Ergun Caner on Allah
Dr. Ergun Caner, a former Muslim who is now president of Liberty Theological Seminary and all-around great guy (all the more so because Calvinists don't like him), discusses an article by his brother regarding the fact that Allah is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Labels:
Christianity,
Islam
8 comments:
James White posted on this article as well. White actually agrees with Caner on something. Wow!
Caner and the "fightin' fundies" at Liberty really embarrassed themselves last year on the whole White/Caner debate. I can honestly say that I've never seen such childish behaviour from a seminary professor before. Caner took ignorance and foolishness to a new level last year. I really liked it when he said that "Calvinists are worse than Muslims". That will go down in the annals of Calvinistic folklore for years to come.
Perhaps Falwell and Caner can stop the evil Piper and Driscolls of the world before it's too late. I would hate to see thousands more get saved through these evil and misguided Calvinists. They must be stopped at all costs! Quick, call Dave Hunt and George Bryson! Forces must unite!
While I can't say I can remember similar histrionics from a seminary professor, I can say that I've seen what I would consider quite childish stuff coming from the pen/keyboard of Dr. White himself. He has a characteristically Reformed tendency towards caustic sarcasm in his edifying remarks concerning those he disagrees with.
Now, I'm no saint when it comes to tongue-in-cheek-edness; but White elevates it to stratospheric heights.
But while I wouldn't take it to the extreme that Caner did in his off-the-cuff remark, I think you can tell by now that I'm no huge fan of the doctrines of the Genevan Divine. In fact, I do believe that Calvinism, consistently held, is damaging to a believer's faith.
I know, I know... I'm wrong, I'm ugly, and I dress funny, etc., etc., etc...
I would agree with you. White does take things too far sometimes. I thought that he should have cancelled the debate very early on. It was naive of him to think that Caner was going to somehow "straighten up" before it was all said and done. White is a professional debater--it's one of his many talents. Caner is not so professional. He doesn't have the maturity to do one in a godly way. He's good at screaming and yelling and hyping things up--but he's no James White.
I would argue that Arminianism is dangerous to the faith--when you take it to it's logical conclusion. I saw this in Calvary Chapel first hand. Chucks "abiding in Christ" theory about Eternal Security is nothing but Arminianism repackaged. It puts your eternal security in your hands and not in the hands of God. Scary stuff!!!!!
I prefer a God-centered theology. One that puts the confidence in God and His ability to keep us. He's the perfect Saviour. He will not fail.
Love ya Mike. Have a blessed day today! Know that you and your family are being prayed for here in Kentucky!
I think you dress just fine Mike. I'll leave whether you are ugly or not to your wife. I feel a little awkward judging that one.
Ah, yes... the old "You Calvaries Are Arminian Semi-Pelagian Hoop-Skirt Wearing Sons of Silly Persons" line... ;D
We disagree rather sharply on this point (I say Calvinism is dangerous, you say Arminianism is dangerous, I say to-MAH-toe, you say to-MAY-toe... it goes on and on and on).
Let's just say that I've been predestined to break out in hives when exposed to the Canons of Dort... it's not my fault... God made me do it... who am I, oh man, to say to the Potter, What hast Thou done... etc., etc., etc...
Correction Mike. Romans 9 makes you break out into hives.
Strawmen arguments personally make me break out. That darn itchy straw!
The Word of God does that from time to time. It goes against our intuition and pride. Romans 9 is no friend to Calvary...it used to be...but no more.
I'll keep my confidence in God for my salvation...you can keep yourself "in Christ" for yours. I personally don't trust myself as much as you do. It's much better to be a "son" of the King than a subject of His possible wrath. I pray that you will someday feel that assurance as well. It feels wonderful to be freed from the Law and His wrath!
God bless you today! I mean, "may the Lord bless you if you allow Him to bless you....He would never bless you without your approval and consent..He's a gentleman after all"....just joking!
Sorry, I just can't resist. But I'm not joking about praying for you and your ministry.
Now, now, Shane... you're doing what White does all the time - chastize someone for doing something that you subsequently then do.
Who ever said I keep myself in Christ? Or that Calvary teaches that? When Chuck (for instance) or Focht (for another instance) teaches on Romans 9, they sound awfully Calvinist.
By laying the "you guys think salvation depends on YOU!!! canard, you fall for the very thing you condemn.
Stupid, stupid straw men! DOH!!!
;p
Thanks for being a good sport Mike.
Actually, you're talking with a guy who graduated from CCBC. I lived and breathed Chuck Smith's theology for many years. I understand perfectly what he teaches on this issue. He does NOT believe in the Eternal Security of the believer ("once saved always saved" in the common tongue). He teaches that as long as we "abide" in Christ, then we can stay saved (even though that's not the context of that passage).
Funny story about that. Brian Brodersen once taught on that at a Sunday night chapel at the college. He gave the usual Chuck teaching on that issue. Some astute students quickly confronted him on that after the chapel was over. The very next week, Brian gets up and tells the students that he is sorry for not being honest with them. He then went on to tell us that he "gave the Chuck Smith view on that issue...not his own". He actually believed that there was much more evidence for the Security of the Believer than that they could fall away. He then gave the Reformed teaching on the issue. It was great stuff. But that moment always concerned me.
Here is a man who is high up on the food chain at Calvary Chapel--yet he feels that he cannot be honest with us on something that he truly believes. Why? Because "Papa Chuck" teaches and believes in something else. Not only is Chuck's teaching way of the mark, but shouldn't Brian be allowed to differ on this? If Brian leans more Reformed on this issue, isn't that fine?
I'm sorry if I don't understand YOUR position on this one--but I DO understand Chucks. Believe me--I heard Chuck teach on this numerous times. He takes the classic non-reformed position on this (I know you don't like the label Arminian--though there is nothing to be ashamed of--it's totally orthodox---wrong, but still orthodox).
So what is your position? I don't want to assume (like I just did) that you agree with Chuck on this issue. Perhaps, you do differ with him. Do you side with Reformed Theology?
It would bless my little "once saved always saved" heart if you identified with at least ONE point of Reformed Theology.
By the way, old Joe and Chuck don't teach the Reformed view on Romans 9--in the old days maybe...but not anymore. Chuck now teaches it something like this...
"Okay, now I know what you are all thinking about what I just read from Romans 9...but that's not what it really means. Let me tell you what it really means...a long time ago, there was this evil, head chopper offer named John Calvin...he loved to kill people...infact you should read this new book by Dave Hunt...it's really good. All the top scholars...I mean folks...love his work. It's great. That fellow George Bryson has a good book too...you should really read him as well...infact, let's just skip this part for now...it's too mysterious for us...let's talk about the Rapture for just a minute..."
You know Mike, I just don't have the spiritual maturity to pass those things up. Anyways, I would love to hear how you differ with Chuck on this. Let me know. If you have the time.
Post a Comment