Prophet Muhammad. The court documents clearly say they went to madrassa, I don’t know how long they went, do I go about and say they were never devout, I don’t even know, because you don’t know what transpires in madrassa. Other than what your muslim friends tell you. They have an ulterior motive, they tell you what you want to hear, or make the agenda – so because of that, maybe you need to make some apologies to these brothers for some of the things you have said which are not true.

—–
What does his having gone to madrassa for some unknown period of time have to do with whether or not he lived in Turkey, or was trained as a Jihadist? In fact, “to do that which was done on 9/11”, to use his own words? Nothing whatsoever. Just because one fact is verifiable, we ignore all of the other falsehoods? What sense does that make? Is that a sound argument? No, it is not. It’s called a “red herring.” An irrelevant fact thrown into the conversation to distract from the real issue under discussion. Further, is he seriously trying to tell us that it is typical for American Muslims in the 1970s to have been trained in terrorism? Even more pertinently, He’s only 4 years older than I am. This means that by his standard *he cannot know either*, as he was not in the US at that time. His own argument fails by his own standards!
—–

James: Okay, well, Hussein, thank you very much. I think that, even though we didn’t get into all of the questions and things I wanted to ask you, I think we’ve made the point pretty clearly.

Hussein: Thank you so much.

James: By the way, one other thing. I’m sorry. You did take a few shots at my church in your tweets.

————-
(Again, some context. Hussein asked me, of all people, about Dr. White’s church. Starting here, where he makes generalizations about Reformed churches: @LaneChaplin I am Reformed and know very well how our churches stink at evangelism. Time to put our passion and enthusiasm to godly use 🙂
I respond here: @HusseinWario Then you need to 1) Find a better church 2) Reevaluate where you get your evangelism definition. You can’t fault DrWhite there He replies here: @RazorsKiss What better church? Reformed churches are dying. How many people have become members of PRBC who had no church background? Also: @RazorsKiss Talk is cheap. Time for Dr. White to focus on his pastoral duties. Enough said about @erguncaner

Dying? Really? I’m left at this point wondering what churches he interacts with. Further, how am I supposed to know PRBC membership histories? I don’t even go there! Even if I did, what does that matter? So I replied: @HusseinWario That’s a very broad brush. I’m a reformed baptist – we’re always small. Talk is also cheap when you want unity w/o holiness.

He then asks a few more questions: @RazorsKiss Do you have a consistory at your Reformed Baptist church? Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:41:49 PM via web in reply to RazorsKiss My reply: @HusseinWario Nope. @HusseinWario We have a body of elders, however. Hussein replies: @RazorsKiss Do they call elders, pastors? My reply: @HusseinWario The teaching elder is most often called “pastor,” but they are all pastors. He then says: @RazorsKiss I was in Sedona last Sept-Oct. Almost came to Phoenix. Will look your church up next time. My reply: @HusseinWario I don’t go to PRBC, but both my church and PRBC have multiple elders. PRBC currently has two, we have 3.

For some reason, he also believes that all Reformed churches have consistories, engage in public announcements of repentance in a church service, and apparently that they all stink at evangelism. Perhaps his church does this, but not all do. If he ascribes to a R. Scott Clark viewpoint concerning what is or is not Reformed, in which case his comments would be accurate, he’s left explaining why he has labeled other churches as “Reformed” in the past.

Back to the transcript.

——-

(James:)…Can you explain on what basis, given that you say that I can’t say anything about the Caner situation since I wasn’t there. Have you ever been to my church?

Hussein: No, I’ve never been to your church.

James: Oh, okay. Alright.

Hussein: I asked Josh about your church – he told me a little bit about it….

James: Josh?

—–
Josh 2982 😉
—–

Hussein: …One of the guys on twitter, he doesn’t even… I don’t know his last name, but he goes by RazorsKiss – it seems like all of the Reformed people out there, they go by pseudonyms, and some of them don’t even reveal who they are…

——
Now, interestingly, I gave him a link to my bio quite a while ago – which gives more info than most people are comfortable with ME sharing. So that hardly applies to me. I’m surprised that he doesn’t know my last name, as well, since I provided him a link to that information. He just didn’t take me up on reading the link I offered. I just use an online “handle”. If he’s talking about TurretinFan (which would hardly be “most” Reformed people), I would direct him to this post: Pseudonymity and the Calvinists.
——-

Hussein: …Anyway, the problem I have with you, in my church, our pastor, he has a consistory, the consistory of the church, they kinda like keep an eye on what the pastor does and stuff, and the pastor has a lot of work to do? And it seems like you’re a minister, a pastor, an elder?

James: I’m one of the elders, that’s right.

Hussein: You have a lot of time on your hands to blog about other people. Had you been a member of my church, which is a Reformed church, they probably would have told you to stop doing that.

—–
While the reader may note, of course, that Hussein apparently has plenty of time to blog and tweet about other people himself. This irony escapes him, it seems.
—–

James: So, Hussein, you know I’m doing two debates next week with Muslims? You think I’m going to be prepared for those?

Hussein: Ahhh, I dunno, you’re probably going to be debating about the same issues you debate about all the time.

—–
Well, there you have it. Since debates are about the same issues he debates all the time, he probably doesn’t need much preparation time. As I’m sure my readers know, debates take a significant amount of preparation. Chiefly, because every opponent’s argumentation is different; secondly, because every opponent has said different things which must be responded to; thirdly, because every topic is slightly different, even if it is the same “debate topic”. I’ve listened to or watched a large portion of Dr. White’s debates by this point – and at least a hundred other debates that others have engaged in. I can assure Hussein – his assertion is not even remotely the case.
—–

James: So, when I debated Robert Price, which required hundreds of hours of preparation, did I show up unprepared?

Hussein: I don’t know, I’ll find out.

—–
I was at that debate. Robert Price is a man with a truly encyclopedic knowledge. There were literally dozens of directions he could have gone. To prepare myself to listen to this debate properly, I listened to 2 of Price’s prior debates, and several of his lectures. When Hussein makes these sorts of claims, he demonstrates that he isn’t very cognizant of what it is Dr. White does, or who the people are that he has debated. His assertions that Dr. White is “wasting time” in addressing a professed Christian debater who *does not debate* are resting upon a significantly shaky foundation, as you can see. He doesn’t know the subject he is addressing well enough to be making these sorts of claims. Dr. White has explained why he is addressing this subject, in great detail, on his blog.
——

James: You don’t know.

Hussein: But hey, you’re a smart guy. Maybe you should put your energy where you need to put it, okay?

—–
Such an amazing assertion. Hussein is telling Dr. White, a 25 year ministry veteran, where he should or should not spend his time – and it isn’t here. Not only that, but saying so on his show, to his audience. The hubris in this statement is incalculable. Not only that, but he was just saying recently that Ergun Caner wasn’t accountable to James White (not that Dr. White has ever insisted he was) – but now James White is accountable to Hussein Wario? Interesting.
—–

There were pleasantries exchanged, the phone call ended, and then Dr. White addressed a few of the issues directly after, and with the next caller. I transcribed this in order to do one thing. Demonstrate to Mr. Wario that contrary to his assertion that “My arguments can be weak (formulation) but the facts are straight.” – he has not only presented weak (and in fact fallacious) argumentation, but his “straight facts” are red herrings. There is not merely a minor problem, but a major problem! This sort of argumentation is not something to be overlooked, as long as “your facts are straight”.

Facts are not neutral, and they are not brute objects with no context, and no interpretation needed. All things must be seen in the light of Scripture, it’s call to holiness, and it’s call to wisdom that is from above. When we argue with either unbelievers, or believers, our argumentation and statements need to be transformed by the renewing of our mind – not in accordance with the world. We are not to assume ill of our brethren for no cause – and when we are confronted with sin, we must repent. When we confront our brothers, it must be in righteous judgment, not an unrighteous judgment.

I know this can be an emotional issue. I’m completely aware of this. However, what shall rule us? Shall our emotional state, or shall our renewed mind reign us in, through self-control over our members? The tongue is a raging fire, ladies and gentlemen. That small organ can drive us to shipwreck i nthe blink of an eye.

Do you want to know how we should think? Scripture tells us. “For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.” (Rom 12:3) Note a few things there. From faith comes understanding and sound judgment. This means that there is not only a command to judge soundly, but that it is possible to judge unsoundly. This also means that only by faith can we understand; as Augustine says, “I believe, in order that I may understand.” This is a key component in thinking God’s thoughts after Him, instead of following our vain imaginations. We are also not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. The key to our thinking is not self, but Christ. As Col 2 tells us, we are to attain “to all the wealth [fn] that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.” Wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ. All wisdom and knowledge. We cannot think autonomously, from the foundation of self, and call our thinking Christian. If you are speaking, you must speak the truth in love. If you are defending the faith, it must be with both gentleness, and reverence. If you are seeking the truth, seek it through God’s word. Our brother James, and many of his friends are seeking to remove a reproach made upon the Gospel through dishonesty. Instead of joining with him, attending to the evidence which he and many others have amassed, in loving rebuke and reproof, with a public call to repentance, as Scripture demands, men are attacking the ones who have brought it to light. Listen to John 3. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” Luke 11:35 reminds us: “Then watch out that the light in you is not darkness.” Romans 13:12 challenges us: “The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.”

Eph 4 tells us: “As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ.” Do not be deceived! Instead, “if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,
that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another.” Notice that? The truth is holy. We are to speak truth, as we are all members of one another. The old self is corrupted by the lusts of deceit. Be renewed! Lay aside falsehood! Deceit is what brings disunity, brethren.

We are to put on the full armor of God, which protects us from the evil one. Stand firm! Gird your loins with TRUTH. You must do this before any of the armor will fit. I’m sure you can see the obvious application. Until we do so, none or armor will work, fit, or sit properly. We may as well be unarmored! The breastplate is of righteousness – we must be in the truth before we are acting righteously. Our feet are protected by the gospel of peace – and peace is never brought on the wings of a lie. The shield of faith will not cover us if we believe in a lie, not the truth! Faith has an object, and that object is THE Truth! Please, think about what you say, how you say it, and whether you are saying it in accord with Scripture. Be mindful of your words, knowing that you will be accountable for every idle word. Be mindful of your calling, of the high and precious Truth which we long to share – and always be mindful of opportunities to defend and confirm the faith. With truth and love, in gentleness and reverence.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I humbly submit to my brothers who defend Dr. Caner’s history despite the lies he has been shown to have told – are you really speaking in truth? Are you really giving an answer in reverent fear of the Holy Lord? Remember whom you serve. Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.

Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible as the source of all material or logical possibility, and hence failing effectively to challenge or internally criticize the very feasibility of knowledge, logic, factuality, interpretation, or predication as based on the boasted autonomy of “free-thinkers”, apologists found their defenses razed by those who (likewise) postulated that bare possibility was a principle more ultimate than God. … By appealing to probability, apologists saw Christianity relegated to the museum of of mere religious hypotheses (i.e.. “possibilities”) rather than embraced as the actual truth of God.

~Greg Bahnsen (Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended; ch 1, pg 5)

Enough said. Don’t you think?