James White and Evaluating Arguments

Those who read this blog know about Dr. James White.  He is a Calvinist apologist and runs a Calvinist apologetics organization called Alpha and Omega Ministries.  He has responded to this blog more than once.  Though in the past I have disagreed with him, I actually found myself agreeing with him a lot on his Monday Webcast.

On Monday, he talked about his upcoming debate with Catholic apologist Trent Horn regarding Perseverance of the Saints.  He talked about an anticipated verse that Trent Horn might throw out.  He specifically talked about Matthew 24:13, which reads:

But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. 

At the 42 minute mark, he really goes into the descriptive and prescriptive distinction on verses like Matthew 24:13.  I actually agree with Dr. White that this can be seen as descriptive.  Don’t get me wrong, I think that Perseverance of the Saints can be easily refuted with other passages of Scripture.  Regardless, if I were debating a Calvinist, I would not use Matthew 24:13.

A good question to ask in apologetics is: If religion X were true, does this verse actually claim to contradict what they’re saying.  The finer apologists know this, the bad apologists don’t.

Here are some examples in addition to the one that White gave:

1. Citing the Shema(Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29) to disprove the Trinity.  If the Trinity is true, the Shema doesn’t refute it as the Shema only states that there is one God.  It doesn’t even attempt to describe the nature of God.  As Dr. James White has often said: Proving monotheism does not prove Unitarianism.  The first verse of the Creed in Latin is: Credo in unum Deum.  This translates as: I believe in one God.
2. Citing verses that say that Jesus is a man(1 Tim 2:5) to disprove that he is divine.  Christians say that Jesus is both God and man so him being man doesn’t disprove the Christian position.
3. Citing a verse that shows the authority of scripture(2 Tim 3:16-17) to prove Sola Scriptura.  Catholics believe that Scripture is fully authoritative.  They just don’t believe it to be the only authority.

I find this tactic to be especially prevalent amongst Muslims apologists.  Naturally when a Christian points this out to a Muslim, many clever Muslim apologists will try to quote a “Christian” scholar(who’s actually a modernist liberal heretic) for backup.  The Christian then has to take more of his time, explaining that it is inconsistent to quote liberals who would laugh at their own view of the Quran.

I think most Christian apologists would agree with this debating tactic.  Every scripture that is used needs to be filtered through the following: If religion X were true, does this verse actually claim to contradict what they’re saying.

Let me respond to one counterexample that I’ve heard from Muslim apologists.  Bassam Zawadi has used this argument and others have as well.

A Christian will throw out that the crucifixion of Jesus is an indisputable fact of history agreed on by Christian, Jewish, and Pagan sources.  The clever apologist like Zawadi will say that of course that is the case.  Allah made it to look like that so what the Quran is saying is absolutely correct.

This is a clever argument but that is actually not what the Quran says.  The verse used is Surah 4:157.  The verse only says that it appeared that way to the enemies of Jesus.  Here is the verse with my emphasis.

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – THEY slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto THEM; and lo! THOSE who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; THEY have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; THEY slew him not for certain.

According to the Quran, Allah only made it appear to the Jews, not the followers of Jesus.  Sadly, most Muslims have sided with the Jews whom Allah fooled according to the Quran, even though the historical Jews weren’t fooled.  Jesus died on a Roman cross, whether the Quran likes it or not.