Thursday, May 06, 2010

Ergun Caner Parody

There is a "Dr. Ergun Caner" parody page on Youtube. It pokes some fun at the real Dr. Ergun Caner. Obviously, what Dr. Caner is doing in embellishing his autobiography is not funny. Nevertheless, this parody is at least drawing attention to the apparent attempted cover-up by Liberty University and Dr. Ergun Caner. Please keep in mind that the page is parody, not something serious. Also, for the Liberty University folks, before you try to take down this site, remember that parody is protected speech.

74 comments:

Pilgrimsarbour said...

...remember that parody is protected speech.

Heh. Tell that to all the folks who parodied Downfall on YouTube.

natamllc said...

As I watched this parody and considered the depth of the reality this man is bringing upon the unsuspecting, which is marvelous in its own right, I pondered these words:::>

"Dan 7:24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings.
Dan 7:25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.
Dan 7:26 But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end."

Especially these Words: "....and shall think to change the times and the law;..." were impressed upon my spirit as the question was being answered at the end.

Today, in our form of jurisprudence, right is being covered over again and again and again, because of a "technicality" in the Law. The Judge is required to throw out the case based on a technicality!

This is the loop hole that brings this sort of deceit about. In the parody he can answer the question the way he did without incriminations.

Now, without the Grace and Mercy of God actively at work on our behalf, the Saints, the Elect of God in these days, the whole world would be consumed by deceits and liars' lies and by the invisible powers and principalities of spiritual wickedness influencing the hearts and souls of many all around the world and in every nation on earth.

I will assert and rest my soul in these words:

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
Dan 2:45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."

A.M. Mallett said...

I think this is just another smear and while it may be protected free speech in the secular realm, it is rather distasteful among brethren. Of course that's just my penny's worth.

Coram Deo said...

I think Dr. White should sic his attorneys on this parody site since they used his DL material in violation of his intellectual property rights.

Oh well, at least we can see where the SBC's "circle the wagons" mentality ends up if it's followed to its logical conclusion - silence your critics with lawyers.

What is truth?

In Christ,
CD

steve said...

A.M. Mallett said...

"I think this is just another smear and while it may be protected free speech in the secular realm, it is rather distasteful among brethren."

It's distasteful if you share the same ethical standards as Caner and the Liberty Baptist administration. But some of us find the conduct of Caner and the Liberty Baptist administration distasteful.

Your distaste doesn't reflect the distaste of Christian brethren. Rather, it reflects the distaste of a blind partisan.

Turretinfan said...

I was a little surprised by Steve's comment, so I checked out Mallett's profile. His profile states:

My Blogs
An Introspective of an Arminian Christian

Blogs I Follow
Arminian Chronicles
Ben Witherington
Calvinist Flyswatter
Classical Arminianism
Evangelical Arminian
Examining Calvinism
Humble Arminian
THE ARMINIAN
Thru Faith
Wesleyan Arminian

I wonder on what basis Mallett (apparently a supporter of Arminianism) would view an unrepentant liar as a brother? Is it simply because Ergun Caner has been a vocal opponent of Calvinism? I hope that Steve is wrong, and I will let Mallett answer for himself.

- TurretinFan

Fred Butler said...

He would improve his routine a hundred fold if he would wear a hoodie and have a towel to dab the sweat on his brow.

A.M. Mallett said...

TurretinFan wrote:
I wonder on what basis Mallett (apparently a supporter of Arminianism) would view an unrepentant liar as a brother? Is it simply because Ergun Caner has been a vocal opponent of Calvinism? I hope that Steve is wrong, and I will let Mallett answer for himself.

I suppose that is a generous license on your part however there is nothing in my post that was partisan or Arminian for that matter. My comments were directed at the rather distasteful parody. As for whether Mr. Caner is an unrepentant liar or Mr. White is engaged in a personal vendetta remains to be seen. I do not have a particular dog in that hunt. If at the end of the day, Mr Caner is found to be disreputable, then he should address that matter forthright. If Mr. White is found to be the disreputable character, I would expect the same. My limited exploration of the charges leaves far too much still to be discussed to allow me to make a judgment on this matter.
As for Steve Hays, his post lacks substance in my opinion. I am more interested in why you would support a partisan smear accusing another of non-existent partisanship in a post. I can and do get quite sectarian with my Arminianism when I feel the urge however, again, my post was merely a comment on a parody I feel does nothing to edify Christ.

Turretinfan said...

Thanks for answering for yourself, as I had suggested. I agree that there was nothing explicitly partisan in your initial comment, nor in your latter comment.

I take it that if it were shown that Caner is an unrepentant liar, you would not count him as a brother. But perhaps I have not correctly understood you.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

A.M. Mallett said...

As for whether Mr. Caner is an unrepentant liar or Mr. White is engaged in a personal vendetta remains to be seen.

I think it remains to be seen that Dr. Caner is unrepentant. It's clear to me (and to the rest of us) that Dr. White is not engaged in some kind of personal vendetta.

A.M. Mallett said...

My limited exploration of the charges leaves far too much still to be discussed to allow me to make a judgment on this matter.

That is a good approach to this issue on your part. However, a number of us have spent a fair amount of time looking into the charges; you may want to consider what we have found regarding all of this.

TF said...

I take it that if it were shown that Caner is an unrepentant liar, you would not count him as a brother.

I suppose the operative term here is "unrepentant," otherwise I would not want to so easily dismiss someone's membership in the body (according to my own understanding).

Pilgrimsarbour said...

In addition, I think Dr. Caner's consistent inconsistency regarding personal details of his life as they impact on his ministry goes hand-in-hand with Liberty's "circle the wagons" mentality. Liberty's answer to the problem is to get someone's YouTube account cancelled? What is that?

No, honour and integrity are being sacrificed on the altar of the money god, or the hubris god, or some other kind of idol. There's no question about it; it's not even up for debate. The gospel witness, indeed the gospel itself, is at stake; no time to be sitting on our hands and twiddling our thumbs (to nicely mix our metaphors). We didn't take it from Mike Warnke, we shouldn't tolerate it here--especially here as there may be so much more at stake.

A.M. Mallett said...

Turretinfan wrote:
I take it that if it were shown that Caner is an unrepentant liar, you would not count him as a brother. But perhaps I have not correctly understood you.

I reply:
If by unrepentant liar you mean one who insists he is telling the truth in spite of overwhelming evidence otherwise, I would suggest such a person is unfit for leadership and should be removed from such positions. As for whether or not he is a brother in Christ, only God knows for certain. Depending on the grievousness of the offense, I might certainly refuse fellowship. Perhaps the nature of the offense also comes into play. Is it reasonable to disfellowship one who presents fraudulent or very misleading academic qualifications with regard to his ministry?

Turretinfan said...

"Is it reasonable to disfellowship one who presents fraudulent or very misleading academic qualifications with regard to his ministry?"

If you are referring to Caner's supposed PhD, my understanding is that he has stopped making the claim.

-TurretinFan

Coram Deo said...

As for whether or not he is a brother in Christ, only God knows for certain.

AMM,

Does Caner know whether or not he's truly a born-again Christian?

In Christ,
CD

A.M. Mallett said...

Coram Deo wrote:
Does Caner know whether or not he's truly a born-again Christian?

I reply:
His Caner his own brother?

A.M. Mallett said...

I should have stated:
Is Caner his own brother?

A.M. Mallett said...

TurretinFan wrote:
If you are referring to Caner's supposed PhD, my understanding is that he has stopped making the claim.

I reply:
My understanding is that he takes credit for a Doctorate in Theology awarded by the University of South Africa. I am assuming that claim is for work completed through the Unisa distance learning programs. I cannot speak for the veracity of the claim although. Perhaps you have information indicating otherwise?

Turretinfan said...

A.M. Mallett:

If you look at his old bio page (here, for example) you will see that two doctorates are claimed.

As far as I've been able to determine, just one doctorate (the ThD from South Africa) was earned. I haven't heard anyone claim that the ThD from South Africa was not earned.

-TurretinFan

Coram Deo said...

AMM,

You didn't respond to the question I posed which was: "Does Caner know whether or not he's truly a born-again Christian?"

Perhaps that was poorly worded, since you can't know whether or not Caner knows if he is a born-again Christian, so please allow me to rephrase the question.

"Do you believe [Ergun] Caner can know for certain whether or not he's truly a born-again Christian?"

I look forward to your reply.

In Christ,
CD

A.M. Mallett said...

Coram Deo wrote:
"Do you believe [Ergun] Caner can know for certain whether or not he's truly a born-again Christian?"

I reply:
As certainly as you can know for yourself whether you are a child of God or not. I know I am and I can only speak for myself and only then, barely so.

A.M. Mallett said...

TurretinFan wrote:
If you look at his old bio page (here, for example) you will see that two doctorates are claimed.

As far as I've been able to determine, just one doctorate (the ThD from South Africa) was earned. I haven't heard anyone claim that the ThD from South Africa was not earned.




I reply:
From the archive site you reference, the following is stated:
Caner has three Masters Degrees and two Doctorates, the Doctor of Theology coming from the University of South Africa.
I do not know the circumstances of the claimed 2nd doctorate, what field of study it was earned in or the school of record. Has that been disclosed or investigated? If it is a secular field, is it relevant to his position and role? I do not know. Perhaps it was an embellishment or it was removed for several possible reasons i.e. irrelevant to his current field or perhaps a lack of accreditation gave cause to remove it. Again I do not know however it seems there is a lot of information missing and a great deal of innuendo being tossed about by those with an ax to grind. Let's see the facts. So far, I am unimpressed but then again, who am I that any of this particular blogger community should take note?

Turretinfan said...

"I do not know the circumstances of the claimed 2nd doctorate, what field of study it was earned in or the school of record. Has that been disclosed or investigated?"

I don't think it has. Since he has stopped claiming it, I don't think anyone has tried to get a definitive answer about it.

It may have been an honorary degree. Let's be clear here - I don't view this as a good example of him deceiving people - for all we know he didn't notice the error on his biography page for a while.

"Again I do not know however it seems there is a lot of information missing and a great deal of innuendo being tossed about by those with an ax to grind. Let's see the facts."

The facts, without commentary. Enjoy!

A.M. Mallett said...

I clicked one of your links at random to see what I would find. It was this site:
http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=18498
I did not see anything that should cause any alarm. When I have the time I will peruse your links to see what the caustic alarm is all about.
Thanks for the resources.

A.M. Mallett said...

On a side note, do you have a problem with James White's doctorate credentials?

Turretinfan said...

"On a side note, do you have a problem with James White's doctorate credentials?"

No. He has real, though unaccredited, doctorates. He's always been up front about where he got them and he's had a discussion about the accreditation issue on his website for years. His doctorates are:

Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998

D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

It's an unaccredited Christian school. He has discussed the accreditation issue openly on his website, on at least the following three pages:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

It's not a diploma mill, or otherwise a fake doctorate. His dissertation for the first doctorate has been published: The Forgotten Trinity. The book was praised by Norman Geisler (Baptist), J. I. Packer (Anglican), Mitchell Pacwa (Roman), and others.

I'm not sure about the second one, but you can easily contact him via his website (link) if you have any questions about it. He has been very forthcoming with such requests in the past.

- TurretinFan

P.S. A few of the supporters of Dr. Caner who think that the way to defend their friend is to attack his critics have tried to attack Dr. White for not getting an accredited degree. I'm not sure why this really has anything to do with Dr. White, since (a) Dr. White has been focused primarily on things related to Islam and (b) others had already brought Dr. Caner's credential issues to light before Dr. White ever commented on the situation (see here for a page with extensive documentation).

A.M. Mallett said...

I have read Mr. White's defense of his doctorate. I also find it unconvincing and agree with the late Dr. Theodore Letis that it is inappropriate for White to continue making such claims. He did not stand for peer review and the submission of an already written work does not meet the academic standards for awarding a doctorate in any field. It cheapens the work of those who have actually earned the doctorate in their fields. The accreditation issue is not a concern if the the institution is on a path to gain academic accreditation. Knowing what Columbia was before it changed it's name and before it reinvented itself,I find White's defense incredible.
Now, having stated all that, my point was quite simple. The glass house analogy comes quickly to mind. One side hurls a charge at another while those on that particular side ignore the mess in their own house. With the Caner matter, this whole mess strikes me as a personal matter between White and Caner that had no business being flamed on various sectarian blogs. Both men have issues. You would call for one to repent. I would do likewise with the other.

I am curious how much longer the White forces are going to continue with this given Caner's comments and Liberty's response to the White campaign. As I noted earlier, I have no dog in the hunt. I am not a follower of either man. I am not a Baptist and with regard Liberty, I am well acquainted with them and, as a Reformation Arminian, have several differences with them. Instead I see this as nothing but a flame and that is what drove me to comment originally on what I consider a distasteful parody. Of course, we are left with our own opinions.

Turretinfan said...

"It cheapens the work of those who have actually earned the doctorate in their fields."

He actually earned his doctorate. Continuing to deny this after you know the truth ...

- TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Mr. Mallett,

What a curve ball.

You bring new meaning, in my view, and this is strictly mine alone, so I will take the heat for it if necessary, to the admonition of Paul the Apostle at several places:::>

2Co 2:9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.
2Co 2:10 Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,
2Co 2:11 so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

and

Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Eph 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

and

Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

While your attempt at discrediting Dr. White in a mild defense of Dr. Caner might be noble to some, it is not to me. Your slight is noted and I venture to say or rather encourage you to back up a bit and realize just how close you have come to participating in the schemes outlined in these three verses, one of which, in my judgment is really closer to the main issue of this "Life" with Christ as Our Head and we, as members of His Body, justified, to be sanctified and finally entering into a glorified eternal state of being in Glory!

Where is the need for Dr. White to repent of embellishments or lying?

We have established the need for a clearer succinct repentance for Dr. Caner.

If Proverbs is to be embraced and we embrace these men basis this verse, following, then one can easily conclude that to the man, one brings for death and the other life:

Pro 18:20 From the fruit of a man's mouth his stomach is satisfied; he is satisfied by the yield of his lips.
Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

A.M. Mallett,

The glass house analogy comes quickly to mind.

...this whole mess strikes me as a personal matter between White and Caner...

I am curious how much longer the White forces are going to continue with this given Caner's comments and Liberty's response to the White campaign.

I have no dog in the hunt.


It's very clear to me that you have a very big dog in this hunt, based upon the inflammatory language you have chosen with which to frame your arguments in favour of Mr. Caner, or rather, against James White. The language outlined in bold above clearly indicates this. Responses of Caner and Liberty? Are you serious? Getting some guy's YouTube account suspended is a godly way to address the charges? Are you out of your mind?

TurretinFan has provided volumes of carefully collected information on Mr. Caner's continuing lies and obfuscations regarding his personal testimony (in his own words), and you reply with obfuscation of your own. "James White is not a real doctor" is not a rational response to the statement "Ergun Caner regularly lies about his personal testimony."

Your unwillingness to hold Mr. Caner's feet to the fire of God's truth is quite telling. Instead you attack the persons bringing the charge, as if Caner didn't bring all of this upon his own head and those of his enablers at LU.

I was hoping you were sincere about your claim to some kind of objective review of the facts on your part. But instead you treat us to this comment atrocity in which you trash the messengers.

Nice going, pal.

--PA

A.M. Mallett said...

TurettinFan wrote:
He actually earned his doctorate. Continuing to deny this after you know the truth ...

I reply:
That is a matter of opinion of which I and several others disagree. As I stated, we each bring our opinions to the table and there they remain.

A.M. Mallett said...

Pilgrimsarbour,
I am not defending Caner. I see this as a personal animosity between the two parties that has no business being aired as such. My point with White is that he is just as guilty of misrepresenting himself as he asserts with Caner. If the accusations against Caner are accurate (and they may well be), this is a case of two peas in a pod.
Now of course that probably offends you however keep in mind you are inside the house that is throwing the stones at the other house. I am in neither house and observing the stones flying back and forth.

Pilgrimsarbour said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pilgrimsarbour said...

Typo-corrected comment:

Mallett,

You've totally lost your credibility with me. If I were born in Wisconsin but I told you I was born in Pennsylvania, I would be lying to you. You can't see that? If someone who knows me said to you "PA's lying to you about where he was born," you'd say to him "that's your personal opinion--you seem to 'have it out for him.'"?

Why you can't see this is beyond my comprehension, unless you're just part of this younger generation that has swallowed hook, line and sinker the dumbarse babyboomer idea that truth is only ever relative, that objective truth does not exist. In that case, there is nothing I can say, no evidence that can be presented, that will persuade you that a Christian brother is engaging in bad behaviour irrespective of any consideration of the behaviours of the ones making the charge.

Enough with the phony "throwing stones" narrative. Either Caner's lying or he isn't. It has nothing to do with James White's or TF's or my or whoever's personal opinions or motivations, for which we are all accountable to God, and for which we all, I am completely confident, sleep soundly at night.

Turretinfan said...

"My point with White is that he is just as guilty of misrepresenting himself as he asserts with Caner."

Frankly, that sort of claim is indefensibly wrong. That is the case, especially given your concession that "That is a matter of opinion of which I and several others disagree."

And, of course, you give yourself far too much credit there. Dr. Caner did, in fact, earn the degree he received. If you say otherwise, you are guilty of defaming someone whom you apparently view as a brother in Christ.

You may not like the idea of small Christian schools not getting accredited, but that doesn't change the fact that Dr. White earned his two doctorates from such a school.

- TurretinFan

Coram Deo said...

Personally I'm stunned by the tortured logic that allows one to equate the truth claims of someone with an established pattern multiple, documented, and verifiable bald-faced lies [Ergun Caner] to someone who claims to have earned two doctorates [James White] (which thing is an established, documented, and verifiable fact), based upon the untenable premise that because the school awarding the degrees was unaccredited, the degrees therefore aren't "real", and thus one should refrain from referring to oneself as having earned doctorates at risk of being guily of lying.

And on top of this over the top assertion, the accusing party continually asserts dispassionate, unbiased, objectivity on his part.

LOL!

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

In Christ,
CD

natamllc said...

CD, "the play, oh yeah, the play, we were at the Ford Theater! I told Abe I wasn't interested in going but when he said Sally was going to be there, I relented"!

Mr. Mallet,

I was wondering if you accept that God deals with liars in the Bible?

And, would you feel it is an error for someone who has the facts correctly about lies someone tells about themself and their equivocation when they are approached about them, to then follow a Biblical mandate such as this one?

Tit 1:7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
Tit 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Tit 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.
Tit 1:11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.
Tit 1:12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
Tit 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
Tit 1:14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.
Tit 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

Keep in mind we are dealing with facts not opinions.

Keep in mind that Dr. Caner is an overseer and it is in that capacity he spoke lies about himself to trusting audiences and coworkers. It might even be true that he falsified his personal records or submissions to obtain his job position?

Keep in mind that no one has accused him of not being Muslim and then a converted Muslim to the Biblical Faith once delivered to the Saints.

Would you kindly respond to this inquiry?

Ryan D. McConnell said...

I am simply dumbfounded by the discussion of Dr. White's credentials. Columbia Evangelical Seminary, though an unaccredited Christian school, awarded Dr. White two doctorates. Accredited or not, they are both doctorates. View them of lesser value of doctorates from accredited Christian schools all you want, that does not change the fact they are, in fact, doctorates.

To put the issue of doctorates earned at unaccredited Christian schools and the issue of a PhD being listed as one of Caner's degrees on his bio on the same level simply does not work. White can claim that he has the doctorates that he has, despite opinions on the issue of them being awarded from unaccredited schools, because he does, in fact, have two doctorates. Even though it most likely that is was simply an error on the webmaster's part when Caner's bio was created, the claim that Caner earned a PhD (instead of a ThD) is false. The two issues concerning credentials here are very different and the use of the glass house analogy simply has no place here.

A.M. Mallett said...

TurretinFan wrote:
You may not like the idea of small Christian schools not getting accredited, but that doesn't change the fact that Dr. White earned his two doctorates from such a school.

I reply:
In 1998,Columbia was nothing but a store front office with no staff, no peer review, no semblance of a doctorate program. What did Mr. White do to earn his "doctorate" in 1998? Would it not be more appropriate to state that the storefront institution "awarded" a doctorate in return for a manuscript he had already written and a fee?
No doubt I bring a bias here. I prefer the late Dr. Theodore Letis' take on the matter and reject the cookie cutter diploma mill approach to gaining credentials. Now, having stated that, I have no doubt White could actually do the academic work required and do so honorably. He is quite capable as he has demonstrated. Nonetheless, he lives in a glass house regardless of what the folks inside the house claim. I know what Columbia was in 1998 and a small Christian school it was not.

We have probably beat this dead horse enough. As you have stated, White has made his case and stands by it. Now let the rocks be thrown.

Turretinfan said...

"In 1998,Columbia was nothing but a store front office with no staff, no peer review, no semblance of a doctorate program."

a) I don't know where you get your ideas.

b) Rick Walston is the President of Columbia Evangelical Seminary. He's explained the school's approach, which involves mentoring. Dr. White has explained that too.

"What did Mr. White do to earn his "doctorate" in 1998?"

He has explained that at the links I already provided.

"Would it not be more appropriate to state that the storefront institution "awarded" a doctorate in return for a manuscript he had already written and a fee?"

No, it would not.

- TurretinFan

A.M. Mallett said...

I've read White's explanations and do not consider them credible but then, who am I but just a guy on the internet?

Turretinfan said...

What item(s) of the explanations is/are incredible?

Tom said...

I knew Theodore P. Letis since 1980. And while I generally attempt to speak no ill of the dead, the best thing I can think to say about the man is that he was a pathological liar.

Regarding White's alleged "diploma mill", that slander was circulated by people such as Letis and Mormon cultists who could not beat him in an open debate, so they had to resort to slandering him

The head of Colombia Evangelical Seminary is Rich Walston. In the Book "Degree Mills: The Billion-Dollar Industry That Has Sold Over a Million Fake diplomas" by former FBI agent Allen Ezell--who led an FBI task force called DipScam against diploma Mills-and John Bear--who appeared as an expert witness at trials against the bogus schools, the authors write in their Select Bibliography:

"Walston, Rick. "Walston's guide to Christian Distance Learning." Longview, WA: Persuasion Press, 1999. The Rev. Dr. Walston covers mostly the legitimate schools, but he pulls no punches of many "Bible" schools with misleading accreditation claims, often following his description with a thundering "Shame!" p. 304)

Having men such as Ezell and Bear recognize Walston's work is infinitely more credible than any of Letis' rants.

One more word about Letis. To the best of my knowledge, he first went public with his bogus charges against White in March 2002. At around the same time, he had Pensacola Christian College publish his Masters thesis, "Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text." In the Forward, Letis wrote, "They (PCC) alone, of all Baptist institutions, have earned the right to take the lead on this important topic of modern Biblical translations within fundamentalist ranks because of their evident dedication to genuine scholarship and integrity...."

In case anyone is unaware of the fact, Pensacola Christian College is an UNACREDITTED institution. Thus Letis in charging White was speaking out of both sides of his mouth as acting as total hypocrite.

Tom said...

A. M. Mallett claims to be a "Reformation Arminian." He seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that the only "Arminians" during the time of the Reformation were in Rome. And the rise of Arminianism in the seventeenth century was widely regarded by Protestants as a retrogression back to Rome.

Tom said...

The last paragraph of my first message should read:

"In case anyone is unaware of the fact, Pensacola Christian College is an UNACREDITTED institution. Thus Letis in charging White was speaking out of both sides of his mouth AND acting as A total hypocrite."

Ryan D. McConnell said...

A. M. Mallett claims to be a "Reformation Arminian." He seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that the only "Arminians" during the time of the Reformation were in Rome. And the rise of Arminianism in the seventeenth century was widely regarded by Protestants as a retrogression back to Rome.

From what I understand, the term "Reformation Arminian" has been in use as a result of Picirilli's use of the term in his book Grace, Faith and Free Will (Randall House Publications, 2002). It's used to distinguish itself as the Arminianism of Arminius from the latter "Evangelical Arminianism/Wesleyanism." Picirilli said it this way:

[[ Calling this "Reformation Arminianism" may result in criticism. But I am convinced both that Arminius' theology was thought out in conscious consideration of the beliefs of the Reformers; and that Arminius succeeded in maintaining the Reformed insistence on salvation sola gratia, sola fide, and solo Christo. Sell reminds us that "Arminianism arose as a genuine option within, and not as a parasite upon, the Reformed Church in Holland." Hence by "Reformation Arminianism" I mean to both distinguish the thinking of Arminius and the original Remonstrants from some of the forms of Arminianism has taken since, and to identify it with the chief emphases of the Reformation. (Picirilli, Grace, Faith, and Free Will (Randall House Publications, 2002), pg. ii). ]]

From what I understand, "Reformation Arminianism" is essentially synonymous with "Classical Arminianism." Though I do take issue with Picirilli stating that "Reformation Arminianism" maintains the solas he mentions as they were historically defined and understood, such as sola gratia excluding any form of synergism (with possible exceptions for sanctification) and the issue of imputation in Arminian theology, it really just sounds like the term "Reformation Arminian" is simply used to assert that Arminianism is not in any dire conflict with the "chief emphasis" of the Reformation.

Tom said...

Martin Luther complimented Erasmus for one thing during their exchange on "The Bondage of the Will"; Eramsus recognized THE key point of difference between Luther and Rome. It was NOT the papacy, indulgences, clerical corruption, the Mass, ect., ect., ect. It was whether or not the human will was bound in sin. Luther, and ALL the Reformers recognized the so-called "freedom of the will" to be utter nonsense with absolutely NO basis in Scripture whatsoever.

Picirilli's work is nothing but historical revisionism at its absolute worst. It is nothing less than an attempt to rewrite history in order to justify one's own theological convictions. It is reprehensible that a supposed Christian scholar would resort to such a tactic. The term "Reformed Arminian" makes about as much sense as calling somebody a "Pro-Life Abortionist."

natamllc said...

Mr. Mallett,

where have you gone?

If you would respond, I would ask for your thoughts about this comment made after Christianity Today laid out the issues at hand with regard to Dr. Caner in their published article?

The comment:
"....As a Liberty University alumni I'm not shocked. The school has compromised so many times on so many issues that I don't know where to begin. Erogunt Caner is steeped in pride and self-promotion. From the personal interaction I had with him I was repulsed by his responses....".


thanks

A.M. Mallett said...

natammlc wrote:
where have you gone?

If you would respond, I would ask for your thoughts about this comment made after Christianity Today laid out the issues at hand with regard to Dr. Caner in their published article?

The comment:
"....As a Liberty University alumni I'm not shocked. The school has compromised so many times on so many issues that I don't know where to begin. Erogunt Caner is steeped in pride and self-promotion. From the personal interaction I had with him I was repulsed by his responses....".


I think the gentleman excused himself from serious consideration with his ill-advised comments. I am not sure what you would want me to respond to.

A.M. Mallett said...

Ryan D McConnell wrote:
From what I understand, "Reformation Arminianism" is essentially synonymous with "Classical Arminianism." Though I do take issue with Picirilli stating that "Reformation Arminianism" maintains the solas he mentions as they were historically defined and understood, such as sola gratia excluding any form of synergism (with possible exceptions for sanctification) and the issue of imputation in Arminian theology, it really just sounds like the term "Reformation Arminian" is simply used to assert that Arminianism is not in any dire conflict with the "chief emphasis" of the Reformation.

I reply:
Picirilli prefers the phrase Reformation Arminian. I am comfortable with both Reformation and Classical as descriptive of my Arminian sentiments. I would also see considerable agreement with early Wesleyanism. Picirilli, as with Olsen, distances himself from the post Epicopius remonstrance of Limborch and others. However, that does not mean he rejects evangelical synergism. In fact, as one who embraces libertarian free will, he by default accepts synergism as scriptural albeit defined significantly different than Calvinists would assert as the intention of the term.
In any event, thank you for the sensible commentary.

Tom said...

Again, Mr. Mallett, your have NO right to claim any legitimate portion of the Reformation as your own. Your synergistic views place you squarly and entirely in the Roman camp. Your synergistic heresies prove that you are in rebellion against the Word of God. Your claim to be a "Reformation Arminian" proves your total ignornace of the sixteenth century. And your historical revisionism prove that you are completely lacking in personal integrity. No wonder you speak out in behalf of pathological liars such as Ergan Caner and Theodore P. Letis.

natamllc said...

Mr. Mallett

While I am a little revived, I am not at all flattered by your response, but thank you nevertheless for not ignoring my request.

I have one to reiterate from a previous comment post above which started this way:

My question to you:
Mr. Mallet,

I was wondering if you accept that God deals with liars in the Bible?

And, would you feel it is an error for someone who has the facts correctly about lies someone tells about themself and their equivocation when they are approached about them, to then follow a Biblical mandate such as this one?

I cited Titus 1:1-16 and further went on to write:

Keep in mind we are dealing with facts not opinions.

Keep in mind that Dr. Caner is an overseer and it is in that capacity he spoke lies about himself to trusting audiences and coworkers. It might even be true that he falsified his personal records or submissions to obtain his job position?

Keep in mind that no one has accused him of not being Muslim and then a converted Muslim to the Biblical Faith once delivered to the Saints.

Would you kindly respond to this inquiry?

So, would you now kindly respond to that inquiry also?

Coram Deo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coram Deo said...

What is the Gospel?
By Dr. Lorraine Boettner

The Gospel is the good news about the great salvation purchased by Jesus Christ, by which He reconciled sinful men to a holy God. The purpose of this booklet is to set forth, in plain language and in terms easily understood, the basic differences between the Calvinistic (Reformed) and Arminian understanding of the Gospel, and to show what the Bible teaches concerning these subjects. An accurate understanding is crucial; the harmony that exists between the various doctrines of the Christian faith is such that error in regard to any one of them produces more or less distortion in all the others.

There are in reality only two types of religious thought: the religion of faith, and the religion of works. The author is convinced that what has been known in church history as Calvinism is the purest and most consistent embodiment of the religion of faith, while that which has been known as Arminianism has been diluted to a dangerous degree by the religion of works and is therefore an inconsistent and unstable form of Christianity. In other words, Christianity comes to its fullest and purest expression in the Reformed faith.

In the early part of the fifth century these two types of religious thought came into direct conflict in a remarkably clear contrast in the teaching of two theologians, Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine pointed men to God as the source of all true spiritual wisdom and strength, while Pelagius threw men back on themselves and said that they were able in their own strength to do all that God commanded (otherwise God would not command it). Arminianism is a compromise between these two systems; while in its more evangelical form (as in early Wesleyanism) it approaches the religion of faith, it nevertheless does contain serious elements of error.

At present, practically all the historic churches are being attacked from within by unbelief. Many of them have already succumbed, and almost invariably the line of descent has been from Calvinism to Arminianism, from Arminianism to liberalism, and then to Unitarianism. The history of liberalism and Unitarianism shows that they deteriorate into a social gospel that is too weak to sustain itself. The author is convinced that the future of Christianity is bound up with that system of theology historically called Calvinism. Where the God-centered principles of Calvinism have been abandoned, there has been a strong tendency downward into the depths of man-centered naturalism or secularism. Some have argued convincingly that there is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism.

Continue reading here.

Ryan D. McConnell said...

A. M. Mallet wrote:
Picirilli, as with Olsen, distances himself from the post Epicopius remonstrance of Limborch and others.
Reply: And I would agree that they are right to do so. Given just the later Remonstrance views of justification, especially in the theology of Limborch, one has to distance themselves from them in order to avoid being under the anathema of Galatians 1.

A. M. Mallet wrote:
However, that does not mean he rejects evangelical synergism. In fact, as one who embraces libertarian free will, he by default accepts synergism as scriptural albeit defined significantly different than Calvinists would assert as the intention of the term.
Reply: I disagree that Calvinists are mistaken in their assertion of the term "synergism." While I would agree that Calvinists have, especially in today's era where modern "Arminianism" is basically semi-Pelagianism, rebuked synergism as synergism is defined in semi-Pelagian theology, for those Calvinists who know of how that term should be historically understood in Classical Arminian and Wesleyan-Arminian theology, I do not see any mistake in their part in how they define the term. I've often described it as a kind of "mosynergism", given that the assertion is that the enabling (prevenient) grace of God is bestowed on the individual monergistically and then it becomes a synergistic (cooperative) effort on the man's part to either accept or reject the truth of the Gospel by means of his enablement. Such reigns true in both the limited prevenient grace of Arminius and the Remonstrants and the universal prevenient grace of Wesleyan-Arminiansm. Either way, you have a cooperative effort (though, I guess, chronologically different from semi-Pelagianism) with God and man in the goal of salvation, which is the essence of what synergism is (soteriologically speaking).

A. M. Mallet wrote:
In any event, thank you for the sensible commentary.
Reply: Welcome! However, I will have to agree with Tom here on the matter concerning Classical Arminians labeling their theology as "Reformation Arminianism." Classical Arminian theology is simply not the theology of the Reformation and to use such a historic term as a means of distinguishing different forms of Arminianism is, in my opinion, kind of disingenuous.

A.M. Mallett said...

natamllc,
I believe LU is exploring the Caner issue and I'll withhold any casting of judgment in the matter.

A.M. Mallett said...

Tom wrote:
Again, Mr. Mallett, your have NO right to claim any legitimate portion of the Reformation as your own. Your synergistic views place you squarly and entirely in the Roman camp. Your synergistic heresies prove that you are in rebellion against the Word of God. Your claim to be a "Reformation Arminian" proves your total ignornace of the sixteenth century. And your historical revisionism prove that you are completely lacking in personal integrity. No wonder you speak out in behalf of pathological liars such as Ergan Caner and Theodore P. Letis.

I reply:
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Fortunately, it is not shared among the greater body of Christ nor my peers. Have a blessed day.

Tom said...

Rather than making the faintest attempt to defend his own assertions, it seems that Mr. Mallett is quite content to wallow in his own ignorance.

A.M. Mallett said...

Ryan D McConnell wrote:
I've often described it as a kind of "mosynergism", given that the assertion is that the enabling (prevenient) grace of God is bestowed on the individual monergistically and then it becomes a synergistic (cooperative) effort on the man's part to either accept or reject the truth of the Gospel by means of his enablement. Such reigns true in both the limited prevenient grace of Arminius and the Remonstrants and the universal prevenient grace of Wesleyan-Arminiansm. Either way, you have a cooperative effort (though, I guess, chronologically different from semi-Pelagianism) with God and man in the goal of salvation, which is the essence of what synergism is (soteriologically speaking).

I reply:
The terms monergism and synergism are generally Calvinist constructs i.e. terminology developed to distinguish Calvinist thought from that of most non-Calvinists. When adapting the terminology to Arminian theology, Olsen put it best in my opinion by deferring to the phrase evangelical synergism to distinguish it from the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian errors that many Calvinists mistakenly attribute to Arminianism. Olsen's view of "synergism, as with Picirilli and Arminius is identified as nothing other than not resisting the provision of grace. If that is deemed cooperation, there is little distinction between the Calvinist non-resistance and the Arminian acceptance. Now, the distinctions are significant in other areas, particularly with election. However, the "participation" of men with God through not resisting the grace of God is not the primary focus of differences between the two perspectives.
It is unfortunate that you allow your Christian relationships to be shadowed by sectarian schisms with regard to casting much of the greater body of Christ into a denigrated class. Such is the price of harsh polemics that each of us occasionally find ourselves in. Have a blessed day.

A.M. Mallett said...

Ryan D McConnell wrote:
Classical Arminian theology is simply not the theology of the Reformation and to use such a historic term as a means of distinguishing different forms of Arminianism is, in my opinion, kind of disingenuous.

I reply:
I meant to come back to this and left off before replying. If we apply your criteria to the term Reformation, we should have to excuse Lutherans, most early Baptists and the Anglican traditions from the Reformation. While Luther gives his namesake to the tradition that bears his name, it was Melanchthon who shaped Lutheran theology and distanced it from the Calvinist ecclesiastical world view. I do not believe you would garner any consensus at all outside of your own Calvinist tradition for your defining the Reformation as such. It is just not sustainable doctrinally nor from the historical record.

natamllc said...

Mr Mallett,

fair enough. I respect that and appreciate your candor.

Let's chop up the inquiry then and see if this would induce a reply?

"....Mr. Mallet,

I was wondering if you accept that God deals with liars in the Bible?

And, would you feel it is an error for someone who has the facts correctly about lies someone tells about themself and their equivocation when they are approached about them, to then follow a Biblical mandate such as this one?

I cited Titus 1:1-16...."

Would you be so kind as to reply to that portion of my request leaving aside Dr. Caner and the circustances that he and LU are grappling with now?

As a general matter, what would you say to that?

It is an opportunity for us to better understand your understanding and judgment.

Thanks

natamllc said...

Ryan,

I hope you do not mind nor are offended if I grab some of what Mr Mallett is addressing and comment?

Mr. Mallett,

I greatly appreciate your demeanor with this off the mainstream path which was the Ergu Caner Parody.

Seeing TF hasn't thrown the towel in, yet, I would grab a bit of your responses to Ryan:

"....It is unfortunate that you allow your Christian relationships to be shadowed by sectarian schisms with regard to casting much of the greater body of Christ into a denigrated class. ...".

While I think I understand why you used the word "denigrated", I am puzzled that, from my frame of mind, it does not square with a couple of verses from Romans.

Could you either explain more carefully why you used that word or explain why God and Paul speak of all humanity these ways?

Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

or

Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Tom said...

Mallett says:

“If we apply your criteria to the term Reformation, we should have to excuse Lutherans, most early Baptists and the Anglican traditions from the Reformation. While Luther gives his namesake to the tradition that bears his name, it was Melanchthon who shaped Lutheran theology and distanced it from the Calvinist ecclesiastical world view.”

Unfortunately for Mallett, he is once again revising history to suit his own purposes. Taking one at a time:

1. Lutherans. I am quite aware of the differences between Lutherans and Calvinists. But anyone who had actually ever read Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” where he taught predestination as strongly as Calvin ever did, knows Mallett’s position to be totally absurd.

And Lutherans do NOT consider themselves synergists. One of the standards works of American Lutheran theology is Francis Pieper’s “Christian Dogmatics”. Pieper says regarding synergism:

“Synergism, while opposing the SOLA GRATIA maintains with the same breath that it leaves the SOLA GRATIA intact. We find, however, that the arguments which it advances in its defense are of the same nature it employs in its offensive against the divine monergism.” )Vol. II, p. 480).

And further, “We have found that synergism has no basis in Scripture and that its objections against the divine monergism are not supported by logic.” (Vol. II, p. 483).

As for Melanchthon shaping Lutheran theology, that claim is also denied by the Lutherans themselves. J. A. O. Preus, former President of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, approvingly cites Jaroslav Pelikan in his book, “The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz,” when Pelikan wrote:

“The debate which ensued over Melanchthon’s synergism issued in Article II of the Formula of Concord, in which Melanchthon’s stand is repudiated. Under the leadership of Martin Chemnitz, the Lutheran Church in the Formula rejected synergism and with it one of the basic planks in Melanchthon’s theological position. Thus the traditional interpretation is correct when it sees the Formula as the defeat of Melanchthon in the Lutheran Church.”


2. Baptists. The sixteenth-century Anabaptists had NOTHING to do with the Protestant Reformation, except how they resembled a cancer which almost killed its victim. Its heresies and fanaticisms were held in such ill repute, that when the Baptist movement did arise in seventeenth-century England, they did anything within their power to totally disassociate themselves from the Anabaptists.

3. Anglicans. The simple fact of the matter is that just about each and every theological figure in the sixteenth-century English Reformation was Reformed!!! That is a simple historical fact, however much that Mallett may wish to deny it. This is especially true in those leaders who fled under bloody Mary’s persecutions. Where did they go? To GENEVA!!!! And then when Mary died and Elizabeth inherited the throne, those English exiles from GENEVA returned to rebuild the church, based largely on what they learned in GENEVA. Of course, there were theological divisions within the Elizabethan Church, BUT THEY DID NOT INVOLVE ITEMS SUCH AS PREDESTINATION AND MAN’S ALLEGED “FREE WILL.”

I will say one thing for Mallett; his perfect record is intact. He continues to fire nothing but blanks in defending his position.

Oh, by the way, I have yet to hear any response from Mallett from my demonstration that his charges against James White’s academic background are as bogus as Ergun Caner’s personal integrity.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

[Luther]... taught predestination as strongly as Calvin ever did....

I would say that it can be easily demonstrated that Luther wrote much more extensively than Calvin on the subjects of election and predestination.

A.M. Mallett said...

natamllc wrote:
While I think I understand why you used the word "denigrated", I am puzzled that, from my frame of mind, it does not square with a couple of verses from Romans.

I reply:
I am not certain you do understand why I chose that term. Perhaps you could unpack your inquiry with regard to the selected passage from Romans and my response to Ryan concerning his consideration of much of the body of Christ to be heterodox?

Ryan D. McConnell said...

Natamllc,

I do mind at all if you address what Mr. Mallet said in address to me.


A. M. Mallet,
You said: Olsen's view of "synergism, as with Picirilli and Arminius is identified as nothing other than not resisting the provision of grace. If that is deemed cooperation, there is little distinction between the Calvinist non-resistance and the Arminian acceptance.
Reply: What do you mean by "the provision of grace"? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that terminology. There is a rather large difference between the Calvinist non-resistance and the Arminian acceptance. I'm going to assume you actually know what irresistible grace speaks of. From the monergistic perspective, God determines the efficacy of the grace bestowed on the sinner to believe. From the syngeristic perspective, God provides the necessary grace for the sinner to cooperate and, in turn, decide on whether or not the grace will be efficacious in its intention of being bestowed on the sinner. This is not simply a matter of "non-resistance" and "acceptance", this is a matter of the efficacy of God's grace in His pursuit of saving sinners.


You said: If we apply your criteria to the term Reformation, we should have to excuse Lutherans, most early Baptists and the Anglican traditions from the Reformation.
Reply: Actually, as I believe Tom laid out before I got a chance to response, if we applied the same criteria Lutherans should not be excused. The differences between the Lutherans and the Reformed boil down to, in my opinion, sacramental and ecclesiastical differences. While I would agree that Luther was inconsistent in his writings where he speaks of the efficacy of grace and the possibility of a true believer losing his salvation, on the issues of the bondage of the will, predestination, and election he was square with Calvin. In fact, as Pilgrimsarbour mentioned, Luther most likely spoke more on predestination and election than Calvin did.

As for the early Baptists, as Tom also said, they have nothing to do with the Reformation. The Anabaptists, which I assume you are referring to as "early Baptists" were part of the Radical Reformation which was a response not only to the corrupt RCC but also to an allegedly corrupt Protestant movement. At that, if you do put them as part of the Protestant Reformation in what the Protestant Reformation sent to accomplish, then yes, I would excuse them. They denied the idea of the invisible/visible church distinction, they believed only those who had demonstrated their faith through believer's baptism were saved, believed Christians are not to hold to any civil office, and held to an odd form of apostolic succession (among others).

As for the Anglicans, again, I would consider this a matter of sacramental and ecclestiastical differences. There are plenty of, both today and back then, Anglicans who hold to the tenants of Reformed soteriology. While I would submit to their definitely being theological divisions with the Elizabethan church once she had broken off from Rome, unlike today, I don't see much of the division stemming from soteriological matters. I'm not well versed in the history of Anglicanism so, by all means, correct me if I'm mistaken.

You said: ...my response to Ryan concerning his consideration of much of the body of Christ to be heterodox?
Reply: You have me a bit confused here. Are you claiming that, contrary to the vast majority of both Classical and Evangelical Arminians I've met, that Calvinism is not heterodoxy? Unorthodox theology is heterodoxical theology, is it not? Isn't that what the term means?

A.M. Mallett said...

Anyone who dismisses Melanchthon from the heart of the Reformation is generally unschooled in it's history and reach. He is considered by most students of the Reformation to have been the primary and first systematician of Lutheran theology. Show me a Lutheran who subscribes to limited atonement and I'll show a covert Calvinist. Remove limited atonement and the claim of Reformation exclusivity being the domain of Calvinism falls flat on it's face.
Clearly, this is some severe distance from the topic of this thread and I'll remove myself from the discussion at this point.

A.M. Mallett said...

Ryan wrote:
You have me a bit confused here. Are you claiming that, contrary to the vast majority of both Classical and Evangelical Arminians I've met, that Calvinism is not heterodoxy? Unorthodox theology is heterodoxical theology, is it not? Isn't that what the term means?

I reply:
Before bowing out of this off track thread, allow me these observations. Evangelical Arminians generally do not consider Calvinists to be heterodox with regard to the essential doctrines of the faith. Of course there are some who take a strong polemical stance and refuse fellowship with Calvinists. Consider what heterodox infers. It is by definition schismatic. Now, there are individuals among Calvinists who I consider schismatics (heretics by definition)but neither I nor those I fellowship with hold Calvinism to be heretical. Unorthodoxy is not heterodoxy. There is much liturigal practice and tradition that has no witness in scripture and as such is unorthodox. That does not imply that such practices and traditions are by definition heterodox. I consider much of the unique doctrines of Calvinism to be unorthodox as do many other Christians. That does not imply that we hold Calvinists to be outside the pale of orthodoxy. The contrary opinions seem formed by those who spend too much time dueling on the internet and not enough time fellowshipping with Christ. That observation holds true regardless of what side of the fence you stand on.
Have a blessed day. This thread has digressed and the tin horns are being pulled out of the britches.

natamllc said...

Ryan,

did you mean "you do mind" or "you do not mind"?

Going out on a limb now,

Mr Mallett,

"....I reply:
I am not certain you do understand why I chose that term. ...".

my reply:

precisely! I am not certain I understand why you use that word.

Why not explain it?

I used two verses to show that God expresses denigration to "all" of us. We are worthless in our contribution to His Righteousness and Glory. That is very denigrating, isn't it? And the Apostle as well, speaking of himself, by the self implication implies to each of us also that we too are "wretched". Isn't that denigrating?

I hope you stay around a bit longer?

My interests here are Biblical and the pure intent of the Gospel as I believe yours are too? Aren't they?

Tom said...

I'll stand with Pelikan, Preus, the Formula of Concord, ect. as true interpreters of Melanchthon over against someone of Mallett's ilk any day of the week.

And still waiting for Mallett to defend his claims against James White's academic credentials.

And waiting....and waiting....and waiting......

Tom said...

One thing I've noticed from people who say such things as, "I'll remove myself from the discussion at this point." is that they usually don't. They just can't seem to tear themselves way from it. We will see if that holds true in this case.

Turretinfan said...

"As for Melanchthon shaping Lutheran theology,"

I've heard that claim made pretty often. I think the claim is meant to suggest that on the points where Luther and Melancthon differed, it seems that Lutheranism has tended to follow Melancthon.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

However, further to the above, I suppose it is worth noting that there is no reason that on every point such is the case.

In any event, the scholars that Tom cited are reputable (despite Pelikan's later departure for EO).

-TurretinFan

Ryan D. McConnell said...

Natamllc,
You are correct. I did mean to say "do not mind." My apologies for the typo.


A. M. Mallet,
You said: Show me a Lutheran who subscribes to limited atonement and I'll show a covert Calvinist. Remove limited atonement and the claim of Reformation exclusivity being the domain of Calvinism falls flat on it's face.
Reply: Except limited atonement was never a soteriological issue of the Reformation and I don't know why you think I would claim the exclusivity of the Reformation includes the doctrine of limited atonement. That's not the issue. The issue, in the context in which we're speaking of, is the nature of God's grace. Sola gratia leaves no room for synergism of Arminianism and, as Tom pointed out in his citations of Pieper, Lutherans would agree. While I do think a case could also likewise be made that Classical Arminianism doesn't agree with historical sola fide since there are possible issues with it in the area of imputation, that's another topic for another day.

You said: Evangelical Arminians generally do not consider Calvinists to be heterodox with regard to the essential doctrines of the faith.
Reply: Is it your opinion that heterodoxy is solely reserved for the essential doctrines of the faith?

You said: Consider what heterodox infers. It is by definition schismatic...Unorthodoxy is not heterodoxy.
Reply: The most common definition, from what I've read, is that heterodoxy is any opinion that is contrary to the received opinion (i. e. orthodoxy). Richardson says it is "From Greek heteros, other, and doxa, opinion. Contrary to the received opinion; unorthodox." (The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 1983), 253). This is similar to how most published and online sources use the term, though some restrict it to serious deviation from the received opinion (e.g. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Crossway Books, 2001), 211).

You said: I consider much of the unique doctrines of Calvinism to be unorthodox as do many other Christians. That does not imply that we hold Calvinists to be outside the pale of orthodoxy. The contrary opinions seem formed by those who spend too much time dueling on the internet and not enough time fellowshipping with Christ. That observation holds true regardless of what side of the fence you stand on.
Reply: I'm not discussing orthodoxy in the sense that you're using it then. By your definition, would not Roman Catholicism fall under the "pale of orthodoxy," despite their soteriological theology being heretical? Orthodoxy isn't restricted to theology proper and Christological areas concerning the nature and person of Christ. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you on this but you're making it sound like only the essentials of the faith, which I assume you're speaking of theology proper and Christological teachings, are the only means by which heterodoxy is defined.


TF,
I will agree that this discussion has taken a sidestep from the original discussion at hand. If you wish us to decease in this discussion, just say so.

elon said...

Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also…
Philadelphia Divorce Layer