‘New Testament Scholar Excites Muslims – JR Daniel Kirk’

Published on 19 Oct 2016. These days Yahya Snow produces more film than Hollywood. Here is his latest blockbuster. I would have entitled the film In Praise of Honest Christian Scholars. Missionaries will undoubtedly despair.

Snow comments: ‘Interesting admissions coming from Prof. JR Daniel Kirk. He should be commended for being bold enough to make the admission the NT is not reliable and is contradictory. He joins Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona in teaching it is contradictory.’

Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity

29 replies

  1. J R Daniel Kirk says homosexuality is ok, that homosexual acts are not sin and that “same sex” marriage is ok and good and “is a move of the Spirit in our day”; so he has NO credibility as a scholar.

    For a Muslim to support to support his views shows a tendency in a tension in inconsistency.

    See the Debate against Robert Gagnon, who gave the Biblical position.


  2. Ken, I am aware of his views and I have watched parts of that debate previously. I just don’t see how it matters in this regard – it seems like an ad hominem approach saying “don’t listen to Kirk on this because he has strange views on that”.

    In fact, you would not be able to cite Dr Robert Gagnon, using your criteria, if you did not believe marriage after divorce is a sin (IIRC Dr Gagnon believes such). There would be other examples: you can’t use Piper for the same reason. you can’t use James White if you don’t follow TULIP (mos Christian apologists in their preaching clearly don’t believe in Limited Atonement) you can’t use Dan Wallace if you think Biblical inerrancy doesn’t allow for one to interpret the biggest resurrection story in the NT (that of the many saints in Mathew) as figurative, you can’t use Grudem if you are not a complementarian, you can’t use John Calvin if you don’t believe in subordination in a Trinity, and the list can go on a lot longer.

    So let’s move beyond this style of binary thinking. Explore views on their merits or lack of merits.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Ken makes ad hominem attacks because he disapproves of his biblical scholarship.

      However he will happily quote John Calvin even though he put to death a man who disagree with him on theology.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Wait… are you saying that he is cherry picking arguments from the same scholar he is refuting and that he gets to quote the very same scholars he detracts from to support his very own arguments? Wow this is as convoluted as the trinity😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • I think everyone here can agree that when one things homosexual sex and same sex relations are ok; they have a problem.

      It is on a completely different level of contradiction and inconsistency than the other secondary issues you bring up (Limited Atonement; complementarianism; divorce and remarriage; subordination in roles but one in essence in doctrine of Trinity, those saints that were raised in Matthew 27:51-53).


  3. James White recently blogged in response to this blog post on his website. I’m not too sure why he didn’t link to this blog page – perhaps he sees a lot of difficult arguments for the Trinitarian Christian coming from this side of the internet.

    Anyways, for those interested White wasn’t that cantankerous or vituperative (same with his latest response to Ijaz – I think he’s learning that his tone and constant gnarling is off putting and does him no favours with serious minded folk) so no need for any of us to hide behind our duvets.

    Here’s what he wrote:

    I’ll be honest, it would be humorous, if it wasn’t so sad. Muslim apologists in general are fascinated by apostates. You see it on the Deen Show all the time, where some kid who was once a summer intern at a church is touted as a “former Christian minister” and “expert on Christian theology.” Bart Ehrman, apostate par-excellence, is their favorite, of course, since he has embraced his role as critic-in-chief of the New Testament. And I told everyone that Daniel J. Kirk, who became known primarily for his coming out in support of the profanation of marriage (I would think even the Muslims would cringe at his arguments there, but, of course, that would require them to actually be concerned about consistency, and only a small handful of them are) and the embracing of LGBTQRSTUV etc. movements as “the move of the Spirit in our day.” Part and parcel of Kirk’s apostasy is his abandonment of the faith in regards to the person of Jesus, and, of course, since Islam likewise denies the Bible’s teaching on the subject, well, Kirk, despite the glaring conflict in worldviews he brings to the NT text, is now one of their favorites. I predicted this, of course, and obligingly, Yahya Snow has provided the evidence. Notice that Paul Williams identifies Kirk’s liberal meanderings as being “honest.” I wonder if he does the same for liberal interpreters of the Qur’an? I’d love to see him publicly post in defense of unorthodox, liberal interpretations of Islamic theology. Even he knows he would probably not be safe at Speaker’s Corner if he did so—not from danger from Christians, of course, but from his co-religionists! But note their praise: “He should be commended for being bold enough to make the admission the NT is not reliable and is contradictory. He joins Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona in teaching it is contradictory.” Well, there is a confluence of names you never expected to see! Kirk, Ehrman, and Licona. But I have said for a very long time, your bibliology is a key dividing line, and Licona only has himself to blame for being listed in the group.

    Of course, I really doubt almost any of our Muslims friends have ever even heard of, let alone read, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. If they would, they would realize they are all excited about the news from…long, long ago.


    A few thoughts on this, there’s fascination with apostates WHO have become MUSLIMS on the Deen Show. James misses that out – the Deen Show really couldn’t care to feature Christian apostates who have become Mormons or Atheists. James misses that crucial dividing line and moves across that line into territory that is unfair and misrepresenting. In fact White’s colleagues and friends regularly feature and use material from wild eyed ex Muslims who aren’t even Christians! Not to mention the use of Nabeel Qureshi – styling him as a former Muslim. It seems as though the fascination with apostates is closer to White’s home than the home of the Deen Show or anybody on this side of the internet (the cool side)

    As for James’ mentioning of Kirk’s views on gay marriage – it’s irrelevant. Note my comment above directed to our Christian friend Ken. White, if consistent with this line of thinking, would have to shout from the roof top to all the Christian apologists around him who reject the idea of Limited Atonement (some whom James promotes or is friendly with like Jay Smith) “STOP CITING ME” and “STOP USING MY BOOKS” because you don’t agree with my views in other areas. James has not done that to the Pfander Films crowd – in fact they looked desperate in receipt of White’s response to Mike Licona’s “Mark as confused” claim.

    Consistency matters.

    White suggests Kirk is an apostate – what is an apostate in Christianity. I’ve seen Nick Peters (whose co-authored book on Inerrancy I’ve read) state Christians can still be Christians even if they reject whole books in the NT. Is that guy more Christian than Kirk? Folk like Dr Gagnon (IIRC) believe Christians have compromised on the teaching that it is a sin to re-marry after divorce – what of the Christians who reject this because of modern day society, are they Christians? What of the other gay marriage supporting churches 0 the Anglican church I observe at is such – are they all apostates too? What about the 70% of Christians who believe Jesus was created by God (search the Dallas Theology Seminray’s stats on this), are they Christian? What about folk like Wood who openly say parts of the OT troubles them and get into their wife’s undies, are they Christian? What about WLC who I think intimated one can still be a Christian even if not in full agreement with Paul of Tarsus. What about folk who say one doesn’t have to believe in a Trinity doctrine to be a Christian (no early Christian had an earthly clue what it was but hey this is the tradition the evangelicals in America try to usher folk towards)

    Consistency and Theology matter

    But again, to stress who cares if Dr Kirk has such views as a Christian whilst using his scholarship in other areas. I use Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, FF Bruce, Tuggy, Edgar G Foster, Hurtado, Calvin, Michael Holmes and Bart Ehrman, James White (yep, /i love using a bit of White to show how some of the Islamophobes around White are inconsistent or just plainly making stuff up) but I don’t think hold on, these guys don’t agree with all my views. It would be a strange way to do scholarship to only use folk who agree with you – White doesn’t even do this!

    Consistency matters but let’s not take it to an absurd, impractical and extreme level.

    James is right in that it is an odd bunching – Licona (who Cross Examined,org’s Jonathan McLatchie and AM’s David Wood use), Kirk, and Ehrman. And a public statement from Licona will be of use in understanding his views but hasn’t he made enough public statements for us to understand where he is at? He’s at inconsistency and confused central right now. How can Licona even deign to look at anybody with a straight face while propagating his minimal facts theory expecting folk to become believers in the Trinity doctrine and the Bible. If he was serious about consistency in methodology he would know the serious historical methodology he claims to be using sincerely would leave him to reject the Bible as a group of books chosen without any authority (unless you call Church tradition authority, I don’t!) by Christians who took it upon themselves to decide (and disagree with each other on) on what constituted a canon. He would also have to reject the Trinity idea as historically that doctrine is clearly a development where even after the Council of Nicea Christians did not know what to believe about the Holy Spirit as late as 380 CE as per Gregory of Nazianzus’ statement. Not to mention the extremely useful comments coming from Prof. William Lane Craig on the development of the Trinity doctrine – I hope to showcase those. In private discussion with a colleague I’ve noticed I’m not the only one who is aware of such.

    Let’s wait for his new book to come out. I think Licona will really open the door for Christians to start seeing a new perspective which God willing will point them to the conclusion Islam is right; the Bilbe is unreliable and the Trinity doctrine never came from Jesus p. I’ve written some thoughts on Mike’s new book – pre-release:

    Destroying Biblical Inerrancy? A Muslim’s thoughts on Mike Licona’s Compositional Device Theories: Plutarch and the Gospels:


    I’ve only really got into discussions about Christianity because I saw White’s buddies literally lying or wildly ignorant and reckless about my faith: Shamoun, Wood, Smith, Beth Grove, Nabeel Qureshi (even White himself has made reckless comments which he has had to be corrected on by myself and others). For years I just refuted polemics against my faith – after I thought the critics were just getting repetitive and more folk were at the helm of dealing with polemics against Islam I thought I’d dabble with looking into their faith. I know a colleaguehas recently made similar remarks and I’d imagine it is the same for many Muslims. All this because Christians did not have a huddle to say hey guys we need to be more careful in talking about Muslims and Islam – let’s stop the lies, inconsistencies and distortions.

    Theology and consistency matter.

    May God guide us all.

    Liked by 4 people

    • James, the arrogant guy, admitted in his last show DL that Ijaz is right regarding John 9:38 .
      Second, he put words in mouth of Bart Ehrman that he ” Disrespects Islam” while Ehrman as I know has been consistent that he is NOT a scholar of Quran replying to chritians asking him to talk about Quran. I’m not sure how those christians think. Are they stupid or they just can’t see the reason that Ehrman presents?

      Nabeel, the card that christians love to use as his friend the clown – as he calles himself David – is not an ex muslim. The irony here is that christians keep using that cult’s argument to prove that he was an ex muslim! Nabeel is a liar, even after his sickness, he lied in an interview. He siad as an ex muslim I believed that Jesus will return at the end if time while that was a big lie from his side. Qadianis don’t believe that Jesus will return, and you find them always begin the discussion with muslims about this very point to affirm the credibility of their ” prophet” . Quran and Sunnah have cut this deceptive ways by declaring the prophet Muhammad pbuh is the Last one. Not to mention the blasphemy that “prophet” was saying about himself.

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is a superb comment which deserves a post of its own.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “James, the arrogant guy, admitted in his last show DL that Ijaz is right regarding John 9:38 .”

      Do you have a link to the podcast and maybe a timecode too for the part where he talks about this? Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Verdant

      Liked by 1 person

  4. If we have been convinced from arguments established on this blog and through other information offered by scholars that the New Testament is not the written revelation of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, what is it?


  5. If that’s true, why would anyone try to refute it?


  6. Let’s say you are right. If the New Testament is not the revelation of God, is it a novel? Is it historical fiction? Does anyone have any thoughts on that? Why did they bother to write it in the first place?


    • So many questions! But you have still not answered mine. Any chances of a response?


    • The evidence is simple: the New Testament does not claim to be Revelation from God. The onus is on Christians to prove that it is.

      John 17:8
      For I have given them the words that You [The Father] gave Me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

      John 17:17
      “Your Word is Truth”

      The Words of the Father were given to Jesus the Son and He gave them to the apostles and sent the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all the truth and bring to their remembrance all that He taught.
      John 14:26 and John 16:12-13

      Eventually, they wrote down their preaching, all by the end of 1st century.
      Mark for Peter; Peter is eyewitness
      Luke as traveling companion of Paul
      The Lord brings Paul into that apostolic band of revelation – Acts 9, Acts 15 (Peter, James, and Paul all agree on the essentials of gospel message), Acts 22, 26; I Corinthians 9, I Cor. 15; Galatians 1-2 – visits Peter, John, James and they affirm his gospel message as the same as theirs.
      John – eyewitness, disciple
      Matthew – eyewitness, disciple

      1 Thessalonians 2:13
      13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

      2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
      13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
      14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
      15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

      Galatians 1:8-9
      But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

      “so now I say again” = I am saying this through my writing this letter of Galatians.

      1 Corinthians 2:10-13

      10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
      11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
      12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
      13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

      1 Timothy 5:18
      For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” [quote from Torah, Deuteronomy 25:4]
      and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” [quote from Gospels, Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7; also in 1 Corinthians 9:14]

      2 Timothy 3:15 – the sacred writings you learned as a child” = OT / Tanakh

      2 Timothy 3:16 – “All Scripture is God-breathed” = expands to NT Gospel and books

      In principle, includes even books not written yet ( 2 Timothy written in 67 AD, before Paul was executed by Nero)


  7. Also 2 Peter 3:16 claims all of Paul’s letters are Scripture, on the same level as OT (with 2 Peter 1:19-21). So the New Testament does claim to be revelation from God.

    It does not matter if you think 2 Peter was written later than 67 AD and not by Peter; it is still part of the New Testament and claims that it is revelation from God.

    the book of Revelation also claims this for itself – Revelation 22:18.


    • And what about Acts/Luke do you claim Luke thought he was writing God’s Revelation?


    • Luke 1:4 – “in order that you may know the certainty of what you have been taught” = I am writing this down, so you will know the certainty of the truth of the gospel revelation that you were taught, which is what all those other verses above was about. Luke confirms Paul’s preaching as God’s revelation; and Acts chapter 1 shows he is writing about “all that Jesus began to do and teach”, means Luke is writing about what Jesus continues to do through His apostles and His Church. The Greek verb tense here is very important and clear that he is continuing to show what the Holy Spirit does through the apostles and the church, the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son together – Acts 2:33-36.

      ” Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.” Acts 2:33

      So, yes, Luke is claiming that same thing in both books as all the other verses I gave you.


  8. I think everyone here can agree (Muslims and believing Christians) that when one thinks homosexual sex and same sex relations are ok (Daniel Kirk); they have a problem.

    It is on a completely different level of contradiction and inconsistency than the other secondary issues you bring up (Limited Atonement; complementarianism; divorce and remarriage; subordination in roles but one in essence in doctrine of Trinity, those saints that were raised in Matthew 27:51-53).


  9. Jude 1:17 – remember the words that were spoken to you beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ”

    The way to remember them was to read them when they wrote them down.

    2 Peter 1:12-18 – I am being diligent by writing this letter to you before I die so that you will have something to read and remember the truths you have been taught.

    2 Peter 3:1 – this is the second letter I am writing to you by which I am stirring up your sincere minds in order to remember the truths you have been taught.


  10. In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,

    [ the verb indicates Luke is writing about Jesus now continues to do through the Holy Spirit in the apostles in the ministry of the church ]

    2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
    3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

    4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;
    5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

    Acts 1:1-5


  11. so, it seems you agree that putting all those verses and points together, the NT does indeed claim to be revelation from God.


  12. Great stuff, Ken.

    Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away

    I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

    For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me

    For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth

    Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only you shall serve'”

    For all who have eyes to see and ears to hear, if the New Testament is not the written revelation of God, what is it?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Ken Temple

    October 20, 2016 • 3:29 am

    J R Daniel Kirk says homosexuality is ok, that homosexual acts are not sin and that “same sex” marriage is ok and good and “is a move of the Spirit in our day”; so he has NO credibility as a scholar.
    For a Muslim to support to support his views shows a tendency in a tension in inconsistency.
    See the Debate against Robert Gagnon, who gave the Biblical position.

    I say;
    Evangelical Christians will support anyone to achieve their aim but will accuse others for accepting a part of someone’s knowledge which they perceived is the truth. Paul Williams has reminded you not say the above as you support John Calvin who kills someone because Michael does not agree with him.

    I will remind you of what the Evangelical Christians are doing right now. Supporting Donald Trump who

    Hates Muslims
    is a racist
    sleeps, kiss, fondle, etc. married women
    insults women
    insults latinos
    insults Mexicans
    insults anyone

    but Evangelical Christians like you are voting for him deliberately forgetting that Donald Trump as an example of a world leader can inspire sleeping with married women and inevitably bring unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

    Select a better person for your agenda. Reject some one whom Jesus will reject. Jesus will reject Donald Trump but evangelical Christians are supporting him to ban all Muslims and kiss married women as he himself said.


    Liked by 1 person


  1. The New Testament claims to be revelation from God | Apologetics and Agape
  2. Are James White’s Inconsistencies Being Noted? – Blogging Theology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: