Yusuf Ismail mis-quoted and distorted Dan Wallace

Dr. Dan Wallace and Dr. James White respond to Yusuf Ismail’s mis-quoting of Dr. Wallace’s section of John 1:1 in his Greek text, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. 

Posted in Apologetics, Islam, John 1:1, Muslims | 1 Comment

Response to Candida Moss’ exaggerated thesis, in “The Myth of Persecution”

Paul Maier has an excellent response to Professor Moss’ provacative title and exaggerated thesis.


Posted in church history | Leave a comment

What happened in Canada when Same Sex marriage became legal

What will happen in USA, if “Same Sex marriage” is ruled as legal by the Supreme Court

1.  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

2.  http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/2015/04/29/what-should-church-expect-same-sex-marriage/

Posted in Homosexuality, moral corruption of culture, Morality and Ethics in Government, Politics | Leave a comment

Since they started learning our language, and challenging us in our mother tongue . . .

Ahmed Deedat explains why he started his own Islamic Da’wa (Invitation) – his work of debating Christians and inviting people to Islam.

Deedat recounts the author of the book, Izharul Haqq, noted that Arabs, Indians, and Persian Muslims in India (before creation of Pakistan and Bangla Desh), in the late 1800s, after missionaries began to learn Muslim languages such as Persian and Urdu (the language of Pakistan), Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi, and Arabic, noted:

“Since they started learning our language, and challenging us in our mother tongue, the Muslims were forced to accept the challenge.”  “that is when we knew we had to respond.”

This demonstrates the power of learning another language in missions, in order to communicate the truth in such a way that the other culture actually really understands what we are saying.

Deedat found a book, the “Izhar Al Haqq” or “Izharul Haqq”  (Statement or Manifestation of the Truth or The Truth Revealed), which was a Muslim response to the Christian book, “Mizan Al Haqq” (The Balance of Truth), which was written in several Muslim languages, originally in Persian/Farsi, with quotes from Persian Sufi poets and from the Qur’an to prove their points.

One problem is that he attributes the motives of missionaries to political motives.  “to get the Muslims to turn the other cheek”.  (so they would not revolt against their British masters, the colonialists)

No; that was not the motivation of the missionaries!  That is the Islamic understanding of motives for their religion – it is political domination.  Muslims tend to see things through that perspective of their own and interpret the motives of others as that, usually.

The joke that Ahmed Deedat recounted was indeed funny!  Of course the mistake was that the missionary asked a question that can only be answered with trust in God’s Sovereignty, but the Muslim debater was very clever in his answer.  It works both ways – but God had a purpose in sending His Son to die on the cross.  The Muslim interprets this as a weakness on God’s part, and rejects the possibility of it; but the true God has made His truth and power known through the weakness of the cross.  “The message of the cross is the power and the wisdom of God”  ( 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5)

Posted in Evangelism, Islam, missions, Muslims | Leave a comment

The deeper issues of sexual attraction, desire, lusts, temptations, in the heart, as relates to the so called “orientation” and “same sex marriage” issue

1.  Denny Burk’s excellent full 20 page article in “The Journal of the Evangelical Society” – “On the Ethics of sexual attraction (same-sex and otherwise)


This article is deep and worth taking the time to read.  I made some comments there in the com-boxes after I read it.

Excellent article. Definitely needed and thorough. Unfortunately, 20 pages of in-depth analysis like yours will not be analyzed in the sound bite media and “yes or no” questioning of modern journalism.

The problem seems to me that the majority of our western culture, regular man on the street, and secular non-Christians, journalists, politicians, etc. do not consider any kind of thoughts, desires, fantasies, imaginations as sinful. We hear people say all the time, “nothing wrong with looking, as long as we don’t touch”, and phrases like “eye candy”, etc.

This kind of thinking goes against the Biblical analysis of the heart of human beings and the roots of sin – Genesis 6:5, Matthew 5:21-30; Mark 7:20-23; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 7:14-8:13; Colossians 3:5-10.

One thing I disagreed with though, is that you seemed to tie all the temptations of Jesus to His temptations in the sufferings and crucifixion (garden to cross ?) (page 103 – Hebrews 4:15 seen in the light of Hebrews 2:18, seems to overlook the 3 types of temptation in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. ) I agree that Jesus’ temptations did not include every single individual type of temptation that humans experience, but I do think that “tempted in every way” includes the 3 categories of temptations in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 – of “lust of the flesh” (food, sex, sleep, etc. – “turn the stones to bread”; 2. Lust of the eyes” – “I will give you all these kingdoms if You bow down to me” and 3. “the boastful pride of life” – “throw Yourself off the temple edge”, etc. (from Luke 4 and Matthew 4, and I John 2:15-16 and parallel with the temptation to Eve in Genesis 3 – “the fruit was good for food” (lust of flesh), “pleasing to the eyes”, and “could make one wise like God” (pride).

Your analysis of “orientation” and “temptation” and desire and the Greek term epithumia was excellent and the whole discussion of the teleological aspect of when desires are sinful – the purpose and object of the desire as the key to determining the sinfulness of the desire.

Your analysis of James 1:13-14 with Matthew 5:28 is especially helpful.

The evidence of Augustine’s earlier thought on concupiscence and lust/desire vs. his later musings was helpful – I did not know that. Thank you for digging that out for us.

On page 104 – The discussion of the fact that it is more intense of a temptation to not give in to it – and the quote from Leon Morris was very good and needs to be emphasized. (and was very convicting, when thought about my own temptations and giving in to them.)

“This points us to the glorious irony of Jesus’ sinless nature. It did not lessen his experience of temptation but only intensified it.” (page 104)

Wow! This needs to be emphasized and preached on and talked about a lot more.

This should stir all of us to consider more deeply our sinful hearts in our gluttony, anger, greed, and heterosexual lust and need for deeper internal repentance.

These other two statements stood out to me:

“Temptation had no landing pad in Jesus’ heart nor did it have a launching pad from Jesus’ heart.” (page 105)

“This aspect of Jesus’ impeccability ought to invoke worship when we really think about it.” (page 107)

The discussion of not using “orientation” was needed also. We should call it “people who experience same sex attractions and temptations” and Christians who struggle with them.

Another thing that is missing is that some Lesbians have admitted that their Lesbianism was a choice based on other up-bringing and environmental factors and responses and her feisty nature and rebellion and challenge to traditional ideas of being a girl and a lady. Camille Paglia made that point very clear on one of Dennis Prager’s radio shows. see below:


2.  What the Media is not telling you regarding the judicial arguments over same sex marriage


3.   Camille Paglia, feminist and Lesbian, admits that homosexual orientation is not inherent from birth.  She calls her Lesbianism “an adaptation” to her aggressive and feisty nature.    (I had blogged this before, – Dennis Prager interviewed her on his radio show.)

Posted in Apologetics, Hollywood cultural agenda, Homosexuality, moral corruption of culture | 1 Comment

Paul Bilal Williams changes his blog/web-site again!

Sometime in January of 2015, Paul Bilal Williams, the British convert to Islam, got rid of his http://www.bloggingtheology.org blog and created a new one, http://www.bloggingtheology.net, so, unfortunately all the other links to past articles, that I linked to in my articles, are no longer there.  Before that, in Dec. of 2013, he had gotten rid of his wordpress blog —  “bloggingtheology.wordpress.com”  for a time.

Then in March of 2014, he put his blog in privacy mode, and announced he had left Islam, but then came back to Islam a few days later. 

I asked Paul in a combox why he did this, (the new one in 2015), and he wrote that he was no longer going to be focusing on criticizing the Bible and Christianity, after he got some spiritual advice from Timothy Winter (another western man who converted to Islam years ago, whose Islamic name is Abdal Hakim Murad.) It seems at first, Paul was doing that, but later, I noticed that Paul removed that post (the one explaining his getting counsel from Abdal Hakim Murad, and emphasis on Sufism in his early posts in 2015), and has since, at least in my opinion, gone back to more criticizing of the Bible, the Trinity, and Christianity. It may not be his main emphasis as before, but he still does devote a lot of space to that issue.

Paul Bilal Williams seems to change his mind a lot.

I wonder why Paul removed the blog post about his getting counsel from Timothy Winter / Abdal Hakim Murad ?

I had some extensive interaction here in the comboxes with Muslims on Paul’s article on Jesus argument from John 10.    I hope to write something on that in the future.

Posted in Paul Bilal Williams | Leave a comment

Recent blog posts, videos, new and old debates, on Homosexuality and so called “same sex marriage”

Recent videos and articles on the issues of homosexuality and same sex marriage: (over at the other blog I sometimes contribute to, “Beggars All Reformation and Apologetics”)


Posted in Apologetics, Homosexuality, moral corruption of culture | Leave a comment