Ergun Caner's introduction to Louis Ruggiero's recently released book is short (two pages). The first page, first sentence is this: "For the first half of my life, I was raised a Muslim. My father, an ulema (that is, a scholar in Islam) drove home the key concepts of Islam that guided every single step of our lives." There are several issues with this sentence. By the time he wrote this foreword (it was apparently written in 2009), Caner was over 40. His time as a Muslim was significantly less than half his life, if he was saved in 1982 (as he has written). 1982-2009 is about 27 years, as opposed 1966-1982, which is about 16 years. Next, no corroborating evidence has been brought to show that Caner's father has any particular scholarly credentials or experience. That Caner's father is a Muslim appears to be true, and there may even be evidence that Caner's father was active getting the local Islamic foundation going. Indeed, for all we know, Caner's father may have been a scholar - we just haven't been shown any evidence of that. However, to say that he is "an ulema" is not correct. The word ulema is the plural form: "scholars" not "scholar."
- TurretinFan
P.S. I should point out that I have not yet read Louis' book from cover to cover.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In his latest rant, Peter the Lump wants to know why James White won't debate Ruggiero. Apparently, The Lump is ignorant of the fact that the two had an online debate during a Dividing Line program way back in 2003. And the two have interacted periodically since then.
Here is a clip that White posted a couple of years ago containing a porition of their debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QleDKXhLrg&feature=player_embedded#!
I bet Ruggiero wishes he did not have that introduction now.
Also posted on Lou's Youtube 2 days ago: "Challenge to Dr. James White"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxYQfmOKclk
Yes, LouRugg's argument seems to be that if Dr. White was willing to debate him once, he must be willing to debate him again.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
As a Muslim who is interested in these intra-Christian discussions on theology I have to say that LouRugg's arguments were very cogent. I did watch his take on the debate and he made very excellent points, that shows the inconsistency in White's approach. That Mr. LouRugg is not allow to use the totality of scripture, but White is?
It seems to me that what the Calvinist, do is have certain theological presuppositions and than scripture is forced through this tunnel.
However, Turretinfan as I said before people like yourself, are more consistent because I do not see how a person who supports Total Depravity could shy away from baby baptism.
So when it comes to this contrast in views. Pedobaptist have the more consistent theological arguments in regards to total depravity.
"LouRugg's arguments were very cogent"
It has been noted elsewhere that Muslims and Arminians often argue in similar fashion, grabbing at twists-of-phrase on which to hang their argument. Rarely does either party objectively examine their own presuppositions in the same manner they attack Calvinism/Christianity.
In the debate with Dr. White, LouRugg rested his entire argument against Calvinism on the ability of men to "choose" without regard to what Calvinism actually teaches in regards to choices etc.
Rugg's arguments may have been "cogent" to someone uneducated in historical Christian doctrine (as most Muslims and evangelical Christians seem to be), but when examined in the light of logic and Scripture both fail to provide meaningful light.
>>It seems to me that what the Calvinist, do is have certain theological presuppositions and than scripture is forced through this tunnel.<<
Poorly-thought-out assessment. The Doctrines of Grace are repugnant to natural man; every human's default position is the superficial, intuitive, soulish stance of freewillism. Far and away the vast majority of today's Calvinists began as Arminians, so how could it be that our "second conversion" is due to monergistic presuppositions forced through some exegetical "tunnel," as you would have it? Where would such biases come from, being as they are abhorrent to all flesh and widely unknown (or, alternately, caricatured and scorned) by those outside comparatively tiny Camp Calvin? Most of us struggle against the Doctrines of Grace even as we are being inexorably, irreversibly - infallibly! - brought to rest in them.
No, it is further testimony in favor of calvinistic doctrine - the icing on the cake, the feather in our cap, the grand statement's exclamation mark - that it is adopted by anyone at all, for it would require nothing short of Divine fiat to make any man so much as assent to the DoG's, much less adore them as we do...which fiat is, after all, the very heart of the issue, isn't it? :-D
MONERGISM: It's the TRUTH whether you like it or not.
Post a Comment