Dr. Ergun Caner Accepts Four-Pointers

If you clain to be a Calvinist and don't know which one of the 4 point he has the most contention with then you haven't been in keeping with current events. It is in regard to limited or specific atonement as that should be most obvious.
If he is such a 'brillent theologian' why do you degrade and ridicule him, unless of course it is being sacastic. In that case why do you do this to a fellow brother in Christ even if he does it to you. Are we still under the Law of 'and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Come on, you claim to have greater understanding of scripture than he does why not hold yourself to that standard??
I look for more than this from you J.D. Hold fast to that which is good and let God deal with those who give occasion for the enimies of God to boast, or who slander a brother in name of righteousness. I have seen both sides do this and wish both would stop personally.

Just a quick question:
Are you the same J.D. who posts comments on Strange Baptist Fire??
I have been on there before many times in the past and was just curious.

 

Whew. I was afraid for a moment there that he might not accept me...LOL.

What a relief it is that he can accept a 4 pointer. He is making progress. Let's at least give his royal highness that much.

Joseph Botwinick

 

So do you suppose a Calvinist over the Head of that Seminary would tolerate those of us who do not hold that positional view of Truth. Would they tolerate what Calvinists call non-sense and uneducated understanding of scripture. I highly doubt it. But as for what Caner did and his lack of repentence. I have yet to find any from his opponents either and both stand in sin. Caner believes in Predestination - but remember without all 5 points that theology fall flat on its face so it is no wonder he would accept them. No?

Lastly, anyone in that position must do all they feel is right to establish what is held as Truth within the scope of the schools view. Would a Calvinistic Professor do any different? No because they would want to up hold what they believe is doctrinal integrity and I would expect that.

 

Dr. Caner says he has no problem with 4-point Calvinists, but didn't really say he is one. The closest he came was to identify himself with the Sandy Creek Baptists. Many consider the Sandy Creekers as the closest to where Baptists are today.

However, The Sandy Creek Association's own statements of faith affirm at least four points of the TULIP as classically understood. They are less clear on their view of the atonement.

Sandy Creekers did hold to Total Depravity. Most modern Baptists do not. The modern view is man is not spiritually dead, but spiritually sick.

Sandy Creekers held to Unconditional Election. Most modern Baptists do not. They hold to Conditional Election based on foreseen faith.

Sandy Creekers affirn Irresistible Grace. Most modern Baptists will run from this as fast as they can because it undercuts their view of free will.

The closest most modern Baptists come to Sandy Creek is the P--Perseverance/Preservation of the saints. Even then, some will embrace the Preservation and reject the Perseverance.

It appears to me that Dr. Caner is a one-point Calvinist at best. Just like most 21st century Baptists.

I'm sure Dr. Caner is like everybody--he doesn't want his views misrepresented. So if I have done so, I would certainly welcome clarification.

 

==So Dr Caner has problems with "everyone" who has accepted all five points? Does he really wish to stand behind that statement? He claims to know church history, is he really willing to reject men like John Newton, Johnathan Edwards, just to name a few? I think he keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper and, the more he digs, the more obvious it is why the "powers that be" at LU did not want this debate to happen. I can't say that I blame them one bit.

O, yes, there are Calvinists at LU!

==I don't know that I would refer to Dr Caner as brilliant but, in some areas, he is very good. This area, the area of Calvinism, is just not his area that is clear.

==Limited atonement.

However he strongly argues against unconditional election as well so I am not sure he is as willing to accept four pointers as he claims. This may just be his olive branch to those he has offended.

==My Wheaton Terrior is more dangerous than Ergun Caner. :laugh: Mainly when it comes to the subject of Calvinism.

==No, because he does not believe in the four points and he argues against them. Ergun Caner is a general baptists and, like many popular evangelicals, is really an Arminian who believes in eternal security. I don't mean that as an insult, some men I have great respect for fall into that grouping (Charles Stanley, Norman Giesler, Adrian Rodgers, Tony Evans, etc).

 

I think it's more accurate to say that the modern view is that man is spiritually dead in one way, but spiritually sick in another. After all, dead and sick are metaphors.

When a man sins, he incurs guilt. Can a "dead" aspect of a man incur guilt for an act? If so, he's not as dead as you might be supposing.

Paul said in Eph 2 that dead people walk in trespasses and sins, which is a spiritual activity. Well, are they dead or are they walking?

Whether or not Arminianism or Amyraldianism is correct, it is still incorrect to describe the modern majority report as "sick, not dead." The modern view is "sick in one way of speaking, dead in another."

 

==Dr Caner is popular and gives LTS a high profile. That is why Falwell named him president (overlooking more qualified men who are already employed by the University).

==In an exchange with Dr White, Dr Caner did say that Calvinists were not welcome at LTS. However there are more than a few Calvinists at Liberty and I know there are some in the seminary. I imagine, while attending, they don't go public with their views. Many such people are in the distance learning program and thus are not forced to keep silent about their views since they are not on campus. Would Liberty dismiss a student because he/she was a five point calvinist? I doubt it. As long as the person is an evangelical, and most Calvinists are, I think they will be fine.

At the end of the day Dr Caner wants Liberty to be an evangelical school (you can't fault him for that). In his mind Calvinism is opposed to evangelicalism, which is practically and historically untrue, and therefore endangers the school's evangelical practices. If he, and others, were to figure that out this would go away. While I personally am a Calvinist, and a Liberty graduate, I don't use Calvinism as a test for orthodoxy. I have friends who are Arminians, General Baptists, and Pentecostals. We agree on the major points, the fundamentals, of Christianity yet we disagree on other points. We can have our disagreements and still fellowship just fine. The "debate" between the Caner's and White/Ascol could have been a friendly debate about the differences. Look at White's debate with John D Crossan. It was very friendly and those two are about as far apart as two men can be, yet the whole debate was friendly. There is no excuse why the Liberty debate could not have been the same way. I think the problem was that the "powers that be", at Liberty, knew Ergun Caner was out-matched. Maybe the same with Emir, I just don't know. Ergun is a good sound-byte preacher but he is not a scholar and I doubt he would have done good in that kind of debate. What would have ended up happening is that he would have made a point, Ascol/White would have shown the point to be 100% wrong, and Caner would not have had a way to save face. Falwell could not allow his seminary president to end up in that situation. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, that is why Liberty tried to change everything at the last moment. They knew Ascol/White would not go along with the changes, and they were banking that Ascol/White would pull out. Just my opinion, however I know I am not alone in this.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sorry, that line just made me laugh.

 

4 point calvinist is the same thing as a "small giant"

 

Yep, an oxymoron. Like "jumbo shrimp."

 

Family vacation!

 

I hope that some of the people on here don't talk to people in person the way they speak on this board.

 

I think this is important. Many folks fail to realize that there is such a thing as analogy, and not every term always takes a univocal sense. (such as the word 'dead'). A sorely missed point from Aquinas.

 

He is at Liberty afterall.:laugh:

Joseph Botwinick

 

Is it really so unusual for a college/seminary to have a point of view, to broadcast it, to hire faculty that agree with it, to promote it, and to seek to have graduates who propagate it? Seems to me this is the point of starting a seminary or college. You 5-pointers have plenty of schools that promote your point of view and God is in control isn't he? Let it be!