Evangelii Gaudium - the BBC Has Overstated the Pope's Liberal Leanings

BBC News has the headline: "Pope Francis calls for power to move away from Vatican" and the opening line: "Pope Francis has called for power in the Catholic Church to be devolved away from the Vatican, in the first major work he has written in the role."

The document in question, Evangelii Gaudium ("Gospel's Joy") purports to be an apostolic exhortation. The document does state, at section 32, "Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach." I cannot find anywhere in the document the idea of actually removing power from the Vatican. There are several favorably mentions of the Second Vatican Council, but nothing opposing ultramontanism even to the extent that the Second Vatican Council attempted.

There are some other interesting aspects to the document. For example, it was interesting to see Garry Wills' point about the power of the ministerial priesthood arising from the Eucharist. Section 104 states: "Its [the ministerial priesthood's] key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people." Wills would, I think, respond that the power to administer the Eucharist naturally progresses into a power of domination, particularly when the power is discretionary.

Sections 147 and 148 are also interesting in terms of their relationship to exegesis:

147. First of all, we need to be sure that we understand the meaning of the words we read. I want to insist here on something which may seem obvious, but which is not always taken into account: the biblical text which we study is two or three thousand years old; its language is very different from that which we speak today. Even if we think we understand the words translated into our own language, this does not mean that we correctly understand what the sacred author wished to say. The different tools provided by literary analysis are well known: attention to words which are repeated or emphasized, recognition of the structure and specific movement of a text, consideration of the role played by the different characters, and so forth. But our own aim is not to understand every little detail of a text; our most important goal is to discover its principal message, the message which gives structure and unity to the text. If the preacher does not make this effort, his preaching will quite likely have neither unity nor order; what he has to say will be a mere accumulation of various disjointed ideas incapable of inspiring others. The central message is what the author primarily wanted to communicate; this calls for recognizing not only the author’s ideas but the effect which he wanted to produce. If a text was written to console, it should not be used to correct errors; if it was written as an exhortation, it should not be employed to teach doctrine; if it was written to teach something about God, it should not be used to expound various theological opinions; if it was written as a summons to praise or missionary outreach, let us not use it to talk about the latest news.

148. Certainly, to understand properly the meaning of the central message of a text we need to relate it to the teaching of the entire Bible as handed on by the Church. This is an important principle of biblical interpretation which recognizes that the Holy Spirit has inspired not just a part of the Bible, but the Bible as a whole, and that in some areas people have grown in their understanding of God’s will on the basis of their personal experience. It also prevents erroneous or partial interpretations which would contradict other teachings of the same Scriptures. But it does not mean that we can weaken the distinct and specific emphasis of a text which we are called to preach. One of the defects of a tedious and ineffectual preaching is precisely its inability to transmit the intrinsic power of the text which has been proclaimed.

It is interesting to hear Francis' comments. He seems to be acknowledging that literary analysis is legitimate for figuring out the meaning of the text in section 147. In section 148, Francis is careful to add the qualifier "as handed on by the Church" (presumably modifying "teaching" not "Bible"). Still, fundamentally Francis seems to be recognizing that while people can misunderstand the text, they can use literary analysis to figure out what it means. This means that even if a "church" is helpful in analyzing the text, it is not necessary -- the text has intrinsic power and self-demonstrating meaning.

Section 22 similarly acknowledges the superior power of the word to the church:

22. God’s word is unpredictable in its power. The Gospel speaks of a seed which, once sown, grows by itself, even as the farmer sleeps (Mk 4:26-29). The Church has to accept this unruly freedom of the word, which accomplishes what it wills in ways that surpass our calculations and ways of thinking.

It's great for Francis to make these concessions, and it helps to undermine the traditional error of Roman Catholicism in treating "the Church" as a necessary gatekeeper and mouthpiece for the Word.

The RC pope may not be as liberal as the BBC portrays him, but he expresses a position a lot closer to "Protestantism" than some of his predecessors.

-TurretinFan

Keep it Simple: STUPID

TULIP is a great acronym for the doctrines of grace. But it's not very American. Here's another that may be easier to recall, next time people tell you that election, predestination, or Calvinism is "stupid." You can respond, yes:

Sovereignty: God is in charge - we are not. All things happen according to his foreordinate counsel - from the death of Christ to the last hair on our heads.
Total depravity: In Adam we fell and our natures became corrupt, so that we do not obey the law of God and are not able to.
Unconditional election: God has chosen some of humanity for himself, based only on himself and his love - not based on us and our merit.
Perseverance of the saints: God will finish the work of salvation that he begins at justification, saving to the uttermost those who approach Him in faith.
Irresistible grace: God's grace acts directly to convert the heart, change the will, and make a new creature, who then responds. God's grace does not have to wait for the creature's will, in order to effect a change.
Definite atonement: Christ's death was particularly intended to bring about the salvation of the elect: his sheep - those that the Father gave him out of the world.

-TurretinFan

Elected for the Non-Elect

My friend, Dr. James White, recently reviewed a portion of a sermon by Eric Hankins, in which Pastor Hankins tried to argue that the elect were chosen for the non-elect. There is a certain intuitive appeal of that position: Christ is the Elect One, and Paul and Jeremiah were chosen for service. It doesn't do full justice to passages like Romans 9, though.

Was Jacob chosen for the benefit of Esau? Or was it written, "the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]"? Surely the latter.

Was Moses chosen for the benefit of Pharaoh? Or was it almost the reverse? Again, the latter seems to be the case.

Hankins tried to say that God never gives up on anyone. But is that really true? Did God never give up on Pharaoh or the Egyptians? What about the households of Ahab and Jeroboam? Or let's get more dramatic - what about the whole earth in the days of Noah? Did God ever give up on the rest of the world except the eight souls on the ark? The answer has to be "yes," since God sent the flood on them.

Hankins' rhetoric may sound nice, but it is wrong. The elect are chosen for the glory of God, first and foremost, and they are also chosen to serve one another:

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

-TurretinFan

Waldron's Cascade Argument

Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Sam Waldron had a very cordial debate on the question, "Have the New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased?" Dr. Brown's rebuttal arguments did not appear to me to reflect an understanding of Dr. Waldron's primary argument, the so-called Cascade Argument.

I strongly believe that it is important to a dialog that both sides understand the other. Thus, my hope is that by spelling out this argument in writing, I can clarify the argument to Dr. Brown, to those who agree with him, and more broadly to those considering the question of the gifts.

The Cascade Argument can be summarized thus:

1) There are no apostles of Christ on earth today.
2) Because there are no apostles of Christ, there are no prophets.
3) Because there are no prophets, there are no tonguespeakers.
4) In view of 1-3, there are no miracle workers on earth today.

1. There are No Apostles of Christ on Earth Today

A) To be an Apostle of Christ was itself a gift to the church, and the foremost of the gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 Ephesians 4:8-11 - Christ gave gifts to men, among them apostles.

B) The term "apostles of Christ" is to be distinguished from missionaries, aka "apostles of the churches," which is a different office. Only "apostles of Christ" are no longer among us.

C) To be an apostle of Christ, there were three distinguishing marks:
i) Directly appointed by Christ (Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1:2, Acts 10:41, Galatians 1:1). That's why the lot was used.
ii) Physical eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:22, Acts 10:39, 1 Corinthians 9:1)
iii) They are able to confirm their apostlate by doing miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12).

D) The apostles of Christ spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 14:37).

E) There are five reasons we know from Scripture that the Apostlate ceased:
i) Ephesians 2:20 The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which alludes to Revelation 21:14. The analogy implies that the apostles and prophets were confined to the foundational period of church history.
ii) 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul "last of all" was the last one to see the risen Christ. And since being a physical eyewitness to the risen Christ is one of the marks of an apostle, Paul is the last apostle.
iii) 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:1 indicate that Christians cannot seek the gift of Apostle of Christ - the greatest gift they could seek was prophecy, even though apostleship was identified as a gift.
iv) Galatians 2:7-9 Paul received the right hand of fellowship from the 12 apostles, but no one can today.
v) Ephesians 2:20 This passage describes the form of the New Testament as "apostles and prophets." If there were apostles and prophets today, the canon would be open, as those apostles/prophets continued to speak authoritatively. But Charismatics (nearly all) recognize that the canon is closed, therefore they ought to recognize that the apostlate is also closed.

F. Apostolic Gift is Linked to Impartation of Other Gifts (Acts 8)
This suggests the cessation of the miraculous gifts.

2. There are No Prophets Today
A) The cessation of the apostolate creates the presumption or at least possibility of cessation of other gifts.

B) NT Prophets like the Apostles were foundational to the New Testament church. (Ephesians 2:20)

C) Definition of Prophet in Deuteronomy 13 & 18 was never rescinded, and this requires infallibility.

D) Just as the OT's authority is summarized as "the prophetic word" (2 Peter 1:19-21) and its form is also described in about a dozen NT references to "the law and the prophets" or "Moses and the prophets", so also the NT's canon is summarized in Ephesians 2:20 as "apostles and prophets" (the prophets in question are NT prophets as seen in Ephesians 3:5; 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28).

3. There are No Tongue-Speakers Today because Tongues was a form of prophecy.
A) Acts 2 tongue speaking is explained by reference to Joel 2, where it is described as prophecy.

B) 1 Corinthians 14:5 asserts the equivalence of the two gifts, if tongues is interpreted.

C) In both tongues and prophecy, the speaker is uttering mysteries, which refers to prophetic revelation (1 Corinthians 13:2, Revelation 1:3, 1:20, and 10:7).

4. There are No Miracle-Workers Today
There may be miracles today, but there is a difference between miracles and miracle workers.

The Cascade Argument was augmented by a dilemma as to the first point: if they accept the point, then they are at least cessationists in some form, since the first and greatest gift no longer exists; whereas if charismatics want to assert that there are living apostles of Christ today, then they are denying a clear New Testament teaching. Additionally, if such apostles exist today, then they have the same authority/infallibility that the original apostles had.

-TurretinFan

Response to Michael Brown's "Be Careful"

Michael Brown's recent article (link) is a good reminder that we should be careful about how we identify "another gospel" as such. Nevertheless, Brown seems to take this proper caution to humility too far.

Brown writes:

So let’s put the theological bombast aside and be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:3-6).

The problem is, theology matters. It especially matters when people claim to speak with the authority of the Spirit. We can hardly have "unity of the Spirit" when we serve the Holy Spirit and they serve a deceiving spirit.

Brown writes:

Why then must we be so quick to go beyond the rule of Scripture and take it upon ourselves to damn to hell other professing believers if—to repeat—they hold to the fundamentals of the faith and have not denied the Lord in word or deed?

First of all, we are calling these people to repentance, not damning them to hell. Brown needs to control his emotions.
Second, Brown is begging the question. We don't agree with his position on the false prophets in the charismatic movement: rather we say that they do not hold to the fundamentals of the faith and that they deny the Lord by their words and deeds.

Brown states:

In other words, even though there are heretics, God knows those who are truly saved; as for us, if we claim to be His we must depart from iniquity.

God does know who are His. Nevertheless, God calls us to exercise discernment:

Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

-TurretinFan

Fossils in the Wrong Rock Layers?

Sometimes we are told that evolution could be falsified by finding fossils in the wrong rock layers. This just is not true. Consider the linked article (link). As the article points out:

Jim Fassett, author of the research of the US Geological Survey, said many would still doubt the discovery.
He said: "The great difficulty with this hypothesis – that these are the remains of dinosaurs that survived – is ruling out the possibility that the bones date from before the extinction.
"After being killed and deposited in sands and muds, it is possible for bones to be exhumed by rivers and then incorporated into younger rocks."

You see, there are already explanations for why the bones are in the "wrong" rock layers. And the bottom line is the same - evolution, or at least philosohpical naturalism, is a precommitment of atheistic scientific endeavors.

-TurretinFan

Response to JaclynGlenn's Response to Ray Comfort

JaclynGlenn attempts to respond to Ray Comfort (link - caution, profanity and blasphemy). Once you weed through the profanity, blasphemy, and assorted name-calling and insults, there is actually very little to JaclynGlenn's comments, aside from an unsubstantiated assertion that Mr. Comfort is somehow opposed to logic.

Let's address her points:

1) Alleged Evidence of Speciation

JaclynGlenn complains that birds and salamanders changing into other kinds of birds and salamanders is an example of speciation and consequently it should be accepted as evidence of Darwinian evolution. What JaclynGlenn seems to be missing is that if this is the best evidence for speciation, we're not very impressed. Part of that is because "species" lines tend to be drawn pretty fluidly, and these variations could easily be seen as variation within species, rather than generation of new species.

2) "Nothing Made Everything"

JaclynGlenn says she does not "believe" this, and she would change her mind if scientists told her something else. It's not really clear whether JaclynGlenn just doesn't understand that she's placing her trust in scientists, or whether she only uses "believe" pejoratively.

3) "Long Term Changes Not Observable"

JaclynGlenn's point is well taken - but it cuts the opposite of the way she thinks. It doesn't provide an excuse for scientists - it simply underscores the fact that Darwinian evolution is not scientific.

4) "Tiny Differences Between Humans and Chimps"

JaclynGlenn thinks Ray Comfort should have said "tens of millions of bases" instead of "hundreds of millions of bases" of differences. JaclynGlenn responds that this is still only a 1.5% (rounding up) difference. JaclynGlenn seems to think this is significant, suggesting that the genetic difference between humans and chimps is 10 times less than between a rat and a mouse.

Again, I'm not sure JaclynGlenn realizes the problem. The problem is not simply the magnitude of the differences as a percentage of the whole, but the magnitude of the differences in absolute terms.

Keep in mind also that genetics is still a young field. One frequently cited number says that about 98% of the human genome is "non-coding" or "junk" DNA. While the 1% number was previously used, other studies suggest 4% (see here). Moreover, it is sometimes unclear whether the 1% is as fraction of the whole genome or only of the coding part (i.e. the part thought to be functional). Finally, newer studies are casting doubt on the idea that the "non-coding" DNA is not functional.

5) "Fossil in the Wrong Geological/Geographical? Location"

JaclynGlenn refers to the possibility of evolution being proven wrong by a fossil being found in the wrong "geographical position" (I assume she means the wrong geological position in the rock layers). She claims this hasn't happened yet.

Apparently, JaclynGlenn is unaware of the coelacanths, which were thought to have been extinct for 65 million years based on the fossils, but were discovered to be still living today. Of course, for philosophical naturalists, this didn't blow evolution out of the water - and it won't for JaclynGlenn when she reads this, because she's committed to trying to explain everything without reference to the Creator.

Response to Jason Reed's Apostasy Story

Jason Reed recently joined Rome's communion. Because he's served as a seminary professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, his apostasy to Rome's communion has made waves in certain circles. Mike Schulte was kind enough to post a 56 minute video that includes a recent talk given by Jason, in which he explains his move.

No summary of Reed's story will be fully fair to all its nuances, but it appears Reed never could explain why Roman Catholicism is contrary to Scripture and enjoyed Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica when introduced to it as seminary student. Thus, when he was surrounded by Roman Catholic professors, intellectual Roman Catholic peers in grad school, and Roman Catholic family, he found justifications for making a move to Rome.

In more detail (all time stamps are approximate):

Head Coverings - Some Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16

I've applied some chevrons to the text of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, to try to emphasize some of the structure:

> Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
>> But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
>>> Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
>>>> But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
>>>>> For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
>>> For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
>>>> For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
(Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.)
>> Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
>>> Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
>>> But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
> But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Next, let me provide an outline of Paul's comments:

Follow the traditions we give you;
A) Headship explained:
i) Christ is the head of man,
ii) the husband is the head of the wife,
iii) God is the head of Christ;
B) Covering's Relationship to Honor/Glory
i) Male covering dishonors himself;
ii) Female uncovering dishonors herself (reductio from the fact that if she was shaved it would be obviously a disgrace);
iii) Male uncovering displays God's glory;
iv) Female covering displays the male's power to the angels;
(But in the Lord, men and women are equal as they create one another and all are created by God.)
C) Nature Illustrates the Principle of Covering
i) It is a shame for men to have long hair;
ii) It is a glory for women to have long hair;
iii) Hair is a natural covering of the head.
But if the argument from nature doesn't persuade you, suffice that headcovering (for women) and uncovering (for men) is the only custom we have; there is no other custom among the apostles or churches of God

Some general thoughts:

1) Men generally don't tend to have a big problem with obeying the commands of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. After all, this is one of the nicer aspects of being man - getting to typify the glory of God and the headship of Christ.
2) Men are prone to let this go to their heads. That's why the parenthetical about equality in the Lord is there: so we can remember that this headship men have is for this earth only and typifies the headship of God.
3) Men also should keep in mind that this headship comes with typing Christ in other words, such as providing for and sacrificing himself for his wife. (Ephesians 5:25; see also, 1 John 3:16 and Romans 16:4)
4) Women, in this age of feminism, have a problem obeying the commands.
5) Some women have a problem with this custom of showing male headship with an artificial covering, because they have a problem with male headship. This class of women should be encouraged by the parenthetical about equality in the Lord, but ought to endure male headship in this present age.
6) Some women have a problem with this custom of showing male headship with an artificial covering, because they think their natural covering is enough. This may arise from a misunderstanding of Paul's argument from nature. Paul argues that nature itself shows that long hair is bad for men but good for women. Paul is using this to demonstrate that men should not wear artificial coverings and women should. We know this because Paul first argues that if a woman is not covered, she might as well be shorn/shaven. But if he was only referring to natural covering, then his statement makes no sense. "If she does not have long hair, she might as well have short hair" would be a tautology, but Paul is employing a reductio.
7) Some women have a problem with this custom because they believe that the custom is a cultural one. Such a conclusion is not derivable from the text. Paul argues for the custom not based on Corinthian or Graeco-Roman cultural norms, but based on (a) universal apostolic tradition; (b) the principle of headship; (c) the testimony to the angels; and (b) the light of nature. None of these arguments are culturally limited. Moreover, Paul's admonition is not a general statement about life in the surrounding culture, but a specific statement about life in the church ("praying and prophesying").
8) Some women have a problem with this custom because they have heard that a shaved head in Corinth suggested that a woman was a prostitute and that long hair in Corinth suggested that a man was a homosexual. Thus, placed in that context Paul was just telling people not to look like prostitutes and homosexuals. The problems with this kind of argument are as follows:
i) The evidence for the premises about hair length and its significance in Corinth is rather tenuous. If someone wanted to debate this point with me, I would want to see what evidence they had found for the ideas that a shaved head in Corinth suggested that a woman was a prostitute and that long hair in Corinth suggested that a man was a homosexual. But let's assume for the sake of argument that such evidence exists.
ii) The argument from that evidence assumes that all Paul has in mind are natural coverings, not artificial coverings. But Paul has in mind artificial coverings, as explained above.
iii) Given that Paul has in mind artificial coverings, one would expect Paul to say that if a woman is shaven or shorn, she should cover her head artificially - but instead he phrases it the other way around. If she doesn't cover her head artificially, she might as well shave her head. The idea that this would mark her as a prostitute in Corinth would simply enhance Paul's reductio.
iv) The reference to praying/prophesying makes little sense if Paul's point is one about avoiding the appearance of sexual sin. In other words, women should never dress like prostitutes and men should not dress themselves in a way that suggests homosexuality. These are general principles of avoiding the appearance of sin, not anything specific to worship.
v) The discussion of headship seems completely out of place if Paul's point is about avoiding the appearance of sexual immorality.
vi) Conversely, the artificial covering is specifically described as "power on her head."
vii) And as hinted at in (iii), evidence that long hair was associated with homosexuality and shaved heads with prostitution would seem to play well into Paul's argument from the analogy of nature, but Paul does not exclusively rely on that argument, but rather on authoritative tradition.
9) Some women have a problem with this custom because they think it only applies to women in the pulpit, but they are not in the pulpit, so it does not apply to them. But even when there were women prophetesses, women were required to be silent in the church. So, the praying/prophesying is not a short-hand reference to women pastors, but rather broadly to religious worship.
10) Some women are persuaded that the Scriptures say that they should cover their head during public prayer, but are hesitant to do so because they are in the minority in their church. In fact, they might be the only such woman in their church. They fear either ridicule or judgment of their peers. This is a very understandable fear. A head covering does mark out a woman in that context. Still, such women should take encouragement from the fact that the angels observe her as well. By her head covering she is testifying to her submission to her head, and demonstrating to the angels her obedience to Christ our head and to God the the head of Christ. Moreover, she should consider that her testimony may encourage other wives to do the same - perhaps wives who have been reluctant for the same reason. Indeed, this is one visible way in which a woman can fulfill her teaching role as described in Titus 2:5.

In numbers 5-9 above, I've referred to women having a problem with the command. Obviously, a lot of their husbands either join with them or don't object to them. So, there are doubtless men who have a problem with this command as well. Men's issues with the command are less significant to me, because the command is not directed to them. Still, men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders of their household, and ought properly to instruct their wives on this issue. Husbands also ought to be understanding of the fact that their wives may feel themselves under peer pressure to conform to whatever the majority of other women in the church are doing - that this will not be easy, and that many Protestant women grew up in churches that had abandoned the this ordinance that Paul delivered to the Corinthians. Be patient, but don't neglect what Paul taught.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner Testimony at "Free CD Tracts"

"Free CD Tracts" has posted Ergun Caner's testimony (here). There are links to audio (here) and video (one - two).

All times are approximate and refer to the audio file:
"For the average Muslim it takes seven years to come to faith in Jesus - for me, it was any number of years" (0:30)
If only he would stick to this!

"Finally, my senior year in high school" (1:00)
Was it his senior year or his junior year?

"In every debate that I've done, in every time I've debated Muslims, Sunni, Sufi, Alawite, Shia, every debate I've ever done, this question always comes up from the Muslim, 'what does one man's death have to do with me.'" (5:00)
I would love to see any evidence that Caner has ever debated Muslims from each of those sects.

"Isa bin Allah - Jesus is the son of God" (6:30)
This does not seem to be grammatically correct Arabic.

"In every debate, in every discussion, I have never met one Muslim - not one! - who believes that the Allah of the Koran and Jehovah intimate Adonai God of the Bible are the same god." (10:00)
Again, where are these debates? Moreover, the Koran does claim:

And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.

Surah 29:46 (Pickthall translation)

What is sad about the videos is that they are clearly professionally done. There is even some nice Arabic or Farsi (someone who reads it better than me should be able to say) sub-titling. Moreover, a lot of what Caner has to say is important and valuable for Muslims to hear. If only the dross could be purged so that the testimony could be heard by those who need to hear it! I'd also like for the testimony to mention more about the need for repentance, but I suppose that Caner has not mentioned that, because he believes Muslims are already aware of that.

-TurretinFan

From Islam to Christianity - Part 1 - Ergun Caner - 2 November 2009

A transcript of a program titled, "From Islam to Christianity - Part 1" by Ergun Caner, dated November 2, 2009, can be found at this link (link). I would love to check the accuracy of the transcript, but it seems to be hard to find original audio of Ergun Caner's presentations these days. Here are some interesting comments attributed to Caner in the transcript:

And in Acts 16 Paul and Silas and Luke they set out on the second missionary journey. The first place they go is my country, Tyrus is on the western shores of Turkey. I'm an eastern Turk, toward the Kurdish regions.

Now, we know that Caner was born in Sweden and came to America as a young boy. But let's set this aside for a moment, to look at some other comments.

Somebody stuck around for me. I came here as a missionary to you. I didn't know Christians. I thought you hated me. Everything I ever learned about American Christianity I learned in the mosque from my imam or from my madrassa, my training center. And so every other place I'd ever lived I lived there as a majority person.
I always lived in a majority Islamic countries. Then I come to America. My father was a muezzin. I'm the oldest of three sons to his wife, this one wife. He had many wives. I came as a faithful and devout Muslim.
Every debate I've ever had with a Muslim, "Oh, you do not understand Islam. Oh, you need to understand the Arabic." What's next? That was my language before English. English is hard.

Notice the claims he makes:

• that he came "as a missionary."
• that he "always lived in majority Islamic countries."
• that his father had "many wives."
• that he has had enough debates with Muslims to describe them as "every debate."
• that Arabic was his language before English.

Are any of these claims true? Recall that Caner's "statement" said:

As for the countless other volleys aimed at discrediting the work I do, I am unsure how to respond. If my pronunciation of Arabic phrases is not correct, then I apologize. The language of my lineage is Turkish, not Arabic. Even Arabic dialects differ regionally, such as Jordanian and Egyptian. Indeed, 80% of the Muslim world does not speak Arabic, so I doubt anyone will be fully satisfied at this juncture.

(source)
Continuing:

So at the end of your life you've got to be 51 percent righteous to make it into paradise. That's why I had a prayer rug in my locker in high school in Brooklyn, New York and then Columbus, Ohio. I would roll my rug out and five times a day, three times in the high school and then twice other times.

When did Caner go to high school in Brooklyn, NY?

I kept telling him no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Finally he invited me to a revival. And so I walked in to Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio in full gear with a coat on.

What gear?

They didn't call me names. They didn't call me towel head, camel jockey or sand n*gger. See, I got called that other places.

Kids are mean, but why would they call him any of those names, given that he apparently dressed normally and wasn't an Arab?

I got to do two things as a new believer in Jesus. One, took my keffiyeh off and I told the waitress I was saved. And number two, I ordered every piece of ham - I went home and told my father. I said, "Abi, I am born again. I'm saved." It was November 4, 1982 and it was the last day I saw my father.

Why was Caner wearing keffiyeh? That's not typical for Turkish Muslims. Also, "abi" sounds more like Hebrew "Abba," than like a Turkish word for "father."

In 1991 my Mama got saved. In the baptistry took off her hijab.

Why would his mother have been wearing a hijab? (see discussion here)

This seems to have been something of a "canned" sermon by Dr. Caner. You can see very similar excerpts here (link), from a sermon with the same topic, but preached a few years earlier.

Ergun Caner with Craig von Buseck

Ergun Caner was apparently interviewed some time ago by Craig von Buseck (interview available here).

Caner stated:

I was a Muslim for half my life, until I was almost twenty. The only thing I ever learned about Christianity I learned from my Imam and the scholars in the mosque. Then when I began to be trained in Madras we heard even more about Christians, that they are our enemies. I would guess that the key word that we would call the Americans was the Crusaders. Right after the bombing of 9/11, when the first bin Ladin tape was released, he called us Crusaders. The Fatwa that was signed February 23rd, 1998 referred to us as the Crusaders. This is because from our world mindset -- one side of my family is Wahabi, the other side is Sunni Orthodox -- this is fundamental to understanding how they view America.

a) Caner elsewhere claims to have come to Christ in 1982, which would have meant he was either 15 or 16.
b) This claim of being Sunni/Wahabi was similarly made here:

But another time it was claimed that Ergun's mother was Sufi:

But compare what Emir Caner said about his mother saying the Shahada at the time she married his dad, and subsequently becoming a universalist/hippy:

And finally remember that Geisler tried to claim on Caner's behalf that "Michael" was a name that Caner's mother "always wished to give him" (see here).
Caner state: "I do debates and in America it's becoming kind of like the gospel according to Jerry Springer -- you know, there's yelling and screaming."
Where are these debates?
- TurretinFan