Comments on Founders Ministries Blog: What really happened to the debate, pt. 2

All of this is so troubling for me. Who would tho...

2006-10-13T09:24:00.000-04:00

All of this is so troubling for me. Who would thought in the midst of the age of grace the Lords' children could bicker such? I hear both the Caners speak on Ankerbergs program and in my spirit they both mesh with mine. I guess it just goes to show that sin as no boundries...it affects even the children of God who both proclaim the blood of Christ and preach His gospel. I believe the Calvinism Arminianism issue is simply a cart before the horse issue. God is the horse and man is the cart. But no....sin will not allow it and as long as we are in this fallen world we shall see this simple concept bickered over like children until His return. Oh Father, how much longer will it be that you look upon your saints in their bickerings? Might you have seen enough already? Might you make it this day that you unite us with your Glory. Come soon Lord Jesus! Come soon!

Tom Bryant, Let me repeat what was explicit in my ...

2006-10-12T18:23:00.000-04:00

Tom Bryant,

Let me repeat what was explicit in my post:

The copy from Calvist Gadfly said that it is possible that Caner's "zeal and anger against Calvinism" could be fueled by his father's death. NOT his reason for denying Calvinism but his ZEAL and ANGER against it.

In the second half of the post, I wrote that "perhaps the reason why he exhibits such vitriol" against Calvinism is its similarity (in his mind) to the fatalism of his former religious heritage. Again, no mention of his reason for not accepting but his possible reason for being so forceful in his preachign against it.

Missing the point, you asked: "Can someone not accept Calvinism because they believe the Bible teaches differently?"

I answered: "I don't think I made any implications about the reasons why someone does or does not accept the Doctrines of Grace."

Ignoring my words and still missing the point, you responded: "There was no reading it into your words. That was exactly what you did say. . . . There was nothing implicit, it was explicit."

Now do you see that your "implication" was NOT what I said? I mentioned nothing about why he refuses to believe. I spoke to why he has such a hatred of it.

Of course, given Caner’s outlook where “whosoever ...

2006-10-11T13:37:00.000-04:00

Of course, given Caner’s outlook where “whosoever will”, he should be REALLY mad at God for allowing his father to be born into a heritage where letting go and turning to Christ is so humanly difficult. I mean, for God to be really fair to everyone then everyone would need the same chance, right? The decision to accept Christ in the USA when you are born into a Baptist church going family carries a lot fewer consequences and is seemingly easier than it is for the person who has to turn his back on his culture, traditions and family. How can that be fair? Does God really play favorites by making it easier for some to accept Christ than others?

Guys,There was no reading it into your words. That...

2006-10-11T08:16:00.000-04:00

Guys,
There was no reading it into your words. That was exactly what you did say:
"Mr. Caner's father died some years ago rejecting Christ. Caner witnessed to him on his deathbed but his father would not let go of his Islam. For Mr. Caner to accept that his father was not one of the elect must be a pretty difficult thing to come to terms with. I think that his zeal and anger against Calvinism is fueled by his refusal to accept that his father could have accepted Christ, but could not because God had not chosen to give him the faith to do so."

There was nothing implicit, it was explicit.

GeneMBridges..That was such a good post! Thank you...

2006-10-10T23:57:00.000-04:00

GeneMBridges..That was such a good post! Thank you.

Mark

Well, emailed Ergun Caner since there was no way t...

2006-10-10T23:46:00.000-04:00

Well, emailed Ergun Caner since there was no way to leave a comment. The email address is available on his website. ergun@erguncaner.com

...I hear crickets

2006-10-10T23:22:00.000-04:00

...I hear crickets

Why is it that Drs. Caner will not allow any posts...

2006-10-10T21:58:00.001-04:00

Why is it that Drs. Caner will not allow any posts on their blog sites. Dr. Ascol is has allowed people on both sides of the debate to speak out. I am just wondering if the Caners would be overwhelmed by the people who hold to the reformed view. If any one knows where you can post directly to the Caners would you please let us know.

In fact, I could probably get some comfort if I be...

2006-10-10T21:58:00.000-04:00

In fact, I could probably get some comfort if I believed that she couldn't have because she was not among the elect. Then I would know it was not her choice but God's. And I trust His choices.

Of course, no Calvinist would deny either of these. We agree, the reason she did not believe is that she refused. God was under no compulsion to elect her, ergo, she refused. The blame is her own, not His. She was left to her own nature.
Why is it that, no matter how many times we go over this ground, non-Calvinists pay it no mind?

You seem to believe this: A choice by God in eternity would mean that people are lost because they are not elected.

This objection overlooks the reason why people are condemned and confounds the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. People are condemned on account of their sins, and for this reason, they are lost, and for this reason, they are, apart from Christ, sent to hell. God's decree does nothing on its own. It merely renders an end certain. The means is considered as a separate, "subdecree."

First, election renders a thing certain. However, election alone is insufficient to render a person justified. Reprobation as preterition (passing over) of a sinner is a necessary, but alone an insufficient condition to result in condemnation. Faith in Christ is both necessary and sufficient to guarantee justification. Sin is both necessary and sufficient to guarantee condemnation. All men are sinners, and all men without exception are unable to believe in Christ and repent of their sins. This inability is moral, not natural. They “can’t” because they “won’t.” Apart from grace, this is their natural condition. Therefore, men are lost because they are sinners, not because they are not elected. Not all sinners are elected, but then, apart from election, no man would desire to not be a sinner. The entire objection ultimately tries to center itself on the notion that it is wrong for God to “violate” men’s free wills. Since Calvinism maintains that men’s “free will” decision apart from effectual grace and unconditional election is, in fact, to be lost, why is the Arminian objecting?

How do men come by saving faith? Through calling. How do they come by calling? Through election. Without election, men could not be saved. The objection would be valid if and only if men could, of their own free wills muster saving faith, but their wills are bound by their love of evil. The implication of the objection is that men are condemned apart from their sin. This is false. It seeks to imply that Calvinists teach men who want into the kingdom are left out, and men who don’t want in are “dragged kicking and screaming.” This is also false. None who wish to enter are left out; none who wish to be left out get into the kingdom. The question the synergist must answer is: Why do some believe and not others?

Caner is a former Muslim and well acquainted with the fatalism of that false religion. Perhaps the reason why he exhibits such vitriol towards the Doctrines of Grace stems from his aversion towards anything that smacks of any sort of determinism (whether hard or soft). He wants as far away from Islam as he can get - not understanding the difference between Islam's fatalism and biblical determinism.

And, of course, the great irony is that his acceptance of libertarian action theory and infallible foreknowledge makes him a bigger fatalist than any Calvinist can hope to be.

, since God is not actively foreknowing and predestinating people, in the Arminian system, we see real impersonal determinism working itself out by way of real fatalism. Thus the free will position that seeks to preserve man’s freedom of choice is, in reality, impersonal and fixed, thus being both deterministic and fatalistic. The only way to make it less fixed is the way of Open Theism, which denies the omniscience and omnipotence of God! The Calvinist position is personal, and God is active in the lives of people who make real choices with real moral boundaries. Calvinism is thus inherently personal for both God and man! We agree with Arminians that real, impersonal determinism and fatalism are repugnant to God and man and perversion of the gospel. We thank them for pointing this out. Why then, we ask, do they believe that very thing themselves?

AOMin said, "Dr. Caner seems to think that the reformed portion of the SBC is expendable. So I thought that I might suggest........

ARBCA 8-D

Come on over brothers....the water is fine. :-)"

I hate to be on the wrong side of James White (but, hey, I have Steve Hays in my corner, so why not :D), but why not ask all the ARBCA churches to join the SBC? Let's have a massive influx of RB churches. It sure would be a morale boost for our Founders brethren. Also, given the fact that some churches are now catching on and purging their rolls of the "Lapsi," you'd think they'd want to offset the losses.

Tom Bryant, You wrote:"My question is: Can someone...

2006-10-10T21:51:00.000-04:00

Tom Bryant,

You wrote:

"My question is: Can someone not accept Calvinism because they believe the Bible teaches differently?"

People do all the time. The question then becomes, "Which side is exegeting the related texts of scripture with the most consistency?"

Best,

Mark

Tom Bryant,As a fellow non-Calvinist, I would answ...

2006-10-10T21:45:00.000-04:00

Tom Bryant,

As a fellow non-Calvinist, I would answer that I think it is possible that someone can genuinely disagree with Calvinism on the basis of Scripture. But the problem here is many of the "disagreements" out there are so far from Scriptural it isn't funny.

If we're going to disagree with a theological position, it needs to be a) on the basis of what that position actually teaches and b) what is revealed about said position in Scripture. Very, very little of that has been done thus far in the whole "controversy" over Calvinism in the SBC.

That said, I would tend to agree that people refuse to come. In fact, unless I've completely misunderstood, that's exactly what the doctrines of grace teach. At the default position, we are in enmity with God and do not seek Him, since there is no fear of Him before our eyes (Romans 3). By nature, we will not come to Christ. That is why we need God to be the one who saves, because quite simply we can't do it, no matter how much we'd like to think we are "able."

Does this mean those family members of ours who have refused are responsible? Yes. Can we be comforted that it was God's choice to allow her to remain non-elect. Again, yes. Why? Because what we intend for evil, or what we think could constitute evil (especially on the part of a "loving God"), Scripture is very clear that God has intended for good. There is some good God has ordained to come out of the reprobate. And as you've said, we just need to trust God's choices in the matter.

http://trbc.org/new/resources.phpScroll down to Se...

2006-10-10T20:00:00.000-04:00

http://trbc.org/new/resources.php

Scroll down to September 17th, the message titled "Personal Testimony" by Ergun Caner. He speaks about his father, overall testimony, and gives a good look into the background he's coming out of.

Tom Bryant, I don't think I made any implications ...

2006-10-10T19:50:00.000-04:00

Tom Bryant,

I don't think I made any implications about the reasons why someone does or does not accept the Doctrines of Grace. I surely didn't imply that the similarities between the death of Caner's father and your sister demand that the both of you similarly dismiss Calvinism. To see that in my short post is a huge leap in logic.

Obviously people have different reasons for a refusal to accept the Doctrines of Grace. I have just found (in my personal experience and in reading of others' experiences) that those reasons are usually not biblical (at least CONSISTENTLY biblical) but instead are usually personal and emotional and for the most part TRADITIONAL.

You, sir, may very well be the exception.

My prayer in all of this is that SBC pastors and l...

2006-10-10T19:22:00.001-04:00

My prayer in all of this is that SBC pastors and leaders will, in the end, see that passion and volume are no substitute for sound theology. This applies in innumerable ways across our convention.

Chessman and Jeff spry,I have no clue what you are...

2006-10-10T19:22:00.000-04:00

Chessman and Jeff spry,
I have no clue what you are trying to say. I am not a Calvinist but it has nothing to do with the fact that my sister went to hell without Christ. In fact, I could probably get some comfort if I believed that she couldn't have because she was not among the elect. Then I would know it was not her choice but God's. And I trust His choices.

As it is now, I believe that she never came to Christ because she refused. That is heart breeaking to me.

My question is: Can someone not accept Calvinism because they believe the Bible teaches differently?

With that said, I am also sad that this will not happen. In reading the writings of Drs. Ascol and White, I have the highest respect for their honesty, integrity and committment to Biblical doctrine. I'm not sure I can say the same about the Drs. Caners.

Well, it looks like someone posted the same info a...

2006-10-10T19:02:00.000-04:00

Well, it looks like someone posted the same info as I was typing!

Someone on another blog posted that Ergun's father...

2006-10-10T19:00:00.000-04:00

Someone on another blog posted that Ergun's father passed away still holding on to Islam. Ergun witnessed to his father, who was on his deathbed, but the father would not trust in Christ.

The poster felt that this could possibly be a reason that Ergun dislikes Calvinism to such a degree, being that his own father was not one of God's elect.

I hope that there will be some confirmation to this story as either fact of fiction. If true, it might help us understand the man better.

Mark

Over at Calvinist Gadfly, "Willliam D" said this:M...

2006-10-10T18:54:00.000-04:00

Over at Calvinist Gadfly, "Willliam D" said this:

Mr. Caner's father died some years ago rejecting Christ. Caner witnessed to him on his deathbed but his father would not let go of his Islam. For Mr. Caner to accept that his father was not one of the elect must be a pretty difficult thing to come to terms with. I think that his zeal and anger against Calvinism is fueled by his refusal to accept that his father could have accepted Christ, but could not because God had not chosen to give him the faith to do so.

That is good insight, as is this from a good friend of mine named Brian P: Caner is a former Muslim and well acquainted with the fatalism of that false religion. Perhaps the reason why he exhibits such vitriol towards the Doctrines of Grace stems from his aversion towards anything that smacks of any sort of determinism (whether hard or soft). He wants as far away from Islam as he can get - not understanding the difference between Islam's fatalism and biblical determinism.

While not entirely sure, these two thoughts shed a semblance of light on Caner's personal hatred for reformed soteriology.

AOMin said, "Dr. Caner seems to think that the ref...

2006-10-10T18:33:00.000-04:00

AOMin said, "Dr. Caner seems to think that the reformed portion of the SBC is expendable. So I thought that I might suggest........

ARBCA 8-D

Come on over brothers....the water is fine. :-)"

I agree. Now how to do that?! hmmmm.

On his post, Emir concluded:I would argue that it ...

2006-10-10T18:08:00.000-04:00

On his post, Emir concluded:

I would argue that it would be, shall we say, a pulpit crime to overlook the love of God that He has for all men…

Mr. Caner, it would be an exegetical fallacy to reduce God's love to one meaning, sir. No one is overlooking God's love for all men. However, it is very possible to overlook sound exegesis by philosphical presuppositions inasmuch it is easy to eisegete Romans 9 to say that God hated Esau based on what he did.

Your imposition of the thesis of God's omnibenevolence is an uncritical defense, especially given the heretical camps that use this philosophical construct as a basis for their rejection of orthodox Christianity (see Talbott's Universalism, Hick's Pluralism, Pinnock's Open Theism, et al.).

In all honesty I would venture 90-99% of even the ...

2006-10-10T17:57:00.000-04:00

In all honesty I would venture 90-99% of even the LU students who hold to reformed doctrine had never heard the name James White before the debate advertisements began, and probably still don't.

Although I'm making a sweeping generalization here, the vast majority of LU students do not have a strong belief about any doctrinal position and if they do, they very rarely can defend it effectively. The three main things I hear are that they don't care, don't know, or think it's not important. As such, this entire debate debacle will be at most one 10 second blip on their conversational radar.

I think it is time to have a calm and irenic discu...

2006-10-10T17:47:00.000-04:00

I think it is time to have a calm and irenic discussion about Calvinism in Baptist life.

I thought that I might lighten the mood a bit ;-)

Dr. Caner seems to think that the reformed portion of the SBC is expendable. So I thought that I might suggest........

ARBCA 8-D

Come on over brothers....the water is fine. :-)

Mr. Brightbill: My thought was that if enough stu...

2006-10-10T17:05:00.000-04:00

Mr. Brightbill: My thought was that if enough students found out about the Dividing Line program some might stay back to listen to it. Then again, since they can listen to the archive later, what's the point.

I am disappointed, but hopeful that the buzz about...

2006-10-10T17:01:00.000-04:00

I am disappointed, but hopeful that the buzz about this debate will drive LU students and others to their Bibles. Kudos to Drs. White and Ascol and they way they conducted themselves on the DL today. Thanks for maintaining the bar for the rest of us.

One Side has provided documentry evidence on what ...

2006-10-10T16:59:00.000-04:00

One Side has provided documentry evidence on what actually took place durring negotiations. One side has provided spin. One side has wanted to actually debate the issue the other side wants sound bites. One side wanted a real meaningful debate to take place one side did not.