“Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.” That was the recurring statement by Dr. White in a debate with Shabir Ally.
I finally downloaded and listened to the debate with the premier Islamic apologist Shabir Ally done recently at Biola University. The thesis was “Is the New Testament We Possess Today Inspired?” If Dr. White established anything, it was that Islamic apologists must use inconsistent arguments in order to defend their position that the Christian Scriptures are not inspired (fully, since they pick and choose what they like).
For instance, Shabir Ally uses liberal scholarship and liberal sources that use methods he would never apply to the Koran. Either no one has ever challenged Shabir on this obvious fact, or Shabir knows this and simply does what most scholars that attack the Christian faith do. Time will have to tell.
This debate sounded like it went very well. At one point, Shabir Ally even conceded a point. It takes a big person to admit he is wrong. Shabir did this. Although another debater replied on the Dividing Line that he would probably repeat the error, I think we should give Shabir the benefit of the doubt for now. Perhaps God will open up the opportunity for more dialogue in the U.K.
Although Shabir may never come to the faith, God may use those ringing words “inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument” to sting the ears and conscience of those who are diligently seeking truth. When men seek to be consistent in their search for truth, they must inevitably find Christ.
Optimistic Denominationalism
19 hours ago
5 comments:
This is something which I found posted on another blog, for you interests.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
AN INCONSISTENT PERSON AND
AN INCONSISTENT ARGUMENT
Shabir Ally
May 24, 2006
During our debate, and ever since, James White has repeated several times a motto which on its own seems quite logical but which was nevertheless used in our debate in a sense that is quite flawed. He said, “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.” This statement could be interpreted as meaning: “An inconsistent argument fails to be convincing.” In this sense the statement is logical. But this is not the sense in which James used it in the context of our debate.
In the debate he was arguing not that my argument was inconsistent, but that I am personally inconsistent. My inconsistency, according to James, is shown in my failure to apply against the Quran the kinds of criticism I level against the Bible. Alternatively, he charges me with inconsistency for making use of critical scholars with reference to the Bible, since I refuse to follow such scholars when it comes to dealing with the Quran. If he is correct with regards to these accusations, he will have convicted me of personal inconsistency. That would mean that something is wrong with me. But that does not automatically mean that something is wrong with my argument.
It is true that pointing out such inconsistency in a person may have the effect of causing the person to rethink his position. It may also convince the audience to pay no attention to the inconsistent speaker. But, logically, a person could be inconsistent and yet his argument may be at the moment, or within a specific context, quite consistent. For example, if within the debate I say that the Old Testament comprises 39 books, and when I am with my friends I say that the Old Testament is not thus composed, I would be inconsistent. And those who are present on both occasions would not only wonder which of my statements they ought to believe, but whether or not they should take me seriously. But my inconsistency does not change the fact that in Protestant Bibles there are precisely 39 books in the Old Testament. In short, if a person utters two contradictory statements the person is inconsistent, but one of his two statements may still be correct.
The distinction between an inconsistent person and an inconsistent person’s argument is likewise evident when we are comparing a person’s announcement of an ideal and his failure to live by it. Similarly, a person may subscribe to a certain method during an argument but fail to apply it elsewhere. This could mean that the person is inconsistent. But it does not automatically disqualify his argument. This is especially clear when we adopt or grant a certain fact “for the sake of argument.” We act as if we believe that fact during the course of the argument without necessarily maintaining it after the argument is over. This all simply means that an inconsistent person, or inconsistent behavior, does not automatically fail an argument. The argument itself would have to be evaluated based on its own merits. In the debate and thereafter James has repeatedly claimed that my inconsistency implies the failure of my argument. That claim is now shown to be logically flawed.
This does not of course mean that a debater should be excused for inconsistent behavior. James is well within his rights to chastise me during the debate and afterwards if indeed I am guilty of the inconsistency of which he accuses me. However, as with the example of the number of books in the Old Testament, I may have an explanation that reconciles both statements. It I am caught saying, for example, that the Old Testament contains 46 books, I may be asked how I could justify that when I had previously said in a different context that the Old Testament contains 39 books. In that case I would have an explanation. In the one context 1 spoke of the Protestant Bible; in the other context I spoke of the Catholic Bible, for example. But even if I do not have an explanation, or if other folks do not accept my explanations or excuses, this would not change the number of books in the Protestant Bible, and would not alter the correctness of my earlier statement.
In the debate I have shown reasonable proof to support the latter part of my thesis that the New Testament contains the creative work of man in addition to the inspired Word of God. If the method by which I have shown this is sound, then the conclusion remains proven–even if I refuse to apply the same method elsewhere. Not to speak of the method, even if I myself no longer believe the conclusion this will not change the conclusion or the soundness of the argument. As it is, however, I do have a good explanation for what appears to James as inconsistent behavior on my part. To detail this here, however, would considerably lengthen this paper, for it would require a comparison of the history of the Quran and the Bible, and a comparative theology regarding the nature and origin of the two books.
It seems that James’ apprehension of inconsistency on my part is due to his misunderstanding of the history of the Quran and the theology concerning it, and also his assumptions about my personal stand with regards to the specific issues. To a large extent, it is in fact my consistent approach to both scriptures that necessitates my claim that the Gospels have improved the status of Jesus over time. We see a similar move on the part of Hadith narrators. As I pointed out during the cross-examination phase of our debate, my consistency would require that I apply to the New Testament Gospels the critical acumen I bring to bear on Hadith studies. This is why I said that for its putting into the mouth of Jairus words which in the source of his narration was absent would render this episode in Matthew’s Gospel a weak narrative. A similar approach is taken in handling Hadith.
On the other hand, Hadith is not Quran. The approach to a book must be determined by a number of general criteria, and also a number of specific criteria. While the application of general criteria is granted, I believe that James has been insisting that I apply to the Quran some specific criteria which, in my judgment, will not fit the Quran. It should be obvious that specific criteria applying to one book may not apply to another. For example, the New Testament is read from left to right. But the Quran is read from right to left. If this is obvious enough, a similar consideration applies to other aspects of the two books which are not immediately obvious to the uninitiated. James’s insistence that I regard the Quran in the same way that I regard the Gospels misses the point about the specific nature of the two books. The Quran is not only different from the New Testament, but also from the Hadith, and from the Sirah works, the biographies of the Prophet of Islam, on whom be peace.
In conclusion, I do not believe that James has demonstrated any inconsistency on my part during the debate or even after it. But even if he was successful in proving his claim that I am inconsistent for failing to be critical enough of the Quran, this does not logically imply the falsity of my claims about the New Testament. James’ repeated emphasis to the effect that he has disproved my arguments by simply showing that I would not apply the same arguments against the Quran is an example of a logical error. His oft-repeated statement, “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument,” would have been correct if by it he meant, “An inconsistent argument fails to be convincing.” However, he was using the statement as a summary of his claims that I have been personally and behaviorally inconsistent, and that this proves the falsity of my argument. Used in this way, James’ statement is therefore fallacious, and his argument amounts to an example of ad hominem, against the man. This is the sort of argument in which one argues that a person is wrong instead of showing that the person’s evidence is faulty or inadequate, or that his conclusions do not follow from the evidence.
Here is my own review of the debate.
Here is my own review of the debate.
May 24, 2006
Nazam Iqbal’s review of Shabir Ally and James White debate entitled: “Is the New Testament as it is today the inspired word of God?”
After listening to the Debate between Dr James White and Shabir Ally, I was disappointed that Dr White could not give one reason as to why anyone should take the New Testament in the first place to be the inspired word of God especially when it does not make such a claim (the exception being the book of Revelation). Dr White, despite being given the platform to do so, came instead with an agenda to give his rebuttals to debates which Ally had done in the past with other Christians even though the topic of the debate was ‘Is the New Testament as it is today the Word of God?’
Dr White thought he could shift the burden of proof upon Ally by making him prove why we should believe in the prophethood of prophet Muhammed or the Quran to be the Word of God but obviously this was not the nights topic even though Ally did briefly address it.
The two passages (2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 3:16) which Dr White cited from the Bible which he claimed were speaking about the supposed inspiration of the New Testament turned out to be speaking about Old Testament instead.1 Specifically 2 Timothy is speaking about the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) a version which has a different canon and content from the one which Dr White recommended Ally to use in the future (New American Standard) and again begging the question as to why the New Testament should be taken as inspired documents since anyone could make any positive claim about any document but the burden of proof is to give reason and not just simply make claims.
The classic part of the whole event for me personally was when Dr. White cited New Testament scholar N.T. Wright in his opening statement but actually ended up shooting himself in the foot when Ally informed Dr White the implication of what he cited. For If we do not know when and by who and where and at what date the Gospels where written then why should anyone take these anonymous authors as inspired writers on behalf of God (paraphrased)? For which Dr White had no reply.
One thing which I felt that Ally could have done better is in the cross examination period he could have asked better questions, such as why Dr White believes the New Testament to be inspired Word of God in the first place and in what sense does he believe it to be inspired?
Overall I thought it was a good debate and both speakers remained courteous throughout the debate to each other, something which both Muslims and Christians today can model upon since it lacks in many Muslim and Christian discussions.
Following the debate it was found that the reference Dr White made to Ibn Masud allegedly dying a few days later as a result of a few beatings which he received because he allegedly refused to hand over his copy of the Quran turned out to be absolutely false. Dr White gave the reference for his source of information from the book by Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran, but no such reference is ever made by the author and hence we are still waiting to hear from Dr White as why he made such a citation when no such passage exists in this book which he confidently cited as his reference.2 Instead, we read in this book precisely the opposite statement:
Although there are some reports that initially Abdullah ibn Masud did not agree with Uthman’s decision, it is also reported that he later changed his mind; cf. Ibn Abi Daud pp. 13-18. According to the famous historian, Ibn Kathir, Uthman wrote to Ibn Masud advising him to follow the consensus of the other Companions, which he agreed to do; cf. Al-Bidayaah wa an-Nihaayah, v. 7, p. 207.
[Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran, 1999, Birmingham: Al-Hidaayah, p. 137, n. 165]
Notes
1. Regarding 2 Tim. 3:16, a conservative scholar explains:
It was a Jewish parent’s sacred duty to instruct sons in the Law from their fifth year. Thus Paul knew that Timothy from in fancy had known the holy Scriptures (lit., “the Sacred Writings,” apparently a favorite term in rabbinic Judaism, which would have been a part of Paul’s own personal history). The term are able to make you wise, which probably reflects the usage of the LXX in Psalm 19:7 (”making wise the simple”), contrasts the “mindlessness” and “deceptions” of the false teachers (vv.. 9, 13).
[Gordon D. Fee, 1 And 2 Timothy, Titus - New International Biblical Commentary, 1988, Based on the New International Version, Revised edition, Hendrickson Publishers, p .279]
Regarding 2 Pet. 1:19-20, we are told:
(B) 2 Pet 1:19-21. “We have the prophetic word made more sure….First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (RSV)…
The immediate context (1:12-21) guarantees Christian hope. Having reflected on the transfiguration (v v 12-18), the author cites “the prophetic word” (ton prophetikon logon, i.e., the entire Law, Prophets, and Writings - the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures; … as a firm foundation for hope insofar as God has confirmed its truth, and its message was in the process of being realized.
[Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy (Ed.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990) Nihil Obstat. Imprimatur: Reverend William J. Kane. Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington, Nov. 15 1988]
2. White now acknowledges that he made a mistake. He tries to argue that this was an innocent mistake on his part. But we find it incredible that White, who insists he read a lot regarding Ibn Masud and the surrounding issues, could not even vaguely mention one proper reference from memory to back his claim.
Nazam, I am glad you have commented on this apparent problem.
You quote (I assume) Shabir as saying of Dr. White’s argument, “If he is correct with regards to these accusations, he will have convicted me of personal inconsistency. That would mean that something is wrong with me. But that does not automatically mean that something is wrong with my argument.”
You could be right. Just because he (Shabir) doesn’t apply the Liberal Scholarship argument to his religion does not mean his argument necessarily against the Bible is wrong. The problem is this. Dr. White (and even I) has been arguing against Liberal Protestant Scholarship for a looooong time. Their arguments tend to be atheistic or naturalistic or something along those lines. Therefore, as conservative Reformed Baptists, we recognize that Liberal Scholarship’s critique against the Bible and the New Testament’s reliability in particular is vacant and without any merit.
Therefore, for anyone to cite Liberal Scholarship in defense of their position against the Bible is wrong. The problem with Shabir’s reliance on Liberal Scholarship is not just a mere “personal” inconsistency, but an inconsistency in his argument. He is relying on naturalistic and atheistic arguments against the Bible. Since he doesn’t believe in atheism or naturalism, his arguments against the Bible are based on flawed scholarship and inconsistent argumentation.
Therefore Shabir is wrong in his argument and is inconsistent to rely upon atheistic arguments against the Bible when he would never use those arguments in his religion. No amount of writing on his part is going to make this go away.
Shabir would do well if he took the time to learn what is meant by us when we speak of inspiration of the bible and its reliability. There are many conservative scholars to interact with. Why does Shabir need to cite from Liberals? Because he is not able to interact with sound conservative Christian Scholarship. To do so would undercut his own faith, but by citing Liberal Christian Scholars without explaining their atheism to his audience, he is able to look like he has defeated Christianity. That I think is his sole purpose.
God Bless
Nazam,
You stated, “Following the debate it was found that the reference Dr White made to Ibn Masud allegedly dying a few days later as a result of a few beatings which he received because he allegedly refused to hand over his copy of the Quran turned out to be absolutely false.”
Dr. White found this out and responded in full on a Dividing Line Program following the debate. Go here for the May 23rd D/L https://aomin.org/mp3/shop.html?shop=list6
“For If we do not know when and by who and where and at what date the Gospels where written then why should anyone take these anonymous authors as inspired writers on behalf of God (paraphrased)? For which Dr White had no reply.”
I do not remember Dr. White not having a reply to this specific “shooting of himself”. He has answered this question many times over in other contexts. So he does have a reply, I just do not remember why there may have not been a response. Again, Conservative Christian Scholarship needs to be interacted with here.
“I was disappointed that Dr White could not give one reason as to why anyone should take the New Testament in the first place to be the inspired word of God especially when it does not make such a claim…”
This is a problem. I think the reason why Dr. White chose the route he did was simply because he was not debating a typical unbeliever, but he was attempting to deal with certain presuppositions in order to be able to interact with a Muslim worldview.
In other words, I can make a typical argument for the inspiration of the Bible, but what good would that do when a Muslim has an entirely different viewpoint on the meaning of Inspiration? I would need to challenge certain presuppositions in order to show that the bible is indeed Inspired. If I could demonstrate that God is able to speak in the way the Scriptures teach, then inspiration would be far easier to grasp and be seen in the NT.
The NT does claim for itself inspiration. You said:
“The two passages (2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 3:16) which Dr White cited from the Bible which he claimed were speaking about the supposed inspiration of the New Testament turned out to be speaking about Old Testament instead.1 Specifically 2 Timothy is speaking about the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) a version which has a different canon and content from the one which Dr White recommended Ally to use in the future (New American Standard) and again begging the question as to why the New Testament should be taken as inspired documents since anyone could make any positive claim about any document but the burden of proof is to give reason and not just simply make claims.”
This paragraph is mightily flawed. Again, if you are not going to start with what the Christian believes about his own texts and interact with Conservative Christian Scholarship, then you are not willing to interact at all.
Much of this has to do with your misunderstanding of inspiration and what Christians believe God is able to do in bringing His people to understand what books are Canonical. We are not Roman Catholics. We do not see that there must be some controlling group over the text of Scripture. That is for the cults and those who desire power over the masses.
God Bless
Post a Comment