Monday, August 02, 2010

Actually Bearing False Witness

Peter Lumpkins (whose relentless "shoot the messenger" tactics have been documented here) has a new video that bears false witness against Dr. James White (link to video - obviously, not recommended).

Whatever merit or lack of merit may be attributed to the production skills used in the video, and leaving aside the mocking spirit employed in the video, the video is premised on lies. The lies include the idea that Dr. White claims that only Calvinists are Christians or that only Calvinists are elect.

Dr. White does not claim that only Calvinists are Christians. In fact, Dr. White views that position as hyper-Calvinism, and Dr. White criticizes it as an improper view.

The second lie, that Dr. White only believes that Calvinists are elect is even less intelligent than the first lie. Election is from all eternity, and people become Calvinists in time. Thus, even if Dr. White held to the position that he himself has condemned as a form of hyper-Calvinism, Dr. White would not say that if you're not Calvinist you're not elect.

When you meet someone who is not saved, you don't know whether they are elect or not. That's why we Calvinists evangelize the lost indiscriminately, preaching the gospel to all men without distinction, calling them to repent of their sins and trust in Christ.

And since I know Mr. Lumpkins will read this, I'd like to again call him personally to repent of his sins and to trust in Christ. I'm calling him to repent, not because he's not a Calvinist, but because he's a liar.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Pray for Mr. Lumpkins.

And separately, let's help Mr. Lumpkins read John 3:16, all of the verse:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

How is God's love for the world expressed, according to the verse?

It is expressed by God giving his Son that "whosoever believeth in him" will be saved. In English, that sounds in indefinite - because we use "whosoever" to speak indefinitely. The Greek is more clear: "πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν " literally meaning all the [people] believing in him. That's the group also known as the elect. It includes those are are now believing on Christ, those who believed in Christ in prior generations, and those who will some day believe in Christ.

We don't know who they are by name - but we know that they all have this in common: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those are the ones whom Christ was sent to save. Whether we read the word "world" broadly as a statement about the world in general or not, the expression of God's love for the world was to send Jesus Christ to save the elect.

-TurretinFan

66 comments:

Tom said...

Great post!

Anonymous said...

Superb! Fantastic! Groundbreaking! Stupendous!

With that, I am...]
Peter

P.S. No, you are *not* in my reader, "turrentinfan" so it was only a 'guess' I'd read this. Actually, I would not have known about this post had someone not left me a FB message about it. But I'd bet a years' worth of Starbucks, I'm in your reader, guy (or gal) ;^)

Debbie Kaufman said...

Peter: Do you not think your lies would be challenged? Just because you will not let them be challenged by some such as myself or others who you block or delete does not mean they will not be challenged somewhere else.

I thought the babies going to hell was pretty bad too. Myself? I believe all children who pass away go to heaven as do the mentally challenged. I am wondering just how far these lies are going to go. Nothing has worked so far, so how far do you go? It's going to be interesting to see, but you are only hurting yourself. I warn you as someone who cares, but is rapidly finding it difficult to do so as the lies of yours get worse and worse delving into the evil.

Anonymous said...

Definitely a new low amongst pastors. I never thought I would see the day where a pastor openly lies about another pastor's doctrine, then ridicules it and openly mocks it.

Peter, congrats, you have hit a new low. I'm sure your fellow SBC pastors are proud of you, especially Dr. Jerry Vines, the one who wrote the forward for your abstinence book. Vines has always been very gracious toward Calvinists, and considers them brothers in Christ although he disagrees with their doctrine.

While this whole saga is incredibly sad, it is interesting to watch the likes of Lumpkins and Guthrie be exposed as the tiny men they are, while James White is the one who stands tall.

Tom said...

The Lump's antics are just typical Canerite behavior. I have NEVER in my life encoutnered such a collection of liars, losers, whiners, freaks, oddballs, hypocrites, fools, jerks, nutcases, moonbats, and just general low-life sleazeballs as the supporters and defenders of E. Michael Caner.

Turretinfan said...

I suppose that first "Anonymous" comment is from Mr. Lumpkins. He writes: "No, you are *not* in my reader, "turrentinfan" so it was only a 'guess' I'd read this."

Stomp your foot while saying, "You didn't know I'd read your blog post, you didn't know it." It will be more fitting.

"But I'd bet a years' worth of Starbucks, I'm in your reader, guy (or gal) ;^)"

Perhaps I should cut more slack to someone who is not bright enough to figure out that I'm male, either from my blogger profile, or my cartoon, or my voice.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Yeah, Lumpkins pulled this crap on me awhile back when I pointed out the obvious that you are male, using the same criteria as you did. He's now just perpetuating his lying nature by feigning ignorance as to your gender.

Heh. I used to try to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but I see now that I've been naive. I'm tired of being an enabler of such a despicable person and I refuse to continue it. I consider him to be a heathen, outside of the body of Christ and will pray for his salvation accordingly.

May the Father grant him repentance. However, we all know who the father of lies is, so I see little cause for hope in that regard at this time.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Oh yeah, and

With that, I am a real Christian,

Pilgrimsarbour

BibleWheel said...

Tom said "The Lump's antics are just typical Canerite behavior. I have NEVER in my life encoutnered such a collection of liars, losers, whiners, freaks, oddballs, hypocrites, fools, jerks, nutcases, moonbats, and just general low-life sleazeballs as the supporters and defenders of E. Michael Caner."

Very well said. If ever there were a doubt about the human propensity for self-deception, it should be instantly dispelled by the fact that those defending Caner's lies actually believe they have anything at all to do with Christ, the Truth, or the Bible.

Again it must be asked - how can anyone claim to be Christian while constantly denying the truth in order to support an unrepentant serial liar? This is blasphemous madness beyond all description.

natamllc said...

While the emperor fiddled!

TF, here's a place I can comment from:

"We don't know who they are by name - but we know that they all have this in common: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

What I would emphasize is the fact that "without" His Faith you would not believe. And once you have His Faith, you might not believe.

What's the point?

Faith is a gift of God from Him.

I found out I had the gift from God after "hearing" the Word of God. Some may receive the gift of Faith at the time they hear the Word of God.

In any event, the giving and the hearing of Faith is a Gift of and from God. It is not a work of man. Proclamation of the Gospel is our work and of course, one must first be born again and sent to proclaim the Gospel.

I do have a warning for Peter with these words, which in my view, are fitting in light of the silly video production:


Ecc 5:1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil.
Ecc 5:2 Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.


This one thing I believe, I will pass from this life/bios into an eternal Life/Zoe a part of the Holy Christian Church washed, sanctified and justified in Christ and the Holy Spirit, or, if I die in my sins I will pass into eternal damnation.


Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Anonymous said...

Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Monday, August 02, 2010 7:49:00 PM

There are a lot of preachers who say we cannot commit this sin today. Does anyone have any other views on this and how does one "Blaspheme" the Holy Spirit without Blaspheming God?

Nora said...

Turretinfan,

If you're a woman, YOU ARE MY ABSOLUTE HERO.

If you're a guy, well, I suppose that's alright. :D

Turretinfan said...

LOL, Nora.

Anonymous said...

One thing I can't figure out about this Peter guy: Why does he consistently sign his comments, here and elsewhere, using the English translation of the Tetragrammaton, "I am?" Does he mean to imply that he is God???

Turretinfan said...

Anonymous,

I don't think it is anything as witty as that.

- TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

Lumpkins is off the deep end and this is the only way for him to respond. He can't answer questions about Ergun lying for the last ten years in pulpit after pulpit. It is simply pathetic!

Someone should make a little movie clip that shows Caner running around to pulpit after pulpit crying out that he came in 78 and that he was in jihad and then have a truth interruption where he is a two year old living in Ohio... That would be the truth.... unlike the distorted story that Lumpkins put together.

Anonymous said...

You are right on!!! Canerites is great description of Guthrie and Lumpkins. It doesn't matter what the truth is, they will deny that Caner lied over and over and over. When Ergun said he came here in 78 and a dozen different occasions and that his father had many wives because he bought into the Abraham lie---well, Canerites maybe a cult that continues to grow in numbers. Look at how many folks cheer them on to keep defending Caner.

natamllc said...

Anon,

you wrote: It doesn't matter what the truth is, they will deny that Caner lied over and over and over.

In my opinion, that is a bit strong.

I believe something far more real and powerful is going on here than that.

I could be wrong? I don't think so.

I have followed some, not all, of the TG and PL stuff as they have "tried", in vain in my opinion, to cover Dr. Caner's lies and embellishments in a sort of Christian love.

I believe these men see just what we see and realize.

What is different then?

The position and group and affiliation they have with Dr. Caner.

I believe if they could crawl under a rock and hide away in a cool cave for a season just to distance their reputations from that that Dr. Caner has made of his, they would in a New York minute.

What is the more powerful force at work then?

"Pride". Their own lack of ability to admit their own failings in this whole alliance with Dr. Caner now has become a trap sprung on them too, just like it has, I believe, on Dr. Giesler and others, Liberty University and Thomas Road's and and and.

Now, here's how I believe they were pushed into this corner or backed up against this wall.

I don't believe it came suddenly.

Just as the revelations about Dr. Caner being a pathological liar, one Christ died for, mind you, did not come suddenly into focus for all of us to see, so it is, little by little, over a process of events in time, the back and forth, the discoveries that have come to light, they have been pushed and shoved and backed up against the wall.

Now what are they struggling with?

Their own pride, just like we all.

The lab experiment of the frogs might be close to what has happened here.

The one frog, when you put him into the hot water suddenly, he has enough sense to jump out of the danger of that water.

The other frog, well, he has been swimming around in the water with Dr. Caner and as the water has been brought to a rapid boil, it doesn't feel any difference in the temperature because the water came to a slow boil so it never gets out and eventually dies by being cooked to death!

Coram Deo said...

Dear sirs,

Every knows PETER LUNSKIN
isn't about this.

ErgunMCaner embrace as a Teacher and Theologian, being challenged and make each person to think and open their minds through his wonderful knowledge.

It's fact of most every mind that truth doesn't in the making, but the mind is beauty.

Please isn't the truth, all will be well.

Best and kindest peaces, your friend.

Udentiti Online Reputation Services.

/snark

Pilgrimsarbour said...

That's theologist to you, Mr. Snark!

Anonymous said...

I noticed those goofy English as a second language websites last week toting Ergun Caner. I would doubt Caner had anything to do with them. I am a White fan...but think the Lumpkins video pretty much comes across as a parody and I don't think anyone will take it seriously.

I need to start honing my Photoshop skills...you'd be surprised at the cute animations you can do with Photoshop.

Helikaon said...

Greetings Turretinfan, I thank God that I found your blog, it has been a real help to me. Just a comment on the term Canerite.It seems a bit harsh. The defenders of Mr E Caners "honor", are impervious to the weapons of scripture, truth and logic. So how about the term Caner Knights?

With that, I am...
Green eggs and ham

Strong Tower said...

I don't think anyone will take it seriously.


It seems Peter obviously does: Peter seems pretty adamant that he believes everything in the video. He created it, and then offered his apologetic for it. He meant it to be taken seriously. And his fellow wankers took him seriously.

Then again, if you're saying that no one who is not a lunatic jerk will take him seriously, then, yeah, no one will.

Peter cannot offer a defense of his postition and one thing is obvious- he never understood and still doesn't understand what he thinks he does about the position that he opposes. But Peter is no stranger to screwing up what is already known and easily understood by others. His game is not to clarify the truth but to entrap in his world of legalistic schemes. He is the Circumciser, and there is nothing he would enjoy more than to get a few more foreskins in his dirty brown bag of things one must do to save themselves.

With that he is still a liar.

Akakius said...

Mr. TurretinFan,

I do not wish to be combative, but the very title of your opening post suggests to all that they should be totally truthful and forthcoming, which should also entail an absence of any deceit. I am sure that the faithful followers of “Dr.” White will leap to his defense, but Mr. White does not have an accredited doctorate, to use the title without qualification is deceptive.

And you Mr. TurretinFan are not being forthcoming when you suggest to your readers that those who believe and have faith in “the Lord Jesus Christ” are Christians. From my somewhat brief readings of your posts on this forum, I have been able to discern with a good deal of clarity that you deny Christian status to many who believe and have faith in “the Lord Jesus Christ”.

I rest in the comfort of knowing that neither you, nor “Dr.” White, shall be the judge of anyone’s final destiny, but rather that such judgment lies with Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, who was appointed our judge by God.


Akakius

Turretinfan said...

Akakius,

I'm sorry you think that one cannot be qualified without accreditation. I don't agree with that premise. Dr. White's two unaccredited doctorates have been ably and adequately defended.

As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure what makes you think what you think. If you could be more specific, I could try either to help you understand what I'm saying or to correct my own error, if I have made one.

-TurretinFan

Rhology said...

Coram Deo,

Nice.

Mark | hereiblog said...

Akakius,

Would you also say it is deceptive for Liberty to list Thomas Ice as having a PhD since it is from an unaccredited school?

Curious...

Coram Deo said...

Thanks, Rho.

Given your background I assume you have a unique and refined appreciation for Engrish!

Tom said...

"Just a comment on the term Canerite.It seems a bit harsh."

It is true that some who call groups after their leaders do so despairingly; i.e., the Moonies. But many other groups proudly wear the name of their founders, leaders; Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites, Thonists, Franciscans, ect.

Just so there is no confusion on the matter, I want everybody to understand that when I use the term "Canerite" in regards to E. Michael Caner and his cult followers, I always do so in the most despairingly way possible.

As for James White's unacreditted doctorate, this issue has been beat to death for over a decade by weak minds who cannot best in in argument, so they desperately dredge ANYTHING to score some cheap points with.

But I can think of somebody else who has a major role in the Caner scandal who has an unaccreditted degree. His name is none other than; JERRY FALWELL! Yep, ol' Jerry, founder of LiarsRUs University graduated from Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Missouri in 1956. But BBC was not accreditted until 2001; LONG after Jerry was out the door. As for his "doctorates", they are nothing but HONORARY doctorates given to him by his buddies. Fundamnetal Baptists like to dispense honorary degrees like bubble gun!!! The fact of the matter is that JERRY FALWELL NEVER EARNED A DEGREE FROM AN ACCREDITTED UNIVERSITY IN HIS LIFE!!!!

So the score in earned degrees from accreditted univesities reads; White 2--Falwell 0!

Of course, as is keeping with their practice, the Canerites are not going to allow for honosety, fairness, consistency, and an equitable standard for all to interfere with them spewing forth a good slander. Such is thier way.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Tom,

Did you mean to say disparagingly? Just curious.

Victoria Lynch said...

Well Francis this is the first time I have ever read your blog and actually enjoyed the comments as much as the post! Just fun and very funny! Thanks folks.

Tom said...

A big YES to the disparagingly! :)

Turretinfan said...

Tom:

Remember that we have a duty to try to call folks like Lumpkins to repentance. We need to make sure that our indignation at their lies etc. is a righteous indignation. I say this to you, but I am also saying it to myself. It's easy to forget when men say all manner of evil against us falsely because of our stance for the truth.

- TurretinFan

natamllc said...

I would, myself as well, address the Dr. White unaccredited issue.

Two things.

One, the only one who should have any concerns for it is Dr. White himself in his ordained relationship with God. As far as I can discern, it hasn't affected his ability to put forth powerfully, the Truth's Truth of the Gospel, "His", not "his" sound doctrines of the Faith, "His" sound defenses in the multi-layered debates that are on record and can be revisited, unlike Dr. Caner's many debates, his eldership in good standing at the Fellowship he's a part of in Phoenix, AZ., The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and the list goes on, like, a good wife and children and so on.

Two, if you would read or listen to what he produces, you should quickly see one cited above has some teeth and the content and substance of what God produces through the man's life changes lives, establishing them in the Truth!

Most of the time, not all of the time, just most of the time, after a "Dr. White" experience I am in a high sense similar to what Jesus said here when He too was opining the Truth:

Luk 20:37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
Luk 20:38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."




Is there an argument now that some would bring forth against the clear, powerful "Fruit" of the Spirit that is continually manifested through and in this man's Life Ministry?

I would hope so!

Luk 6:26 "Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.


Not to compare, but, from what I can ascertain, everyone in Dr. Caner's corner including Dr. Caner himself of himself, drool over and speak well of him! Hmmmmmmm???

Anonymous said...

TF--don't know who this Wretched Dude is but I thought he had something pretty good to say about the Caner scandal. He gets to the Caner topic after a couple of minutes.

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=98F5A31960906B236E5DFA58E5AEBA61&page=1

Tom said...

TF, I readily accept your comment, as interpreted through Titus 3:10.

Turretinfan said...

Thanks for your very gracious response, Tom. I agree that we do not give folks endless chances to reform before we reject them as heretics.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Thomas Ice is finishing a doctorate in church history at the University of Wales. I don't know if they are accredited.

Tom,

The word is accredited, not accreditted.

Turretinfan,

Looking at John 3:13-16 to get context, Jesus says in verse 14 that like the way Moses lifted up the serpent, even so the Son of Man would be lifted up. In the wilderness, Moses lifted up the serpent so that everyone could see, not just a portion of the crowd. My point is that God wanted this serpent lifted up high so it would be visible to all. Jesus says He should be lifted up the same way so that all the world (kosmos) would see and believe. Now John always used "kosmos" in a negative sense- John 13, 14, 15, 1st John 3 all ascribe a negative aspect to the "world" But in 3:16 God loves the sinful world, and has sent His monogenes.

So what I get from this is, the entire world is bad (including us), and one, the Lord Jesus, is who God has sent to redeem them. Jesus is lifted up high so that πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων

I don't see particular redemption there. You have to rely on Greek syntax (in my opinion) to come to that conclusion. πιστεύων is a substantival participle so it functions like a noun. "Whoever" can have πιστεύων because God loved the sinful world and Jesus is to be lifted up to achieve that goal.

You may disagree, but that's ok. I have been wrong before.

Patrick

natamllc said...

TF,

written: I agree that we do not give folks endless chances to reform before we reject them as heretics.

This raises a valid argument, in my view.

What's yours?

With regard to "rejecting" someone in this context, who does the sentencing and who else, with them after, does the rejecting?

For me, this one is difficult. How do you reconcile it?

I like to offer my own spin on these words this way, the verses first and then the spin. And, by the way, for me, at least, this is how those called and elected and chosen are "culled" out, the sheep from the goats:

Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


Unless one is born into a strong Spirit filled family, such as Philip's daughters, see Acts 21:8-9, we all find our place before God first as fallen Jews, Gentiles or tax collectors, sinners!!!

On one, the measure is not rejection but disciplinary to bring them back to repentance, and with the other, it is an outright "rejection as a heretic" holding them as a object of His eternal damnation while alive in this life.

How do you/we see it? How do you see it for Dr. Caner??

Is it heading to this with regard to him and others coming utterly to his defense:::>

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.

Mark | hereiblog said...

Patrick, while Dr. Ice may be working on another doctorate, he did not start working for Liberty last week. And his unaccredited doctorate is listed on the website. I also imagine his students call him Dr.

My point is that accreditation does not necessarily validate nor invalidate one's work. If this were so then many Christians today should take note of Bart Ehrman's position on Scripture as he would have a high level of authority to speak in this area based on his accredited degrees and background.

On John 3:16 you said, "I don't see particular redemption there." Do you see universal redemption there? Why or why not?

Do you think John 3:16 explicitly defines every aspect of the atonement?

Coram Deo said...

Good point, Mark.

And perhaps more to the point of that particular text is that it says nothing whatsoever about who the "whosoevers" (or "whoevers") are - all it says about them is that they believe.

And as TF has already pointed out, the Greek here is along the lines of "all those believing" a present active reality [or yet future reality for those who will believe at an appointed time to come].

Insofar as I know both the classical Reformed/Calvinist and semi-Pelagian positions agree that "believing" [trusting in] the Person and Work of Christ is a prerequisite for justification.

The question then becomes, who will believe?

Which question, of course, the Bible answers with absolute clarity: all those whom the Father has given unto the Son in eternity past, and effectually calls to Him in time, the elect.

Amazing grace!

In Christ,
CD

Helikaon said...

Tom

When I wrote that "the term Canerite seems a bit harsh" and suggested Caner Knights (Canaanites) for Caners defenders I was only making a very poor attempt at humour.

Although seeing as how Caner is a student of the Crusades, I'm sure he would have no problem with it :)


In saying this I take Turretinfans words to heart.

With that I am...
Sir Lumpkins

Anonymous said...

Wow...here's another guy who did some "researcy" before writing an article on Caner. Scary!

http://www.christianindex.org/6556.article

Anonymous said...

Oops..that is supposed to be "research"

Anonymous said...

Mark, you said:
"Patrick, while Dr. Ice may be working on another doctorate, he did not start working for Liberty last week. And his unaccredited doctorate is listed on the website. I also imagine his students call him Dr."

Well, for whatever reason he went back for more education. It probably was a stumbling block to people, and since theology is his vocation, it probably made sense to not give anyone reason to question him. I would agree with you about accreditation not necessarily validating someone's work, however, if you are a vocational debater like James White, there will always be that issue that his opponents can throw in his face. Thirty years ago and beyond accreditation wasn't a big deal especially in Christian circles but it is 2010 and if someone tried to become a chaplain in a secular situation, if you don't have an accredited MDIV it is almost impossible to get the job. I can say it is possible to get a great education at an unaccredited seminary, however, if ministry is going to be one's vocation they will be better off going by those standards.
I personally went to a fine Bible college, and when I wanted to transfer credit into Golden Gate, all the credit was rejected because the Bible college was unaccredited. I feel that I recieved solid teaching from that college, but it was hard to continue in my education because of that.



"On John 3:16 you said, "I don't see particular redemption there." Do you see universal redemption there? Why or why not?

Do you think John 3:16 explicitly defines every aspect of the atonement?"

I would try and not use one verse as "defining every aspect of the atonement" but use the corpus of scripture.

What I see in those verses, 13-16 is that Jesus quotes from the book of Numbers where God told Moses to lift up the serpent and those who had been bitten by the serpents would live on the grounds that they themselves looked.
21:8 "Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that EVERYONE who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.” 9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit ANY man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived."
I put caps on those words for emphasis- Anyone who was bitten could look upon the serpent and live. There was no limitation, God said anyone who was bitten could look. Jesus uses this story for His own offer of redemption.
All of us have been "bitten" by sin, and God so loved the bitten that He gave His only Son, that was never bitten by sin.

Patrick

Strong Tower said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Strong Tower said...

"I put caps on those words for emphasis- Anyone who was bitten could look upon the serpent and live."

No. The point is that anyone who had faith could look and live. No one who does not have faith would look for no one who looks to Jesus is an unbeliever. And why would a person look to the serpent if the did not believe. Therefore, the serpent was raised only for those who believed. That is J316. That the believing ones would not parish but have eternal life. But don't stop there, Jesus came into the world for judgement, see chapter five and John 3:18 makes that plain. For God so loved the world that that the ones not believing would perish. And John 3:21 demonstrates that all this is for the ones believing as worked by God: eirgasmena.

Then the fact is that Jesus was pointing to the fact that there are those who believe and those who do not. It does not begin there, though. It begins at the beginning of John 3, where Jesus plainly teaches that without being born again, on will not believe for he cannot see the kingdom. Now if we follow the parallels, then the serpent lifted up is paralleded with Jesus on the cross and he and his kingdom are one. Fast forwarding, no one, not one, can come to him except that he is drawn by the Father. That parallels John 3. Except that one is born from above he cannot see. The blind are not drawn by the light with came into the world. Only those with eyes are. That parallels looking to the serpent, that is Christ. Without eyes to see, no one will look. Conclusion, only those who are given eyes will look. Whoever then speaks only of those who have faith. The rest will not look, as Jesus said, they are condemned already. Why? As we all were once, so they remain, born sinners. All men are born into condemnation. Jesus came so that the world through him might be saved. To do that he must also have come as its judge. Otherwise he could not have said that some are of the devil and would never believe. Such as Judas, of whom Jesus said that he was the son of perdition as it was written. In other words, for whoever to be universal it had to include Judas. But it didn't, or the Scripture that Jesus quoted was false.

Strong Tower said...

here's another guy

...who has joined the chorus of irrationals who cover up for Caner.

So, Caner is a prophet? We're supposed to turn a blind eye to lies in the name of Christ for the sake of:

Ergun Caner: a needed voice in a troubled world?


...puleeez, another editor of truth is not needed.

J. Gerald Harris thinks an apology is repentance? How sad that he would call his rag the Christian Index, then. Caner doesn't just need to apologize, he needs to admit that he defrauded his audience, then work toward reconciliation and restoration, or bow out and fade into obscurity like dozens of other charlatans have. But under whose ecclesiastical authority would reconciliation and restoration be done? Liberty is not a church.

Harris misses the fact that Caner wasn't the scholar that he claimed to be, even in print, and that his testimony is not at all what he claimed it was. Regardless of his conversion from some sort of Islam, the whole cloth of Caner's testimony is filthy with only a smattering of fact. So Harris joins in the deception along with the rest of those who could care less for the truth by confirming Caner. By saying: "Caner’s integrity and testimony was fully substantiated by the committee," Harris demonstrates a wholesale committment to obscurantism or is delusional. The reality is that they did nothing of the kind. The finding was critical, not favorable, anyway. He wasn't exonerated, but he wasn't filleted as he should have been, either. Liberty's real problem is that they were not forthcoming enough nor requiring enough to prove their dispassion. Obviously, they have as much to lose as Caner. If they would have been honest, they wouldn't have lost their credibility. What is curious is the likes of Harris. What is his dog in this fight? What is his payoff?

We can understand that those who support Obama are fanatics, blind subservients, only in the hunt for the sake of being on the same bandwagon... that is what populism is all about. What is not understandable is why anyone under the banner of Christ would turn the bind eye to the matters of fact except that it is the body politic- or perhaps a cause célèbre par folie à deux, a celebrated shared delusional cause.

Anonymous said...

No one has told this guy that Ergun Caner isn't the expert you want recommending your book. Another scary article.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/08/prweb4347984.htm

Turretinfan said...

Incidentally, I notice that Lumpkins has clarified that he did indeed mean to suggest that Dr. White holds to the teachings that Lumpkins attributed to him: "And, the statement I attempted to communicate had little to do with Mr. White's character per se than the projection of certain fundamental ideas, ideas most in my faith community find highly repulsive." (source)

Notice how Lumpkins is using the Roman Catholic term "faith community" (instead of church) and calling the Roman Catholics his "brothers" there.

-TurretinFan

Mark | hereiblog said...

Patrick,

I'd like to point out that Dr. Ice has had his PhD since 1995 and has been teaching at Liberty since 2005. We don't know why he is pursuing another doctorate.

Another point is that seminaries, including Liberty, have accepted coursework from Columbia Theo. Sem., the same place White got his doctorates. Liberty actually admitted someone with a bachelor's degree from Columbia into one of their MA programs.

My whole point is that value of one's academic work or teaching is not predicated solely on accreditation.

Gordan said...

My experience with accreditation of Christian schools is that there is a great deal of pressure on them to avoid being "too conservative."

The accrediting agencies are, after all, completely secular, and so I don't find it axiomatic that we should care too greatly what a bunch of heathen academic pointy-heads think of our Bible college.


Dr. Gary North has characterized the tradeoff thusly, where nominal or liberal Christian accreditation officials say to the Christian school, "I'll agree to call you scholars if you'll agree to call me and my crew righteous."

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Your points are taken. Liberty is not ATS accredited, so they might have some "liberty" concerning accepting people who have unaccredited degrees such as the person who graduated from Columbia.They probably go on a case-by-case basis, getting to know the individual. Walter Martin was someone who blessed Christians with his apologetic ministry, I believe he had an unaccredited doctorate. Yet he died over 20 years ago. If he were alive today, he would be getting the same heat about his doctorate as James White and apparently Thomas Ice have.

Strong Tower,

There are many things that you write that I agree with. But, looking at this:

"No. The point is that anyone who had faith could look and live. No one who does not have faith would look for no one who looks to Jesus is an unbeliever. And why would a person look to the serpent if the did not believe. Therefore, the serpent was raised only for those who believed."

I don't believe you are doing justice to the Numbers passage. Jesus, in His analogy, says that the serpent was "lifted up." Logic tells me that if God told Moses to put the serpent on "a standard" and Jesus says it was "lifted up" that it would be visible to anyone bitten. I don't think we should insert a theological presupposition there when it plainly says anyone bitten could look at it and be healed. Why would God want this serpent lifted up high if He only wanted a particular segment of the population to see it? Of course it took faith, I agree not everyone has faith, but in this passage of scripture the pain suffered by the Israelites moved them to having the faith to obey Moses and look at the serpent. We all believe that faith connects sinners to Grace. There was a miracle taking place, those sinners were seeing healing taken place and the means for healing was available. They responded to the call, and they were rewarded with healing.

Jesus also says in John 12 that judgment is about to come upon the world, and it is analogous to the Numbers passage in that they were judged and the result were the vipers. Judgment was coming to the world and the result would be death pain and suffering but He is the source of eternal life. John 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”
This fits better the passage in chapter 3 in my humble opinion. I may be wrong, I can admit it.
I agree with your analogy about the cross.


"And John 3:21 demonstrates that all this is for the ones believing as worked by God: eirgasmena."

I don't get what you are trying to say here. Here is the hoti clause in Greek. Maybe you can break it down for me:

ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα



Patrick

Anonymous said...

Strong Tower,

There are many things that you write that I agree with. But, looking at this:

"No. The point is that anyone who had faith could look and live. No one who does not have faith would look for no one who looks to Jesus is an unbeliever. And why would a person look to the serpent if the did not believe. Therefore, the serpent was raised only for those who believed."

I don't believe you are doing justice to the Numbers passage. Jesus, in His analogy, says that the serpent was "lifted up." Logic tells me that if God told Moses to put the serpent on "a standard" and Jesus says it was "lifted up" that it would be visible to anyone bitten. I don't think we should insert a theological presupposition there when it plainly says anyone bitten could look at it and be healed. Why would God want this serpent lifted up high if He only wanted a particular segment of the population to see it? Of course it took faith, I agree not everyone has faith, but in this passage of scripture the pain suffered by the Israelites moved them to having the faith to obey Moses and look at the serpent. We all believe that faith connects sinners to Grace. There was a miracle taking place, those sinners were seeing healing taken place and the means for healing was available. They responded to the call, and they were rewarded with healing.

Jesus also says in John 12 that judgment is about to come upon the world, and it is analogous to the Numbers passage in that they were judged and the result were the vipers. Judgment was coming to the world and the result would be death pain and suffering but He is the source of eternal life. John 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”
This fits better the passage in chapter 3 in my humble opinion. I may be wrong, I can admit it.
I agree with your analogy about the cross.


"And John 3:21 demonstrates that all this is for the ones believing as worked by God: eirgasmena."

I don't get what you are trying to say here. Here is the hoti clause in Greek. Maybe you can break it down for me:

ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα



Patrick

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Your points are taken. Liberty is not ATS accredited, so they might have some "liberty" concerning accepting people who have unaccredited degrees such as the person who graduated from Columbia.They probably go on a case-by-case basis, getting to know the individual. Walter Martin was someone who blessed Christians with his apologetic ministry, I believe he had an unaccredited doctorate. Yet he died over 20 years ago. If he were alive today, he would be getting the same heat about his doctorate as James White and apparently Thomas Ice have.

Patrick

Turretinfan said...

A quick point about "lifted up." That phrase specifically is a prophecy regarding the mode of execution. It's used several times in John, once with an explanation of what it means.

Compare:

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

And most clearly:

John 12:32-33
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Notice that the explanation for "lifted up" is that it refers to the method of death, namely crucifixion.

And people understood this and objected:

John 12:34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Patrick,

seeing TF has made a referential comment to yours and Strong Towers', I too would as well.

I see Strong Towers understanding and don't find your reasoning fits here.

I too, fallible, can be wrong. Eventually Strong Tower, I suppose, will come back here and read all this and set the record straight for all of us?

What point I would go to is this one in light of all that. The point, to me is simply one of Election.

As the Apostle wrote, so I agree:

Rom 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
Rom 11:8 as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day."


Based on those Words of Scripture as my guide I would assert that I simply don't see the universality of that in the lifting up of the serpent.

What I see is "only" those "Elected" would be the ones Faith was working through so that when and if the bite did come, they would look to the admonition of Moses and look at the serpent and be healed.

We need to keep in mind there is a predetermined Will and Foreknowledge intrinsic in everything and everyone, the outcome for the Elect is sure to wit God has and will, place/d His seal on His own in their lifetimes.

To narrow the field of my presupposition, I would refer you to Chapters 20-22 of Luke's Gospel.

It is unavoidable to those of the Faith delivered to not see God's Hand in every event under the sun:


Luk 20:34 And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,
Luk 20:35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.


Luk 21:21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,
Luk 21:22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.



Luk 22:13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

Luk 22:28 "You are those who have stayed with me in my trials,
Luk 22:29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
Luk 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
Luk 22:32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."


One digression from these verses is to Judas we see Satan entered him and to Peter, Satan demanded to have him!

I suppose one can make a distinction to that too?

Tom said...

Helikaon;

One difficulty with referring to the Canerites as “Knights” was that Knights were generally associated with such qualities as chivalry and nobility; while there is absolutely NOTHING chivalrous or noble about E. Michael Caner and his band of cult followers.

Turretinfan said...

Some of his supporters are more honorable than others. For example, I wouldn't rank Guthrie or Geisler at the same level with Lumpkins.

Turretinfan said...

"I don't see particular redemption there."

There is one level of particularity, at least. The one layer is that Christ came particularly to save "all the-believing-ones" and not all absolutely.

If you believe that God is omniscient - meaning that God knows who will believe - than you must concede that God knew who "all the-believing-ones" were to be, before sending his Son.

In other words, while the "whosoever" (as our English translation puts it) may be unknown to us, it was definitely, certainly, and fixedly known to God.

Thus, we can see that God sending His Son to die to save "whosoever believes" is actually God sending His Son to die to save a particular group.

That's not necessarily unconditional election (we haven't shown whether God saved them because they believed, or if they believed because God saved them), but it is particular redemption.

"You have to rely on Greek syntax (in my opinion) to come to that conclusion."

I have no problem with the Greek here.

"πιστεύων is a substantival participle so it functions like a noun."

Agreed. "The-believing-ones" is one way to try to convey the sense in English.

"'Whoever' can have πιστεύων because God loved the sinful world and Jesus is to be lifted up to achieve that goal."

The text connects the lifting up of Christ and the saving of the believers, not the lifting up of Christ and the possibility have faith.

I think part of your comments spring from a mistaken idea about what the sense of "lifting up" is. You seem to view it as being related to Christ being exhibited for all to see, whereas it more specifically relates to his manner of death.

Christ was crucified, so that "all the-believing-ones" would not perish but have everlasting life.

It does not say "Christ was lifted up, so that whosoever can believe on him." If that were the syntax, we would be faced with something closer to the way I think you are reading this.

(see also my note above regarding "lifted up")

-TurretinFan

Tom said...

Honestly, I cannot find anything honorable about Guthrie and Geisler. Debating about who has more honor; those two or The Lump, is like arguing who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

TF,

I'm just curious as to your reasoning. Why wouldn't you rank Guthrie and Geisler on the same level as Lumpkins? Is it because you perceive that Geisler has actually, throughout his life, at least produced something worthwhile for the edification of the body?

I tend to agree with Tom's assessment, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

PA

Turretinfan said...

Geisler and Guthrie both strike men a men who have been conned by Caner and who are bound under their prejudices against "Calvinism," rather than Lumpkins who (on my own observations) is simply an unrepentant liar.

Strong Tower said...

"I don't think we should insert a theological presupposition there when it plainly says anyone bitten could look at it and be healed."

Then all who were bitten could look? It doesn't say that. In fact you have read your presupposition into the passage. It does not read that any one could, or that they may if they wanted. In both verses, 8 and 9, the tenses are perfect. They express completed actions not potential ones. It melds nicely with Jesus expression of a completed action, "when I am lifted I will draw." The word ἐάν in John 12:32 means in the case that, and can be rendered if but when is more accurate. It is a conclusively causal action. It does not represent potential conditional case which might not happen but the fulfillment of prophecy, a future actualized potential, a stated future fact. So it is not if they looked, but when.

No theological presupposition, just logic. No one not believing they would be healed, would look. When those believing looked they were healed. And that is the point clarified by Jesus throughout John. Some cannot see even though he is the light; because they have no eyes to see who he is, they refuse to come to him even when he proclaims that he is the light. Even when Moses made the serpent it was when they looked they were healed, not if they looked they would be. The only ones that look are those who see, i.e, believe. Undoubtedly the serpent was lifted up but it alone did not cause the people to look. Undoubtedly, light is light. But it is not sufficient to cause "looking," because light is not the sufficient cause of seeing. It takes both in their native state to be efficient. Jesus makes plain that he is the light but that none see unless they have eyes to see. Eido, to see, or to perceive with the senses, or the mind, is what is necessary and that from above, or in otherwords, it is done by God, ἐστιν εἰργασμένα.

If you're making hoti a conditional, it is you who bring in presupposition. It is simply a conjunction. The word εἰργασμένα
sums up the preceding discussion started in John 3:3. Unless one is born from above, unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot see or enter. In John 3:21 entering is viewed from the perspective of leaving the darkness and entering into the light. Hoti refers to those works, that is, coming into the light, and that in reference to the ones doing them, and they do them, hoti, "because," they are worked to be (ἐστιν) in the doers by God. Just as in John 3:3. The seeing of the light is God's work. The sending of the light into the world is Gods' work, John 1. The willing and the doing are God's work, Phil 2:13. The drawing is God's work, John 6:44, the lifting up is God's work, John 10:18 cf. Isaiah 53:10. In all this man is the passive participant; active, yet, that action is being worked in man by God. God is the one who works all these things, John 3:21 says. From John 3:3 to 3:21 it is all about what God does, not what man does. No one conceives hisself, no one gives birth to himself, no one comes into the light by himself, hoti, because, all these things, are worked by God.

Hoti has no impact upon what the whole point of what John 3:21 says unless you fill it with presuppositions like making it a conditional case when it cannot bear that meaning. Hoti means- that, because, since- but is best translated because, for it is a causal particle. As Jesus said, unless one is born again he cannot see and enter the kingdom. It is because, hoti, one is born again that he sees and enters. Seeing and entering are works of righteousness which are done, hoti, because, God works them in all who come into the light.

Tom said...

Sorry, but neither Guthrie nor Geisler get off so easy with me. If I didn't know a single other thing about Tim Guthrie, his hissy fit about James White allegedly "bearning false witness" a couple of weeks ago forever destroys any credibility he might have possessed.

And I hold Norm Geisler responsible as a major accomplice in the Caner affair. He knew Caner for years, and not only didn't speak up when Caner was saying all his lies, but rather actively supported him in this fruad. And then after Libery made its decision, Geisler was quick to "stir the pot" in attempting to drum up public support for Caner.

Anonymous said...

Strong Tower,

I simply mentioned the oti clause because I was trying to see where you were coming from grammatically concerning John 3:21 and how it relates to the subject. I was taught in school to find context and grammatical connection by breaking down sentences and clauses in Greek. I didn't intend anything else.

Patrick