Monday, February 24, 2014

Ashburn Baptist Church (Chicago, Illinois) Sermons

Ergun Caner apparently gave a number of speeches/sermons at Ashburn Baptist Church in Chicago, Illinois, from 2003-2005.
  • "Dr. Ergun Caner" by Ergun Caner March 3, 2003 (link to mp3) Title: "When the Jailhouse turns into the Churchhouse"
He begins with autobiographical material:

"My full name is Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovani Caner, born in Stockholm, Sweden, where my parents were going to school.  ... Raised in Turkey, and in Cairo, Egypt, and in Beirut, and then I came here .. and I came here when I was 12."

He came at about 3 years old, having been born in Sweden.  He was raised in Ohio.  His name is Ergun Michael Caner.

Caner claims he learned about America, thinking it was all like Mayberry from Andy Griffith.  As mentioned above, he was raised in the U.S.

Around 25 minutes in he continues with autobiographical material:

"I was raised for the first 17 years of my life as a Sunni Muslim. Acar Mehmet Caner, my father, was a muezzin, he was a mulima. A muezzin is the one who does the call to prayer in the minaret, the mulima is the scholar of the hadith. I was raised in the mosque.  And raised and brought here to America to be a missionary to you.  My father was an architect by trade.  He built and renovated mosques. In Brooklyn, New York, in Toledo, Ohio, and eventually in Columbus, Ohio he built and renovated mosques. I was the equivalent of a PK in Islam."

The Islamic Foundation on Broad St., where Acar Caner apparently went, did not have a minaret.  There is no evidence that he was a muezzin or an alim (ulima is a plural noun, and mulima is bad). There is no evidence (that we can find) that Caner's father was actually an architect by trade or that ever built a mosque.

"Even in high school, I would take my prayer rug out of my locker and put it in the bathroom, and begin [Islamic prayers]."

A bathroom is one of the last places a devout Muslim would pick for prayers.

"I came here to be a Muslim missionary to you."

He came as a toddler.

"You have heard of the five pillars of Islam, Abinadab, the Kalima, Salat, Zakat, Swan, Haj, ... we will talk about jihad being the 6th pillar of Islam."

Abinadab is not a pillar of Islam.

"I wore my keffiyah, my gear ..."

Most of Caner's childhood photos show him and his father wearing normal western clothes.

He talks about his first sermon being very short but he claims that both his brothers came forward.

Other times Caner has said that his brothers were saved while he was away in college.
  • "20 Things You Must Know to Witness to a Muslim" by Ergun Caner March 3, 2003 (link to mp3)
"We have had many debates over the past 10 years on university campuses and such."

We can't find evidence of these debates.

"I can no longer travel to the countries. I mean I can't travel to my home country, to Turkey. I cannot go to Lebanon or to Syria or to UAE or Qatar, and neither can my brother."  This is allegedly the result of his publishing against Islam.

I doubt Caner could substantiate these claims, but it is hard to prove that they are not true.  Nevertheless, UAE and Turkey are relatively tolerant of non-Muslims, so it seems surprising that they would care he wrote a book on Islam.

"I have debated in 13 colleges and universities. I have never once found one Muslim ulima, scholar, who would ever say that Allah and Jehovah are the same god."

As noted above, we cannot find evidence of these debates.

Caner claims that Mohammed's first vision was on his 40th birthday.

Muslims, however, say that Mohammed's first vision was during the month of Ramadan (9th month of the calendar), whereas Mohammed's birthday is int he month of Rabi-al-Awwal (3rd month of the calendar)

Around 18:50: "In a debate at the University of North Texas, there were thousands of people there, and there was two Christians and two Muslims. I was the Christian who formerly was a Muslim. I was offensive to the Muslims. And in the middle of this, what was most interesting was that most of the questions that were hostile were not coming from Muslims, they were coming from the media. WFAA in Dallas, Texas the television station - the guy just hammered me, just boom boom, hit me with questions over and over."

We can't find any evidence of this debate.  The only references we could find to Caner on WFAA's website were to Caner getting caught.  One example is shown here:


Around 20:50: "So, in the middle of the debate, after getting hit five or six times with questions, I step back from my podium and I say, 'Abi,' speaking to the imam, I said, 'Abi, may I ask you a question.'"

We cannot locate any imam named "Abi" whom Caner ever debated.

Around 25:50:  "I was a jihadeen. That was my youth group. Do you hear the word? Jihad. Jihadeen is a little boy who trains in the protocols of jihad. If I would have reached the age of 18 as a jihadeen, and I would have made the pilgrimage to Mecca, doing haj, I would have become a muj- put them together mujihadeen."

There is no evidence to confirm that Caner was trained as a jihadist.

Around 30:50: "By the way, let me cite to you what the Hadith is.  This is interesting.  The Koran is supposedly the words of Allah. But the Hadith is different. The Hadith is not just one book, it's actually a large encyclopedia - nine volumes. You can buy one.  It's about $100 to buy the full set. It is not the words of Allah, but it is the words and sayings and examples and protocols and judicial laws of Mohammed."  

That's not a very accurate picture of the Hadith.  There are nine volumes in the English translation of one of the hadith collections (Sahih al-Bukhari).  But there are a number of other hadith collections besides that one.  That's why, when one cites the hadith, one should specify the collection (see the discussion here).

Around 32:50: "I wanted to become an American. I learned your language.  Do know how difficult your language is? Do you have any clue? And I was in high school when I did it!"

Caner came to America as a toddler, not as a high school student.

Around 38:50: "My father said, 'When you come to America, marry an American woman. More specifically, marry a blonde.'"

One really doubts that Caner's dad had such a discussion with a 3 year old, or that Caner would have remembered it.

Around 42:30: "On open line radio with Wayne Shepherd I was debating a Muslim woman scholar and this was the Moody show, the Wayne Shepherd thing, and he said, 'Well, she's on the line, and she wants to disagree with what you have to say,' and she called in and she said, 'You do not understand, you have quoted this verse three times, and you do not understand.  In the Arabic, that means to tap her lightly.' I have two answers: number one, I do understand the Arabic, I do read the Arabic, and no it does not mean to tap her lightly. And secondly, are you insane?"

As far as we can tell, Caner may be able to pronounce the Arabic, but he does not know the language.  I even wonder if this supposed radio discussion ever took place.

Around 43:50: "My mother found out late in her marriage that my father was married to more than one woman."

Caner's mom apparently married his dad while at university. They were divorced nine years later and we cannot find evidence of Caner's mom alleging polygamy as the ground of divorce.  Also, compare this statement to what we see below in some of the other messages at this same church. Caner's father apparently remarried after the divorce, but we cannot find evidence of any other wives.

Around 50:00: "Strict Muslims do not allow their pictures to be taken, because they consider it to be idolatry."

 Sounds like Caner may be confusing Muslims and Amish.

Around 58:10 "That's what those video tapes are for. Have you seen those video tapes of them reading before they go and bomb? This is what they are reading: [Some kind of gibberish that is supposed to be Arabic] I declare who I will send."

It's sad that Caner makes people think he speaks Arabic.

Around 1:10:50 "I think America will survive if, and only if, it's the country I thought I was coming to. Everywhere I lived, I was a majority, Muslims were in the majority. I come to America, I was in the minority."

The evidence we have is that Caner lived in Sweden and then the US, neither of which is a majority Muslim country.
  • June 3 "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 3, 2005 (link to mp3)
Around 1:45: "I've been fat my entire life."

The evidence we have suggests he was not fat until after high school, at the earliest.

Around 2:20: "Braxton is after my father-in-law, Paige is after Dr. Patterson, who is my mentor."

I wonder what Patterson thinks of Caner's autobiographical embellishments?

Around 3:30: "I make my living getting yelled at. I spend my time, on purpose, in front of secular audiences. I go into state colleges, Ohio State University, Portland State most recently, UCLA, I go into places where I am not surrounded by sweet, kind gracious kids like I just heard sing and gave testimony. I figured if Jesus was a friend to sinners, and we're here to help those who are sick with sin, I don't want to hang out in the rehab center, I want to hang out where the lepers are. And there are a ton of lepers on our state university campuses. I debate. I go in and a Muslim, or a Bahai, or a Buddhist, or a Hindi, and I get in front of a bunch of people and debate."

 We cannot find evidence of these supposed debates.

Around 9:00, Caner claims that his father-in-law was from Possum Kill, NC.

There is no "Possum Kill" in North Carolina, according to google maps.

Around 11:50, Caner claims to have watched Chicago Cubs baseball abroad before coming to America. Caner then claims to have watched American football.  He also claims to have watched the Dukes of Hazard and to have wanted to marry Daisy.  He further claims to have watched Andy Griffith.

It's literally impossible he watched the Dukes of Hazzard as he claims (see discussion here).  And, of course, keep in mind he was a toddler when he came to America.

Around 12:50: "But my favorite show came out of Georgia.  Because Atlanta, GA, small station television station there was shipping its tapes to Europe.  And Turkey being half European and half Persian, we would receive these tapes, and it didn't need to be translated. And every two weeks we got to watch Georgia Championship Wrastlin' - and I thought it was real, because nobody told me it was fake."

There is no evidence that Caner lived in Turkey and watched Pro Wrestling on Turkish TV via internationally shipped tapes.

Around 13:50: "All the Turks you see on television are what? We are either devout, which I was, wearing the robes ..." 

As mentioned above, from the photos we have, Caner dressed like a typical Western person.

Around 14:30 "I did, however, work at a convenience store. My first job was at a place called 7-11. The only place that would hire me. I was Apu."

 Elsewhere, he has claimed he didn't work at a convenience store. (see here, for example)

Around 14:50: "I came to this country as a 13 year old boy, and I came here with a father as the oldest of three sons of my father, and my father said, 'Marry an American.'"

He came as a 3 year old boy, and his youngest brother was born in Ohio.

Around 21:40 "Because in debates that I've had in philosophy classes, in theology classes, in divinity schools, among a bunch of heathens, among coffee houses, I only go to Christian coffee houses when I want to get coffee. I go to secular coffee houses when I want to have a good evangelical encounter."

Where are these debates?

Around 30:00 "I came over during the Iranian crisis. Ayatollah Khomeini had taken control. The shah had of Iran had been kicked out. And Ayatollah Khomeini said this: 'We will not stop, until America is an Islamic nation.' And so in 1978, my father, my mother, my two brothers, my father's other wives, and my half-brothers and sisters came to this country."

Remember above where supposedly his mom only late in their marriage found out about the supposed "more than one woman"?  Also, while Caner does have two half-sisters, we cannot find any evidence of any half-brothers. Caner came to America in 1969, long before the Iranian crisis, and the Ayatollah was of a completely different sect of Islam (Shia), which is at odds with the Sunni sect that Caner was allegedly part of. Furthermore, Caner's half-sisters were born after his father and mother divorced.   Caner's youngest brother was born in the USA.

Caner continued: "How is that Muslims can come to this country with other wives? Well, it's called the Abraham lie. This is my sister. It explains our last names being the same. And so he would say, 'these are my sisters.' We settled in Brooklyn, NY, and moved to Columbus, OH, for the express purpose of what? My father was an architect and he built mosques. We would build mosques.  And my father in the mosque on Fridays, would climb to the top of the minaret and there at the top of the minaret - that's a long tower - he would begin, 'Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar' the call to prayer."

As mentioned above, there was and is no minaret at the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. where Caner's father went.  There is no confirming evidence that his dad built any mosques.  Likewise, there is no evidence that Caner's father was a polygamist.

At 31:30, Caner said: "We moved from Brooklyn, NY, to Toledo, OH, where we saw the big mosque there, off of I-75. We moved south to Columbus." If they lived in Brooklyn or Toledo, it could not have been long.  Emir Caner was born near Columbus.

At 32:45, Caner said: "We were devout Muslims. Now devout - that's a word that's thrown around a lot today, isn't it. Let's just say we were following the dietary restrictions, praying five times a day, we wore the hijab, my mother wore the chador, we wore the keffiyah, and I took the Koran very seriously."

Other places, we learn that Caner's mother was not a devout Muslim by the time Caner professed faith. 

Around 34:00, Caner said: "You fall down and break your leg, you say, 'inshallah,' it's how you live." 

Muslims would instead say Al-Hamdolilah or Alahu Akhbar.  Inshallah is a forward-looking statement.

Around 36:05, Caner said: "It's why there's no shortage of young men, going to be trained in a Madras, like I was - and now, young women. It is not act of devotion, it is an act of desperation.  We believe that by dying, we get hope."

It's "madrasa" not "madras" and there is no evidence we can find that Caner went to anything more than the Muslim equivalent of Sunday school.

Around 38:40, Caner said: "For three years: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior years, I said 'no.' Three years. He didn't stop. In the summer of the year between my junior and my senior year, I finally got sick of it. 'Would you quit!' 'Dude, we got a lock-in.' You all know what a lock-in is? Do you guys know what a lock in is? They are evil. A lock-in is the Protestant equivalent to Purgatory. It is time served. Because you are, 3 a.m. in the morning, wondering who did you offend to get stuck doing this. You have been covered in shaving cream by some obnoxious kid, you are filled with horribly cheap check cola, you have eaten things that don't even taste like oreos, and you're tired and you want to show a carmen video, hoping they all go to sleep! And then you find out, 'umm, Tommy's missing, and so's Sally,' 'Get the flashlights!' So you're searching through the church, lookin' in Sunday school classrooms, and you find them under a stairwell somewhere. 'What are you doing!?!' 'Uh, dude, uh, she needed somebody to pray with.' 'Yeah, well you're praying tongues. How about coming out of there if you would, please. Punk! She is not a hollah-back girl.'  

In other places, he has claimed his conversion experience was in November 1982.  In any event, the summer between junior and senior years would be 1983.

Caner continued: "I said 'no,' I said 'no,' I said 'no,' I said 'no,' a hundred times I said, 'no.' He wouldn't quit. I have no idea to this day why he made me his topic. Finally, I was going to show him. So I walked into the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, mad. Have you ever walked into church mad? A lot of people were made that day. I found out since, a lot of people come to church mad. But I was going to show him, and I came in full gear, and I came in, Koran in my hand, about as thick as a Jack Hyle study Bible, that thick, and I carried it big, and I walked to the front, and that little, store-front church loved me to the cross. Didn't make fun of me, didn't make fun of my name, didn't call me names, didn't make fun of my accent, didn't call me a towel-head or a camel-jockey and they didn't call me a sandn*gger.  The meaner I was, the nicer they were."

What accent?  Caner was raised in Ohio.

Around 42:25, Caner said: "All I'd ever heard was that Baptists were snake handlers, and I was looking around for a box. I don't like snakes, neither do camels."

What do camels have to do with it? Caner is not from the desert.

Around 42: 40, Caner said: "And the minute the service was over, Jerry Tacket took me to Clarence Miller and he - Clarence Miller was the pastor of the church - he said, 'Clarence, here he is!' like you've gotta point out the boy wearing the dress."

It seems unlikely Caner wore a dress to the church, since photos of him from that time period show him wearing normal western clothes.

Around 45:00, Caner said: "One of the number one arguments I get in debate, is when a Muslims will say, 'What does his death have to do with my blood.'"

Where are any of these debates?
  • June 4 "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 4, 2005 (link to mp3)
Around 11:20, Caner said: "I spend the vast majority of my time in our culture." 

What does that mean?

Around 30:00, Caner said: "When I was in baptist student union in college, we went to a retreat - I had only been saved about one year. And we went to a retreat, and I was excited about being discipled. I had been saved one year, I'm a minister of the gospel, I barely know the Bible, I wanna be taught, I wanna be fed. I want somebody to step on my toes."

Notice this implicit claim that he was born again his senior year of high school.

Around 43:30, Caner said: "If I'm doing a debate, and there's an audience, someone will raise a well-intentioned hand and say, 'Dr. Caner, ...'"

 Where are any of these debates?
  • June 5 A.M. "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 5, 2005 (link to mp3)
Around 21:00 "Man, I fear no man, but I feared my grandma. My mormor was 5' tall at her tallest, she shrunk the older she got. Like a jumbo shrimp - just [sound effect]. If you look at my right earlobe, it's longer than my left one - 'cause she dragged me all over creation by my ear. Never learned English. Came to America with us, never learned English. But never missed her soap opera. Always watched The Edge of Night. I guess she just make up stories with it. Man, I fear no man, but I feared my grandmother. And when my grandmother got saved, she didn't speak the language, she was a testimony to all the senior citizens, 'cause she got saved at 99 years old."

Mormor is a Swedish term for grandmother.  That's appropriate, because this grandmother was Swedish.  Isn't it interesting how Caner suggests that his grandmother spoke another language, rather than English, but he never mentions here that the language was Swedish?

Around 23:25 "I lost my father at my salvation, because I was disowned. That wasn't hard. In my country, you are killed for becoming a Christian. So I had no family."

In what country? Turkey didn't have sharia law, nor did Sweden, and obviously neither does the USA.  He had his mother and grandmother even after he lost his father, as far as we can tell.

Around 24:15 "One tiny little church that doesn't even exist any more, I stand here because they invested in me."

The Stelzer Road Baptist church evidently does still exist.

Around 30:00 "I was a faithful and devout Muslim my entire life, into my teenage years."

You have to chuckle about the "my entire life," coupled with "into my teenage years."  And we certainly can question how devout he was, although it is difficult to definitively prove.

Around 30:10 "We watched in our madras, our training center, we watched Christian television to critique it."

As noted above, it's "madrasa" not "madras."  Granted that Christian TV is pretty bad, but surely he would not get the impression that "you hated me" from that TV.  One really doubts, however, that Caner was in a "training center" that encouraged watching Christian TV.

Around 30:35 "It took three years for me to enter the church. A year later both my brothers got saved after I was saved. Took them four. My mother didn't get saved until 1991, it took her nine. My grandmother didn't get saved until 1995, it took her 13 years. I have half-brothers and half-sisters in Chicago, in New York, and in Turkey, who live here, who are still lost as geese. Still in the slavery of Islam. But I will not give up. How dare I give up! My father died in '99.  His wives are still alive. How dare I give up! My half-sisters are still alive. How dare I give up! My half-brothers, my uncles, my aunts, How dare I give up! He didn't give up on me. He didn't stop. God didn't stop hunting me down."

Here he says "three years," which suggests his senior year of high school.  Also, as mentioned above, we don't have any evidence of these alleged half-brothers.  Likewise, while Caner's mother and Caner's step-mom may both be alive, Caner's comment seems to refer back to his father's alleged polygamy.
  • June 5 P.M. "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 5, 2005 (link to mp3)
Around 2:05: "I am presently finishing a commentary.  It is 2.3 million words, it's about that thick, it is a commentary on every verse of the Koran from a Christian perspective. It's the first time it's ever been tried. They went after Salman Rushdie when he did one verse in Surah 58 of the Koran. I'm doing all of them."  

We have yet to see Caner produce this alleged commentary.

Around 6:25: "I want to speak to you as somebody who did not pick up a Bible until he was 18 years old."

Interesting how he's supposedly critiquing Christian TV in a madrasa, but yet he never picked up a Bible.  Likewise, "18" seems an unlikely number.  Caner graduated from high school in 1984 and was born in November of 1966.  Thus, Caner would have been already graduated from high school before he turned 18.
Around 10:25: "In the last semester, UCLA, Otterbein, University of South Florida, Mingut(?) College, Winthrop University, one more, Mitney(?) State, I walk into those schools and - I want to set the stage for you, pretend with me if you would, please, that we are not a church, but we are in some sort of a hallway, an auditorium, as you enter in, if it is a debate, you are searched. Behind the scenes, I sit in a room with the imam, who is the pastor of the mosque, or a Hindi priest, or a Buddhist priest or monk, or maybe even a mulima, a Muslim scholar, or an atheist. We sit in the back and we discuss the protocols and rules of this debate. They go as follows: both of us go by making a 10 minute introduction explaining our position. We then answer and rebut the other person's statement and launch into a defense of our position that is allowed to last up to 35 minutes. A final ten minute rebuttal is offered by either one of us, and then the fun starts. We open the floor to questions."

When has Caner ever done this kind of formal debate? Notice that Caner cannot claim that he just means some kind of informal dialog or a chat in a taxicab.  He's referring to a structured debate with timed speeches.

 Around 12:00: "It's often hostile, it's certainly tense, there's often catcalls, they try to shout you down, they have rushed the platform on me.  I have had to have, you know, men line up at the front. Sometimes they scream, sometimes they threaten, sometimes they're just mad, they don't know why they're yelling."

When did any of these things happen?  Where is any record of them?

Around 22:30: "I had to speak, I started crying. There's my boy - my boy - my little half-breed. What?! I speak Turkish to him, Jill speaks redneck to him, we teach each other."

It is hard to believe Caner knows any appreciable amount of Turkish.

Around 49:00, Caner said, "After 12 years of doing these debates, seeing no results, none, I had my first. A Hindu boy, a sophomore in college, waited for afterwards and said, 'I want Jesus as my only God.'"

Which debate was this?  And since when has Caner been debating for twelve years?  Caner was speaking in 2005, so that would be since 1993 or so.

Around 49:15, Caner said, "I will never be the guy who has those great testimonies ..."

 Sadly, Caner had a very dramatic testimony that included a lot of information that doesn't check out.
  • "Men's Steak Fry" by Ergun Caner September 3, 2005 (link to mp3
Around 7:05: "My father-in-law is from Possum Kill, NC"

As mentioned above, there does not appear to be any such place.

Around 8:10: "I was raised a Sunni Muslim until I was almost in college."

If the November 1982 date is correct for Emir's conversion, and if Ergun was converted the previous year (as in their book), then Caner still had several years of high school to go before college.

Around 9:40: "It just isn't part of my culture. I lived in Istanbul - it's a city."  (Explaining why fishing is not his thing.)

As far as we can tell, Caner never lived for any significant amount of time in Istanbul.

Around 29:25: "And where Hussein was killed in Iraq, Muslims who are Shia will make this pilgrimage and you will see us, cutting ourselves with machetes. Cutting on this flesh. And they say [gibberish] umm - Turkish - [more gibberish] the - the - what is the word I'm looking for - blood guilt - we should have defended you - By our blood, we should have defended you."

Caner wasn't a Shia, so the "we" doesn't seem very appropriate.  And the gibberish does not sound to me like the Turkish words for "blood guilt."

Around 32:25, Caner said: "I lived my entire life assuming that I was going to die for Allah, that my blood would buy my pardon, that my blood would deal with my guilt."

There is nothing we have found to confirm that Caner had an expectations of dying as a martyr.  Also, notice the "entire life" language.
  • "21 Similarities between Islam and Mormonism" by Ergun Caner September 5, 2005 (link to mp3
Around 13:50, Caner said: "You've heard me say, I said it the first time I ever came here, and now it's 60 debates, I just had two more debates, and in sixty-some-odd debates, I've never met one Muslim, not one who has ever said, not one, who has ever said that the Allah of Koran - the ninety-nine names of terror and glory - that the Allah of the Koran is the same god as Jehovah God of the Bible. Not one!"

Where is the evidence of these debates?

Around 14:35, Caner said: "Sometimes I'll get a Muslim who has bought into the American culture a little bit, and they say, 'When you speak of Allah, you're speaking of God, and when you're speaking of God, you're speaking of the God.'"

 The Koran itself makes the claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.  The particular one is the one that is most relevant to the field of apologetics with Muslims.  You would think that Caner would have run into it if he had actually debated many Muslims, or if he knew the Koran from being "devout", and especially if he wrote a 2.3 million word commentary on it:

 Surah 29:46 And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Around 14:35, Caner said: "We fall down, we say, inshallah, God willed it." (just after comparing Kismet to Caner's concept of hyper-Calvinism) As mentioned above, Muslims would instead say Al-Hamdolilah or perhaps Alahu Akhbar.  Inshallah is a forward-looking statement.

Around 24:30, Caner said: "August the 21st, I was in San Diego, David Jeremiah's church - at Shadow Mountain, and at Shadow Mountain, one of my best friends, Charles Billing has become their worship guy. Charles for some reason was being stupid, he announced on television, 'Former Muslim coming.' Well if a former Muslim's coming, present Muslims are going to show up too, to yell at me! And so they showed up, and what did I hear? [some kind of hissing sound] Why? Because I met something I had never in my life ever met - ever. It's only been two weeks, I met something I had never met - gay Muslims. I met gay Muslims. And see I offended both of them, because I make fun of both, you know, in my normal speeches. And, uh, I got mocked by gay Muslims. And there is nothing like hearing Arabic with a lisp. I've never in my life dealt with this type of thing."

I could find some evidence that Caner has been a speaker at the Shadow Mountain church, but I couldn't find any recording of this particular speech.  The speeches from the 2009 conference (including Caner's speech, but not just his) are linked on the church's website, but seem to be missing.  That's too bad, as it would have been interesting to see what he said there.  If anyone has either of those recordings, please let me know. I'm not sure how Caner would know the difference between Arabic pronunciations, given that he doesn't speak the language.

Around 26:45, Caner said: "If you speak Swedish, and you read a Swedish Bible, it's not called Genesis or Exodus, it's called Första Moseboken, Andra Moseboken, Tredja Moseboken, because it's the first book of Moses, the second book of Moses, and like that ..."

This does seem to check out.  That's probably because the foreign language spoken in Caner's household was the Swedish of his grandmother, who evidently never learned English.  It's remarkable that he leaves out this reference to his own heritage, though less remarkable given how poorly it fits in with the persona he had crafted in the other remarks we've seen here.

Around 27:15, Caner said: "One of our celebrations, one of our Eids, that's what the word for celebration E-I-D, you spell it in English, is the celebration, the commemoration of a story you and I know. Abraham goes to the top of Mount Moriah. At the top of Mount Moriah, he's going to sacrifice his son. He plunges the knife down and at the last minute, according to the Koran, Allah spares the life of Abraham's son, Ishmael. Y'all know the story from Genesis 22, doncha? It was Isaac! 2200 years after Moses wrote it down, and 2700 years after it actually happened, Mohammed flipped the script."

As we've discussed elsewhere, the Koran doesn't specify Ishmael, and Mohammed himself does not appear to have specified Ishmael - or at least the Hadith is inconsistent with respect to whether he said Ishmael or Isaac.

Around 28:30, Caner said: "That's why the dome of the rock stands on top of the rock! When I take tours - I'm leading a tour to Israel in March, of students, March 12th-20, I'm taking like 300 students to Israel. And I can't take all of them at once, but I take them. And if you've ever gone down, it's a stairwell down to the rock, where there's two Muslims sitting - both are ulimas, scholars - and it's the rock quote-un-quote supposedly where the sacrifice took place. I tell them before we go in, we're going into the mosque, you have to take your shoes off - you have to take your shoes off whenever you walk into an Islamic mosque. And when you take your shoes off, we're going to go downstairs, I am going to tell the story in Arabic, just to make them mad. You crackers won't understand a word I'm saying, but I'm telling the story.  And I will say here is where Abraham sacrificed Isaac, and they lose their mind."

It's hard to see how this could possibly be true, since Caner is not fluent in Arabic.  Also, the plural of alim is ulima - not "ulimas."

Around 37:15, Caner said: "He [a Muslim] comes, he says, 'I want to speak - he's lying - I want equal time,' you say, 'Man, I would love to let you,' 'this Sunday,' I will let you do it the Sunday after I get to preach in the mosque.' You can't.  Not every one of y'all, can speak in a mosque. Because if you stand on the stone, we don't have pulpits, we have the stone, if you stand on the stone and share the testimony of Christ, you have defiled the stone, they have to tear it all down, because you are an unbeliever.  They cannot do wudu on the stone, they can't clean the stone, they have to tear down the mosque."

There is a pulpit-like structure in mosques, called the minbar.  If Caner's dad was really an architect of mosques, one would expect Caner would know this.  Caner may never have spoken in a mosque, but other Christians have.  In fact, my friend Dr. White has debated in mosques, even in the same room where the minbar is located (though not from the minbar).

 Around 39:30, Caner said: "In Islam, Surah 61 of the Koran says, when Jesus said I must go so that a comforter, the word for comforter is messenger, and messenger is Mehmet in Turkish, Mohammed in Arabic."

Caner seems to be conflating several things.  The Koran claims that Jesus promised to send an apostle or messenger.  Moreover, the Koran claims that Mohamed is the messenger.  However, the typical Islamic argument is that John 14 and 15 have the term "comforter" as a textual transmission error.  According to some Muslims, the original word should be "exalted one," which is the meaning of the name "Mohammed." 

Surah 61:6 says: And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs they said "This is evident sorcery!" (previously discussed similar issue here)

  • "Mighty Men of Valor" by Ergun Caner September 5, 2005 (link to mp3)

Around 0:25, Caner said, "Being the dean of a seminary is more of a distraction to me - I love doing debates - I love being in the midst of the world, and I have told the men before, that if you ever hear that I leave Liberty Seminary, it's not going to be because I'm going to another seminary, I would love, eventually, to end up some day in a secular university. Surround me at a state school and let me be the only Christian on one floor. Surround me with leftists, and liberals, and lesbians, and I'm happy, because I feel like that's where we are the most effective."

We know he didn't end up at a state school, but rather at more Christian colleges.  Furthermore, despite his professed love of debates, we don't actually see the evidence of him debating, except - apparently - for one engagement with rational response squad.

Around 1:15, Caner said: "The one we are working on right now is going to take us years to finish. We are completing the commentary on every verse of the Koran from a Christian perspective. Every single verse of the Koran that a Christian could read, if somebody cites it to them, and so that they may understand it and know how to refute it."

Over eight years later (i.e. in 2014), this commentary has yet to surface.

Around 1:55, Caner said: "This sermon came out of a debate point. Now, when I debate, I do not allow Christians to ask me questions. When we debate, its on state campuses, community colleges, I only allow non-Christians - cynics, skeptics, etc. - to ask me questions, because I like the engagement there - that they know I have nothing to fear, and we have no set up. And during a most recent debate, in May of this year, I heard an argument, by a Muslim, that caught me off guard, and I have to be very honest, he was correct. We were discussing American culture, and I had said that as a husband and as a father here in America I think that Christianity is the only hope that we have for American survival.  And I had just thrown in the husband and the father parenthetically - everywhere I go I speak about my family, my wife of 11 years, our two children Braxton who is 6 and Drake who is now 9 months. But he caught on to the parenthetical phrase and he said, and I quote, 'If you Christians believed that Jesus is the only hope, why is it that in your churches you cannot even get your men to come.' I had no response. I asked him if he had statistics to back that up. And so, he emailed them to me."

It would be great if we could locate this supposed debate.

Around 12:45, Caner said: "I knew how to be a Christian, because I'd been a Christian then for 12 years." (referring to when he got married at age 30, implying he became a Christian at age 18)

Caner's own claims about when he got saved are quite a mess.

Around 25:45, Caner said: "In my culture, in Turkey, in Istanbul, a woman's husband - his love for her, is measured by her shoes. What I mean is, if a woman is wearing rubber-soled shoes, she works in the fields; if she wears full shoes, she works in walking much, if she wears heels, however, it means that her husband makes enough money that he can afford to work alone - and she doesn't have to work - she wears these high heels - the higher the heel, the richer the husband. We had been married about a month, I talk half my paycheck and went and bought her six inch stiletto heels.  I put them in a box, I bring them to her. I let her open it. I said, 'Baby, this is for you.' 'What? I couldn't wear these!' I said, 'I want you to wear them.' 'What you want me to dress like a hooker?' 'No, no, no, I give these to you because I want to show you that I want to care for you.' 'You better give me this to make you wear them!' Now the culture wears toe rings. Do you know that in my culture we wear toe rings to show that we're single. A woman wears a toe ring because it's the only thing that you can see. She is covered. And so when Jill started wearing a toe ring, I said, 'Baby, you advertising - what's the deal here?' I didn't understand."

Clearly Caner's stories get a laugh, but Caner was raised in Ohio.  His Turkish family would not have been dressed in such extreme amounts of covering as to have only their toes visible.  And, of course, Caner went to public high school, and so on.  Is any of this true?

Around 34:50, Caner said: "It was hard because I had been raised, my father referring to his wives as 'woman.'"

Notice the implication that his father was a polygamist.  Yet, as far as we can tell, Caner's father had only one wife at a time.

-TurretinFan

Monday, February 17, 2014

Tom McCall - Conversation with Dr. Ergun Caner

This conversation, between Tom McCall and Ergun Caner, was recently posted to Youtube, but appears to be from several years ago, while Ergun Caner was with Liberty Theological Seminar (not sure how many years ago, exactly) (link to video).  It has some of the usual claims, and some interesting situations.

Around 45 seconds in, the host says that he believes Caner was originally from Turkey. Caner responds: "Well, I am Turkish, 100% Turkish, and came to America as an immigrant, and as the son of a muezzin.  My father was a leader in the mosque and we built mosques - this was part of our background.  And so, because of this, we came here to work on the mosques."

Caner was a toddler when he came and we have found no evidence to corroborate this claim that his father built any mosques.  Possibly, Caner's father helped remodel the building that served as the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. in Columbus, Ohio.  As for being a "muezzin," we again have nothing to substantiate this claim.

Also, Caner now admits that his mother was Swedish.  Even if his mother were Turkish but merely a Swedish citizen, or something like that, it still pops out that Caner does not correct McCall's wrong impression that Caner is from Turkey, but instead provides information that will lead McCall to continue to think what he thought.

Around 1:30, the host asks what the reaction of Caner's family was to his conversion.  Caner responds: "Well, I was saved on a Thursday night.  And so, the next night I went back to the mosque, masjid is on - you know - jumiyat is on Friday prayer, and told them that I was a believer in Jesus.  That was not well received.  But I was disowned by my father, and disowned by my family. Did not see my father until 1999, till right before he died.  But my church was my new family."

Apparently, Caner was disowned by his non-custodial father.  However, Caner was not - as far as we can tell - disowned by his hippy-universalist mother nor by his Swedish Lutheran (background, at least) grandmother, who raised him.

Around 5:30, Caner states: "I get to Genesis, and Abraham, in Genesis 22, sacrifices his son, Isaac.  This is exactly opposite - the polar opposite - of what the Quran teaches, that Abraham sacrifices Ishmael."  The host mentions how he first heard that this was the Muslim view. Caner then responds, "And the Quran is explicit in this, and Mohammed's teachings in the Hadith are explicit in this. And then, I find out, 2200 years after Moses wrote it, and add 500 years to that, 2700 years after it actually happened, Mohammed changed the story."

As I previously wrote:
This is actually a widespread modern Islamic view, namely that Abraham nearly sacrificed Ishmael, not Isaac. Sam Shamoun points out, however, that the early Islamic literature actually supports the fact that it was Isaac. The idea that nearly sacrificed son was Ishmael is apparently a later Islamic development (see Sam's excellent discussion here). So, it's probably not accurate to say that Mohammed changed the story, but rather that his followers did.
In short, it's not explicit in the Quran, and it's not even clear from the Hadith.

Around 8:15, Caner states: "Those with lies can only threaten, because the truth is its greatest danger.  ... Those that don't have the truth, the only thing they have left are lies and threats and screaming."

This cliche seems oddly appropriate in these times where Caner has threatened action against those who are presenting the truth.

Around 8:30, Caner states: "Most of my life I spend with people yelling at me in debates and such, but that's ok, you know."

Where are any of these debates?  We cannot find any evidence of these happening.

The host then asks Caner about the fact that Caner had indicated that he likes to debate and spends a good deal of time debating on college campuses and elsewhere.  Caner replied, "I go into debates - open debates - which means pro bono, nobody makes any money. We don't want any Christian sponsorship for them. I debate anyone who comes: Buddhist, Bahai, Zoroastrian, Sunni, Shia, Suffi, Nation of Islam, I debate anyone."

Again, we cannot find any evidence of these debates actually happening.

The host then asks Caner who invites him to these debates. Caner replied, "Sometimes it's college ministries and churches. But I tell them, you know, if you're going to set this up, this needs to be with the approval of the school and it must be an open forum - anybody can speak. And my only rule is that no Christian can ask me a question. Only the unbelievers can ask me questions, because I think if I'm going to spend my life planting seeds, I'm not going to plant a seed in a Christian, he's already saved. And the Muslim will suspect it, or the Buddhist, he will suspect the question. I let them ask whatever question they think. They spend their lives thinking they are going to stump us, you know, and so throw your best shot."

Yet again, we cannot find evidence of any of these debates actually occurring.

The host then asks what happens at the debates.  Around 9:50, Caner replied: "Well, sometimes it becomes the gospel according to Jerry Springer. Sometimes it becomes yelling and cussing and etc. But not on my end. You know, we have to be bold but not brash. The difference is bold, you attack the lie, but if you're brash, you attack the person."

We definitely have noticed the tendency of Caner and company to attack the people who point out Caner's untrue statements.  Regarding Jerry Springer, recall this previous post (link).

Around 12:45, Caner says: "I love my job at Liberty, but if I was ever to leave Liberty University, it would be to teach at a secular school.  You know, put me on a floor where I'm surrounded by lesbians, and liberals, and idiots, and potheads, because where else is Christianity going to be effective? We have never been called, God never called us to apathy, he never called us to sedation.  He called us to engagement. And it's not jihad, like I lived, it's an engagement of converting the enemy, loving the enemy, who is not really the enemy, but is someone for whom Christ died."

Now, since Caner has left Liberty, he's served - as far as we can tell - only at Christian colleges.  Of course, he could not predict the future, so we can't totally hold this against him. Still, one wonders what efforts Caner has made to try to teach at a secular school, if any.

Also, note Caner's claim to have lived "jihad." Of course, that claim could presumably be justified by treating jihad as an internal struggle, but Caner has elsewhere objected to using the term jihad that way.

Around 17:10, Caner says, "The Josh McDowell of the Islamic world, Shabir Ally, is famous for asking the question in debate, he always says, 'Well, what does his death have to do with me?' You have to find a way to explain the atonement to a Muslim."

If only Caner had stuck with this version of the story rather than inserting himself into the story in other versions of this story!  Still, one wonders if Shabir Ally ever even said this in any of his debates.  I have listened to some of Shabir's debates and I don't recall hearing this line.

-TurretinFan

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Back to Blogger Comments ...

Unfortunately, the use of more elaborate commenting schemes was slowing down the blog.  So, we're back to Blogger comments for now.  Unfortunately, that means many pearls of wisdom posted on the blog are not fully lost, but also may not be visible to the public.  If some one of your comments is gone and you want to repost it, please feel free.

Monday, February 10, 2014

On the 24 Hour Days "Argument" in Genesis

Arguing 24 hour days in Genesis is hardly necessary - the text doesn't just say day - it specifies the kind of day - the kind with evening and morning. It's not so much a question of arguing as just basic reading comprehension.

I posted the above on Facebook recently, and got some objections.  I've posted the objections with my responses.  I've tried to use some color coding to help highlight what words came from the objectors, although I've taken a little bit of liberty in terms of simplify, rewording, or omitting portions of the objections. I have not named the objectors, but would be happy to do so, if either of them wants to be named.

An objector might respond that the text specifies the pattern of the day but uses the evening and morning pattern, not the hour by hour pattern.

The value of this objection is low.  If the objector's point is that a day could have been 25 hours or 23.5 hours - and didn't have to be precisely 24 hours - fine.  But if the point is that "day" could have meant a billion years - that's an entirely different thing.  Such a meaning for "day" is totally unreasonable.

The objector may respond that the argument is overstated in the sense that there is no way one can prove the 24hr day theory from the text.

Nevertheless, the text says day.  Moreover, the text specifies the morning/evening kind of day.  That kind of day is approximately 24 hours long.  It's hard to see what could possibly be missing in that proof.

The objector may respond "That kind of day is approximately 24 hours long" is a scientific assumption you are reading back into the text. It assumes that the days as we observe today are exactly the same as the days of Genesis.

But no, it is not a "scientific" assumption.  Instead, it is the plain meaning of "evening/morning" to the Israelites to whom God through Moses wrote the text. In other words, the only way to try to poke a hole in the argument is to throw out grammatical/historical hermeneutics.

Another objector might respond that the method I just mentioned is exactly what I am suggesting we do with our current Scientific understandings.

Instead, I am just suggesting that the assumption of indefinite uniformity in the past is unjustified.

In response to "No, it's not a "scientific" assumption - it's the plain meaning of "evening/morning"" the first objector may respond that this is exactly the same prima facie proofing dispensationalists use for their eschatological theories. No one reads scripture in the sense of a strict grammarian, there are more factors that are involved in reading the text.

First, the only reason for not reading it according to the plain meaning is a desire to harmonize it with some ideas the objector got outside the text.  Furthermore, there is no need to falsely associate my objector's view with someone else to point out that error.

Now, regarding dispensationalists and some of their interpretations - typically those errors the objector is pointing out arise in the context of trying interpret prophecy: statements about future events. That's a different genre from history. IF(!) dispesnationalists apply the same kind of interpretation to prophetic passages as to historical passages, it is no surprise that they have errors.

The objector may respond that he is just pointing out the methodological approaches to reading scripture. Appeals to a "plain sense" reading are similar to the arguments heard from dispensationalists. It doesn't mean the argument is invalid, it just means that particular methodology needs to be avoided.

Of course, the fact that people who come to wrong conclusions (let's just assume they do, to avoid turning this into an eschatology discussion) sometimes use a specific form of argument does not make that argument wrong or suggest that the form of argument should be avoided.

Still, the objector may ask about "The plain sense of x": What do you mean "plain sense"?

What I mean is not some secret meaning, like in a parable or prophecy; nor some specialized technical meaning, like in some detailed discussions of theology or other technical writing.  It's the ordinary meaning people normally associate with the word.

So, for example, when God says he made Eve from Adam's rib, rib means one of those bones around Adam's lungs: it is not a code word for something else. On the other hand, when God speaks of the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," that's a prophetic reference to Jesus. Different genres, different ways of looking at words.

The objector may then ask: would you argue that because Genesis 1-3 is describing events that are historical, that there are no other literary elements at work? The text is giving us a history, but it isn't doing just that, nor is it doing it strictly chronological (more emphasis on the word strictly). It is providing us a theological understanding of the beginning of the universe, the world, and mankind.

You can have multiple literary elements at work in a single writing. For example, the gospels and Acts are historical accounts, but they are also providing a theological understanding of redemption, of Christology, and so on. We don't hold the third day resurrection as being somehow doubtful, just because there are other purposes to the gospels than just to provide history. So, we also shouldn't hold the sixth day Creation of man to be doubtful just because the purpose of Genesis is not just to provide history.

Now, if your point is that Genesis 1-3 is not "strictly" chronological, because after Genesis 1 describes the 6th day closing, Genesis 2 then provides more detail about the 6th day, ok. Likewise, if you are pointing out that God says first that "in the beginning" God created the heavens and the earth, before then explaining the day-by-day events of that, ok. In both cases, that's a departure from strict chronology. But Genesis 1 does present a sequence of events that are described as occurring chronologically, with explicit relative and absolute chronological references.

And recall that while much of the Pentateuch was Moses writing under inspiration, there is a section where God himself wrote the text, in his own hand, in stone. There he wrote: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is ... ."

The objector may respond that Ken Ham demonstrates that YECers rely on scientific models, so it's a bit odd to attribute that conclusion to OEC speculation.

They rely on scientific models in different ways, as Ken Ham also explained during the debate. For example, scientific models are sometimes offered to hypothesize how people lived such enormous lengths of time before the flood, or how the animals dispersed to places like Antarctica, South America, and Australia.

The objector may respond that it's quite a stretch to absolve Ham from placing how he reads on his scientific understandings, it would be a double standard. It all comes down to "Well since I agree with YEC, then Ham gets off the hook".

Maybe the objector thinks it is a stretch because he has overlooked that Ham's starting point is the text of Scripture, whereas for others the starting point is backwards extrapolation with a variety of assumptions, especially the assumption of indefinite uniformity.

The objector may respond that Ham asserts that his starting point is the text of scripture, but that's a verbal fiat. It doesn't carry over into all of his argumentation consistently.

He does, in fact, start with the text of Scripture. Now, if you are saying that at some points in his arguments he loses track of that starting point - ok - but that doesn't change his starting point, it just leaves room for improvement in his argument.

- TurretinFan

Thursday, February 06, 2014

High Priest Argument for Definite Atonement aka Particular Redemption aka Limited Atonement

Sometimes it is hard to explain to people why the sacrificial nature of Christ's death is relevant to the question of the scope of the atonement: i.e. whether the atonement was made for all, hypothetically all, or particularly the elect.  One way to explain this is by reference to the fact that Christ is not just the lamb of God, whose death takes away the sins of the world, but that Christ is also the High Priest who makes the offering.  The following provides an easy explanation of this argument, so that you can present it to your friends, without requiring them to know everything about the Old Testament sacrificial system.

At the heart of it, the offering of a lamb as a burnt offering involved killing the lamb and roasting it in fire.  That's quite similar, as hopefully you've noticed, to the core of having lamb for dinner.  What then differentiates lamb chops from a sacrifice?

It's not the fact that the lamb can still be eaten in the dinner context.  Yes, there were "whole burnt offerings" where the entire animal was fully consumed by the fire, but the more typical context of animal sacrifices involved the cooked animal being eaten - partly by the priest and partly by the person offering the sacrifice. That's why the apostles taught gentile Christians, you may recall, to buy their meat without asking whether it was a sacrifice to one of the gods.  So, it is not the degree of cooking that distinguishes the sacrifice from the dinner.

Instead, what distinguishes the two is the ritual, especially the prayer.  The prayer asks God to accept the animal as a sacrifice and consequently to accept the person for whom the sacrifice is offered.

Furthermore, sacrifice could be made for one person or a group of people.  For example, when sacrifices were made on behalf of Israel as a nation, sometimes lots of animals were killed, but there was not a one-to-one relationship between the animals and the people of Israel.  Likewise, in some cases a sacrifice might involve more than one animal, but only one person.  How could these situations be distinguished?

Again, the answer lies in the ritual - particularly in the prayer.  The prayer is what distinguishes a sacrifice from one person from a sacrifice for a family, tribe, or nation.

Now, apply that principle to Christ's death.  For whom does Christ pray? Does Christ pray for all mankind indiscriminately? Or does Christ pray for all the believers - all the elect?  Does Christ specifically pray for those given to him by the Father?

In theological terms, this is the "impetration" aspect of the atonement - for whom does Jesus ask the Father for forgiveness of sins and eternal life? Without any request, the sacrifice is just a tasty meal.  With the request, the sacrifice is made for the people identified in the request.

Now, someone might try to claim that Jesus asks for life for everyone, but the Father turns Jesus down except in the case of those who make the difference and autonomously cooperate in some way.  Such an idea, though, lacks any Scriptural testimony and drives a wedge between the Father and the Son, which contradicts the idea that "I and my Father are one."

Indeed, the Scriptures do not describe that Jesus prays for each and every individual, that the Father would accept His sacrifice on their behalf.  For example, Jesus says: "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. ... For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." (John 17:1, 2, and 8-10)

-TurretinFan


Saturday, February 01, 2014

Bryan Cross versus the Evidence

Bryan Cross writes: "All the historical evidence Lampe cites in his book, even when taken together in aggregate, is fully compatible with there being a monarchical bishop in Rome. Twelve times zero is still zero; it isn’t greater than one times zero." (source) This response appears to combine sophistry and ignorance in a particularly insidious way.

In what way is the Evidence "Fully Compatible" with a Roman Monarchical Episcopate?
By "fully compatible" Bryan simply means that there is some possible way to view the evidence as fitting in with his hypothesis of a monarchical bishop in Rome. So, for example, when confronted with the Eusebius says he created a succession list when he came to Rome, Bryan speculates that Eusebius may have used a pre-existing list to make his own list.

Similarly, regarding the evidence of the role of presbyters in particular ancient Roman controversies, without reference to any monarchical bishop, Bryan argues: "This is an argument from silence, which is a fallacy when there is no objective standard by which to know the likelihood of non-silence given the truth of the hypothesis [e.g. that there was a monarchical bishop]." (bracketed material is Bryan's.)

In short, even if every historical account of first and early second century Rome is silent regarding any monarchical bishop there, and even if some of those accounts actually do make reference to an authority structure of presbyters/elders, Bryan is going to call this "fully compatible."

Why is Bryan's "Fully Compatible" Claim Absurd?
Put this in perspective: suppose my hypothesis is that Abraham Lincoln's identical twin brother delivered the Gettysburg Address. The fact there is no contemporary account of Lincoln having an identical twin brother is "fully compatible" with my hypothesis in exactly the same way that the absence of contemporary historical evidence of a monarchical bishop in Rome is "fully compatible" with such a bishop actually existing. In other words, the "fully compatible" bar as used by Bryan is such a low bar it permits all kinds of absurd hypotheses.

So, it is sophistical for Bryan to respond that the evidence is "fully compatible" (in such a sense) with his hypothesis.  Such a response suggests that the historical evidence is not problematic with respect to his hypothesis, when - in fact - it is devastating to his hypothesis.

What about the Twelve-Times-Zero Argument?
This argument seems to stem from Bryan's ignorance. When it comes to the question of whether the hypothesis of a monarchical bishop is true, the amount of inconsistent evidence matters. So, for example, if we had no contemporaneous accounts of Rome, the silence of such accounts on any particular issue would be of very little significance. It might be surprising that such information would be lost (had it existed), but that would be the extent of the problem.

On the other hand, when there is a positive account of Rome and it omits any mention of the supposed monarchical bishop of Rome, this is more problematic for the monarchical bishop in Rome hypothesis. When there are two or more such accounts and they all fail to mention this alleged bishop, the problem is increasingly worse. Obviously, if we had 10,000 such accounts and none mentioned the alleged bishop, well - that would be that much stronger.

The reason, of course, is that such "silence" is not a zero.

Furthermore, not all of the evidence is silence. For example, some of the evidence is evidence of the life of the church in Rome at the time. Rome was an enormous city by ancient standards. Furthermore, Rome was a city with a lot of immigrants. There is evidence that the Christians in Rome did not all meet together for worship, but instead that they met in different groups, in house churches. For example, Paul writes:
Romans 16:3-5
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

and then again:

Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.

and again:

Romans 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

(and, of course, Paul does not mention in his salutations any of the men set forth as purportedly the early monarchical bishops, but that brings us back to this silence that Bryan is trying hard to suppress)
Similarly, there is evidence that there was an absence of a central structure to the Roman church. Thus, for example, Onesiphorus could not easily locate Paul when he came to Rome:
2 Timothy 1:16-17
The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
In short there is evidence that the Christian groups were scattered around the city in various groups. It would have been administratively challenging for a single monarchical bishop to govern such scattered house churches. So, the very historical situation of the churches in Rome weighs against having such a mode of government in Rome.

Indeed, this evidence suggests that at least initially there probably was not a central authority of any kind in Rome - not just that there was no monarchical bishop, but that there was not necessarily even any well-established presbytery.  Rather individual churches were governed by presbyter/elders, as the apostles taught churches should be governed.

This kind of evidence is not a "Zero." On the contrary, it paints a picture of Rome in which Bryan's hypothesis becomes increasingly implausible and unfeasible.  In fact, there wasn't a single monarchical bishop of Rome in the first century or early second century.  Eventually there was such a bishop, but such a development required things like organization of the Roman churches.

Is Bryan Really Looking at the Evidence like an Historian?
No.  For a historian, the aggregation of historical evidence is used to paint a picture of what existed at the time.  Silence is important to historians.  Moreover, historians are also interested in historical context that lends credibility (or contrariwise) to historical claims.

The problem for Bryan is that Rome's historical claims are not historically credible.  On the contrary, history contradicts Rome's historical claims.  Not only was there no papacy from the beginning - there was not even a monarchical bishop of Rome from the beginning.

Keep in mind, historians are not infallible.  The only infallible writings we have are Scripture -- and Scripture is an even worse enemy of the papacy than history is.

-TurretinFan

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Restore Balance in the Two Kingdoms

This is the kind of comment that leads people to call an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms, "radical two kingdoms":
Indeed, in general terms, it seems from the New Testament that the less we have to do with the magistrate, the better it will be for us.
(source R. Scott Clark)

That's the same R. Scott Clark who was recently stumping for civil magistrate on his blog as discussed at this link.

Clark further states:
Nevertheless, when it comes to the visible, institutional church, the Scriptures enjoin on us an attitude of submission and a desire to protect those who look after the welfare of our souls that it does not require of us regarding the civil magistrate, who looks after our outward, common, shared life. The magistrate, in his office, is not enjoined to pray for us.
I respond:
a) The duty of submission is a mutual duty of the brethren, not a one-way duty toward elders.
Peter, in his first catholic epistle, says:
1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Likewise, Paul teaches us:
Ephesians 5:21
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

b) We are explicitly told to submit ourselves unto those who have worldly authority:
That same Peter in the same book we mentioned above - earlier in the book - says:
1 Peter 2:13-14
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
Likewise, still earlier:
1 Peter 2:17
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
Similarly:
Colossians 3:22-24
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
Indeed, these commands are quite closely paired with obedience to the Lord.

c) Clark seems to have in mind the following passage from Hebrews:
Hebrews 13:17-18
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.
But this resembles Paul's exhortation regarding kings:
1 Timothy 2:1-4
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Incidentally, the structure of Hebrews 13 is quite beautiful - it includes "Remember them which have the rule over you ... Obey them that have the rule over you ... Salute all them that have the rule over you ...."

d) Furthermore, while there may not be an explicit command for kings to pray for those entrusted to them, that surely is a logical inference to be drawn from the duties of superiors to inferiors.

e) Moreover, the Scriptures do explicitly norm kings and those in authority:
Psalm 2:10-12
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

f) Certainly, we should not fall into the opposite extreme from Clark, of some kind of democratic congregationalism and denial that those who have rule over us in the church do not have any rule over us in the church. I hope no one will take my criticism of one imbalance to suggest the opposite imbalance.

g) Rather, neither magistrates nor elders of the church are priests whose job it is to stand between us and God. While those who rule over us bring the Word of God to us and set a good example for us (Hebrews 13:7) the great Shepherd of the sheep is Christ (Hebrews 13:20). Christ is Lord over all - both Lord of the Sword and the Gospel. The cattle on a thousand hills are his.

- TurretinFan

The "We Dressed Differently" Claim

Dr. Ergun Caner has sometimes claimed that he "dressed differently" than typical Americans back when, as a young boy, he was allegedly a devout Muslim. One reason to question this claim is the photo of his father in front of the Islamic Center that he supposedly "built."

Someone dressed as an imam is near the center of the picture, and Caner's father is allegedly to his right (our left). But wait, if the Caners dressed differently than typical Americans, wouldn't that appear in photos like this one? I mean - the one surely safe place to wear Islamic garb would surely be right in front of a posted Islamic Center, wouldn't it? Yet even for this picture, Caner's father is wearing typical Western clothes.

Also, notice that except for the imam, all the men are in Western clothes. In other words, Caner's father looks like the rule, not the exception, for the Muslims of this particular Islamic Center.

Recall that Norm Geisler tried to defend Caner this way (link to source):
5. Caner claims to have worn a Muslim "keffiyeh"(head covering) before his conversion to Christianity, yet photos show him with his head uncovered. This reveals that he was not a devout Muslim and that he intended to deceive when claiming to be one.

Response: Ergun’s brother Emir vouches for their devout Muslim background. He has provided a picture (below) of Ergun with his head covered (sitting down). Of course, there were other times when he had no covering on which would be natural.

[TFan note: link to photo is broken]

Other evidence of his being a devout Muslim is available, such as Ergun’s circumcision ceremony and participation in the reading and recitation of the Qur’an. Further, that Ergun was reared a devout Muslim is proven by his father’s testimony recorded in the divorce proceedings documents which ironically Ergun’s critic placed on the internet.
Whether or not Caner was a "devout" Muslim is one question - whether Caner regularly dressed like Lawrence of Arabia, is another question.  Given that his father apparently did not so dress, even for a posed photo at the Islamic Center with the imam, what are the odds that Caner himself regularly wore Islamic garb to highschool?

-TurretinFan

Notice that Caner proudly posts this picture as his background on his full twitter page (link).

UPDATE: I should add that the only leadership position we've been able to document Acar Caner holding is as President (at least twice) of the Turkish American Association of Central Ohio (TAACO) (link to site). That page also includes a picture of Acar Caner:

(sorry about the low quality)(previously reported here)
Now, not only does Acar plainly not wear any kind of Lawrence of Arabia style headgear, even in this role in a Turkish-American association, he doesn't appear to be wearing Sunni-style robes.  In fact, if you look at the page and see all the presidents (including women presidents), you'll see that none of them seem to be wearing distinctively Sunni clothing.  Indeed, the women aren't even wearing headscarves.  Of course, as we've said elsewhere - dressing in Western style was normal for Turkish Muslims in that era.  If Caner had dressed differently, he would have been an unusual Turk indeed.

Also, see this picture:

And this picture:

And notice how the sons are dressed in those same pictures: western style clothes.

Likewise, remember the yearbook photos from my "Who is Dr. Caner" post (link to post).

Further Update:

Also recall this photo allegedly of Caner in the mosque with a rifle:
Notice that although the girl does seem to be dressed up, Caner and all the other males in the picture are wearing typical western clothes.

Monday, January 20, 2014

Calvin vs.(?) Turretin on Inerrancy

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is sometimes associated with Francis Turretin (the real one, not me, his fan).  There was an interesting article in the Autumn 2011 edition of "Foundations," which addresses the question, "Did Turretin Depart from Calvin's View on the Concept of Error in the Scriptures" (link to pdf of whole issue).  The author, Ralph Cunnington, does an excellent job of demonstrating and explaining that - in fact - both Calvin and Turretin were in agreement.  His conclusion states:
Calvin and Turretin both held to a view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture which affirmed that the Scriptures as originally given were without error in all that they affirmed. The view that Calvin only affirmed the infallibility of the saving content of Scripture rests upon decidedly unpersuasive grounds and conflicts with Calvin’s unambiguous statements to the contrary.
Furthermore, the contention that a radical disjunction exists between Calvin’s view of Scripture and that of Turretin remains unproven. While a shift in the form of theological discourse unquestionably took place in the seventeenth century, the content of orthodox doctrine remained substantially the same. Far from dispensing with Calvin’s doctrine of inspiration, Turretin sought to defend it against the new challenges that it faced in the seventeenth century. While his methodology may be questioned, we should be in no doubt that Turretin intended his doctrine to be an expression of continuity with the doctrine expounded by the Reformers.
But please read the article for yourselves!

- TurretinFan

Lightning Breaks Idol - Men Repair

The New York Post reports (link) that lightning broke a finger off the idol purporting to be of Jesus Christ, in Rio de Janeiro.  The idol cannot protect itself from lightning (this is not the first time it's been struck).  Moreover, God - who sends the lightning - has actually broken the idol.  Yet, instead of just abandoning (or better yet razing) this idol, the plan is to repair it.  One is reminded of a similar situation in Scripture:
I Samuel 5:1-5 And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again. And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day.
The idol of Rio de Janeiro purports to be of the true and living God, but it is as helpless as the statue of Dagon.  It would be better for the men of Rio to raze this idol, rather than continually repairing it.

And it is not only the men of Rio who have such a sad lust for idols.  Recall that not long ago God sent lightning and destroyed the statue in Monroe, Ohio (link to story), with again the men saying that they plan to rebuild.

-TurretinFan

The Roman Catholic Problem of Hell

Scott Windsor has a post, "The Matter of Hell," in which he sides with unordained Michael Voris against ordained priest Robert Barron. By contrast, Mark Shea has a post, "Michael Voris Again Smears an Innocent Catholic," in which he sides with Barron against Voris.

Shea argues that Barron is saying almost exactly what Pope Benedict XVI said on the topic, whereas Windsor argues that Barron's position comes close to falling under the condemnation of the Second Council of Constantinople. Per Windsor, Barron's view is "scandalous at best and perhaps even heretical" whereas Shea thinks "Barron is guilty of no heresy, has said nothing “wrong” and is perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation."

At issue is Barron's apparent view (which he says agrees with Balthazar's view) we should believe that Hell is at least possible (as a metaphor for loneliness from divine love, not actually a place) but that we can reasonably hope that Hell is empty based on God's universal salvific desire. Barron concedes to the big tent nature of Roman Catholicism, pointing out that folks like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would disagree with him.

Shea likewise balances his comment by pointing out:
Now those, such as Ralph Martin who speculate that few will be saved are also (obviously) also within the pale of orthodoxy and share their opinion with not a few Fathers and theologians. But at the end of the day, that’s all you have: two schools of opinion–both of which are allowed by the Church.
But it's not just Windsor and Voris vs. Shea and Barron. We could add that we have previously pointed out contemporary cardinals holding that hell may be empty (Cardinal George Pell and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor).

So, what's the big deal? Well, on the one hand - the Scriptures are clear that there will be men in hell. For example:
Matthew 7:23
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

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.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Romans 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Matthew 8:12
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And we could on and on.  Although the great Origen erred in hoping for the eventual restoration of all creation, such a view is not consistent with Scripture's teachings both that hell is real and that the punishment of hell is eternal punishment.

So, on the one hand, Windsor is right that people like Barron and a couple of Windsor's cardinals are wrong.  On the other hand, such a problem is not resolvable on Roman Catholic grounds for basically the reasons that Shea and Barron enunciate: there has been no "official teaching" that anathematizes one or the other position, and consequently both contradictory positions are acceptable, even though both cannot be right.

Worse yet for Windsor and Voris, the evidence is that the current hierarchy supports and teaches the erroneous view.  I have not confirmed whether Shea is accurate in characterizing the teachings of Benedict XVI, but it clearly extends at least up to the cardinals.

The most remarkably thing is that Windsor and Voris continue to trust in this church (which teaches and promotes errors that they themselves are able to identify) rather than trusting in God alone and His Word. They may be able to convince themselves that these same hierarchs would never commit their erroneous doctrines to an allegedly infallible document, but such thinking seems wishful indeed in view of the highly compromised documents of Vatican II, not to mention the victory of the ultramontanists in Vatican I.

-TurretinFan

Friday, January 17, 2014

Unbalanced "Two Kingdoms" and Political Campaigns

Prof. Clark has a couple of posts up praising Ben Sasse and even including one of his political campaign advertisements ("Ben is a Straight Shooter" | "Ben is Speaking Up About Religious Liberty"). Personally, I can't vouch for Mr. Sasse (nor do I have any particular criticisms), and that's not the point of this post.

Among other things, Clark writes:
So, in light of the drift of the culture and the Christian accommodation to that drift, it has been interesting to watch Ben Sasse’s campaign for the U. S. Senate from Nebraska.
I appreciate Clark's concern against Christian accommodation of the culture. At the same time, that's one of the problems with an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms. It is an accommodation to the cultural norm that the state is to be "secular" rather than being normed by Scripture.

One of the ironies of the posts is that posts like these, which appear to be stumping for a particular candidate, would appear to violate the principles of the Darryl Hart-type unbalanced two kingdoms view. One of the commenters presented this issue, and in response Clark asked:
What about the twofold kingdom means that Christians cannot engage the civil realm?
and again
Now, once more, what is it about the twofold kingdom that prevents Christians from observing and commenting on the civil/political sphere?
I wasn't the commenter in question, so Clark wasn't asking me. I would respond that the more unbalanced forms don't say that people (who happen to be Christians) cannot engage the civil realm, observe the civil/political sphere, or comment on the civil/political sphere. Nevertheless, it does prevent them from doing so as Christians, bringing Christian doctrine and specifically the Bible to bear. In other words, in the so-called R2K system, a Christian cannot comment as a Christian, only as a person. Prof. Clark is not commenting on Ben as one might talk about a particularly skilled quarterback (or simply one wearing the right jersey) but rather he appears to be bringing Biblical principles to bear on the situation (as well he should! and good for him!) This does not seem consistent with the more unbalanced views of the two kingdoms.

For example, recall that Hart wrote:
Christianity is essentially a spiritual and eternal faith, one occupied with a world to come rather than the passing and temporal affairs of this world.
(p. 12 of A Secular Faith) Frame explains, Hart "is opposed not only to the church taking political positions, but even to individual Christians claiming biblical authority for their political views." (Escondido Theology, p. 248)

Contrary to what Hart seems to think (based on his book), the Scriptures have a lot to say about the passing and temporal affairs of this world, even though this is our pilgrimage with the best life yet to come. An error of an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms is creating a dichotomy between them rather than recognizing that the civil magistrate is a minister of God who ought to be normed by the Word of the God of whom he is the minister. Another error is like to it - treating all aspects of this life the same whether the Bible has said much (for example, good laws) or little (for example, plumbing, air conditioning, or pharmacology). Yes, the Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to roll aluminum foil quite flat without making it so thin it accidentally tears. The Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to build a controlled fusion reactor. But there are oodles of teachings regarding what sort of laws are good. There are oodles of teachings on marriage and family - on the raising of children, and so forth.

-TurretinFan

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Charles Hodge Against 4 Point Calvinism

From Volume 2 of his Systematic Theology (link):
S: 4. Hypothetical Redemption.

According to the common doctrine of Augustinians, as expressed an the Westminster Catechism, "God, having . . . . elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer." In opposition to this view some of the Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century introduced the scheme which is known in the history of theology as the doctrine of hypothetical redemption. The principal advocate of this doctrine was Amyraut (died 1664), Professor in the French Protestant Seminary at Saumur. He taught, (1.) That the motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men in general. (2.) From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible. (3.) God, in virtue of a decretum universale hypotheticum, offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ. (4.) All men have a natural ability to repent and believe. (5.) But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give his efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure their salvation.

This scheme is sometimes designated as "universalismus hypotheticus." It was designed to take a middle ground between Augustinianism and Arminianism. It is liable to the objections which press on both systems. It does not remove the peculiar difficulties of Augustinianism, as it asserts the sovereignty of God in election. Besides, it leaves the case of the heathen out of view. They, having no knowledge of Christ, could not avail themselves of this decretum hypotheticum, and therefore must be considered as passed over by a decretum absolutum. It was against this doctrine of Amyraut and other departures from the standards of the Reformed Church that, in 1675, the "Formula Consensus Helvetica" was adopted by the churches of Switzerland. This theory of the French theologians soon passed away as far as the Reformed churches in Europe were concerned. Its advocates either returned to the old doctrine, or passed on to the more advanced system of the Arminians. In this country it has been revived and extensively adopted.

At first view it might seem a small matter whether we say that election precedes redemption or that redemption precedes election. In fact, however, it is a question of great importance. The relation of the truths of the Bible is determined by their nature. If you change their relation you must change their nature. If you regard the sun as a planet instead of as the centre of our system you must believe it to be something very different in its constitution from what it actually is. So in a scheme of thought, if you make the final cause a means, or a means the final cause, nothing but confusion can be the result. As the relation of election to redemption depends on the nature of redemption the full consideration of this question must be reserved until the work of Christ has been considered. For the present it is sufficient to say that the scheme proposed by the French theologians is liable to the following objections.

Arguments against this Scheme.

1. It supposes mutability in the divine purposes; or that the purpose of God may fail of accomplishment. According to this scheme, God, out of benevolence or philanthropy, purposed the salvation of all men, and sent his Son for their redemption. But seeing that such purpose could not be carried out, He determined by his efficacious grace to secure the salvation of a certain portion of the human race. This difficulty the scheme involves, however it may be stated. It cannot however be supposed that God intends what is never accomplished; that He purposes what He does not intend to effect; that He adopts means for an end which is never to be attained. This cannot be affirmed of any rational being who has the wisdom and power to secure the execution of his purposes. Much less can it be said of Him whose power and wisdom are infinite. If all men are not saved, God never purposed their salvation, and never devised and put into operation means designed to accomplish that end. We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God. If He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, then events correspond to his purposes; and it is against reason and Scripture to suppose that there is any contradiction or want of correspondence between what He intended and what actually occurs. The theory, therefore, which assumes that God purposed the salvation of all men, and sent his Son to die as a means to accomplish that end, and then seeing, or foreseeing that such end could not or would not be attained, elected a part of the race to be the subjects of efficacious grace, cannot be admitted as Scriptural.

2. The Bible clearly teaches that the work of Christ is certainly efficacious. It renders certain the attainment of the end it was designed to accomplish. It was intended to save his people, and not merely to make the salvation of all men possible. It was a real satisfaction to justice, and therefore necessarily frees from condemnation. It was a ransom paid and accepted, and therefore certainly redeems. If, therefore, equally designed for all men, it must secure the salvation of all. If designed specially for the elect, it renders their salvation certain, and therefore election precedes redemption. God, as the Westminster Catechism teaches, having elected some to eternal life, sent his Son to redeem them.

3. The Scriptures further teach that the gift of Christ secures the gift of all other saving blessings. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. vii 32.) Hence they are certainly saved for whom God delivered up his Son. The elect only are saved, and therefore He was delivered up specially for them, and consequently election must precede redemption. The relation, therefore, of redemption to election is as clearly determined by the nature of redemption as the relation of the sun to the planets is determined by the nature of the sun.

4. The Bible in numerous passages directly asserts that Christ came to redeem his people; to save them from their sins; and to bring them to God. He gave Himself for his Church; He laid down his life for his sheep. As the end precedes the means, if God sent his Son to save his people, if Christ gave Himself for his Church, then his people were selected and present to the divine mind, in the order of thought, prior to the gift of Christ.

5. If, as Paul teaches (Rom. viii. 29, 30), foreknowledge precedes predestination, and if the mission of Christ is the means of accomplishing the end of predestination, then of necessity predestination to eternal life precedes the gift of Christ. Having, as we are taught in Eph. i. 4, 5, predestinated us to the adoption of sons, God chose us before the foundation of the world, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. This is the order of the divine purposes, or the mutual relation of the truths of redemption as presented in the Scriptures.

6. The motive (so to speak) of God in sending his Son is not, as this theory assumes, general benevolence or that love of which all men are equally the objects, but that peculiar, mysterious, infinite love in which God, in giving his Son, gives Himself and all conceivable and possible good. All these points, however, as before remarked, ask for further consideration when we come to treat of the nature and design of Christ's work.


And again:
Hypothetical Universalism.

A class of theologians in the Reformed Church who did not agree with the Remonstrants against whom the decisions of the Synod of Dort, sustained by all branches of the Reformed body, were directed, were still unable to side with the great mass of their brethren. The most distinguished of these theologians were Amyraut, La Place, and Cappellus. Their views have already been briefly stated in the sections treating of mediate imputation; and of the order of decrees and of the design of redemption. These departures from the accepted doctrines of the Reformed Church produced protracted agitation, not in France only but also in Holland and Switzerland. The professors of the University of Leyden. Andreas Rivet and Frederick Spanheim, were especially prominent among the opposers of the innovations of the French theologians. The clergy of Geneva drew up a protest in the form of a Consensus of the Helvetic Churches which received symbolical authority The doctrines against which this protest was directed are, (1.) That God, out of general benevolence towards men, and not out of special love to his chosen people, determined to redeem all mankind, provided they should repent and believe on the appointed Redeemer. Hence the theory was called hypothetical universalism. (2.) That the death or work of Christ had no special reference to his own people; it rendered the salvation of no man certain, but the salvation of all men possible. (3.) As the call of the gospel is directed to all men, all have the power to repent and believe. (4.) God foreseeing that none, if left to themselves, would repent, determines of his own good pleasure to give saving grace to some and not to others. This is the principal distinguishing feature between the theory of these French theologians and of the Semi-Pelagians and Remonstrants. The former admit the sovereignty of God in election; the latter do not.

This system necessitates a thorough change in the related doctrines of the gospel. If fallen men have power to repent and believe, then original sin (subjectively considered) does not involve absolute spiritual death. If this be so, then mankind are not subject to the death threatened to Adam. Therefore, there is no immediate imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. As they derive a polluted nature from him, which is the ground of the displeasure of God, they may so far be said to share in his sin. This is mediate imputation. Again, if the death of Christ does not render certain the salvation of his people, then it was not vicarious in the proper sense of that word; nor did He die as a substitute. His satisfaction assumes of necessity the character of a general display, a didactic exhibition of truth. At least this is the logical tendency, and the actual historical consequence of the theory. Moreover, if Christ did not act as the substitute and representativc of his people, there is no ground for the imputation of his righteousness to them. The French theologians, therefore, denied that his active obedience is thus imputed to believers. The merit of his death may be said to be thus imputed as it is the ground of the forgiveness of sin. This of course destroys the idea of justification by merging it into an executive act of pardon. Moreover, the principles on which this theory is founded, require that as every other provision of the gospel is general and universal, so also the call must be. But as it is undeniable that neither the written word nor the preached gospel has extended to all men, it must be assumed that the revelation of God made in his works, in his providence, and in the constitution of man, is adequate to lead men to all the knowledge necessary to salvation; or, that the supernatural teaching and guidance of the Spirit securing such knowledge must be granted to all men. It is too obviously inconsistent and unreasonable to demand that redemption must be universal, and ability universal as the common heritage of man, and yet admit that the knowledge of that redemption and of what sinners are required to do in the exercise of their ability, is confined to comparatively few. The "Formula Consensus Helvetica," therefore, includes in its protest the doctrine of those "qui vocationem ad salutem non sola Evangelii praedicatione, sed naturae etiam ac Providentiae operibuis, citra ullum exterius praeconium expediri sentiunt," etc. [574] It is not wonderful, therefore, that this diluted form of Augustinianismn should be distasteful to the great body of the Reformed Churches. It was rejected universally except in France, where, after repeated acts of censure, it came to be tolerated.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on "Catholic Answers"

The show that calls itself "Catholic Answers," recently featured a Missouri Synod Lutheran caller as highlighted on a recent Dividing Line.  In response to the caller, the hosts began asking him some questions.  I wouldn't be surprised if you get these same questions from some of your Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances, particularly those who listen to "Catholic Answers."

Question 1: Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
Short Answer: John 20:31 says, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." And many other verses.
Brief Explanation: John's statement implies that a person could pick up John's gospel, read it, believe it, and receive eternal life in that way.  Moreover, John's statement at least hints at the fact that the other gospels have a similar purpose - they are written for us to read, believe, and have eternal life.
Possible Objection: But where is the only in that text?
Response: The sola or only of "Sola Scriptura" is simply a negative claim - in other words, it's saying that Scripture is unique - there's nothing else like Scripture. If you want some verses that emphasize the unique character of Scripture, those also exist.

For example, Romans 3:4 says "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, "That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.' (Psalm 51:4)"  This emphasizes the crucial distinction between God's word and mens' words.
Another example is this: 
Deuteronomy 13:1-5If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, "Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;" thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
The point to take away from that passage is that even if someone has authority that appears to be attested by working wonders, the person's message should be judged by the Scriptures (in this case, by the Pentateuch). 

Paul similarly warns the Galatians: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8)  Someone may object that "preached" could refer to the gospel Paul delivered orally.  Nevertheless, we have that gospel in written form today.

Likewise, the Bereans are commended for subjecting the apostles' own preaching to a comparison with the Scriptures: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

Question 2: Where is "Scripture interprets Scripture" in the Bible?
Short answer: 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" If that is true, then it follows that all Scripture has one divine author even if it has many human authors.
Longer answer: Indeed, we have examples of Scripture interpreting itself explicitly, such as the quotation from John 20:31, above, which provides a purpose for the book of John, and more broadly for Scripture. Other examples include the citation of Old Testament passages in the New Testament, together with explanations of what they meant or how they were fulfilled in Christ.  Indeed, sometimes the New Testament includes Jesus' own explanation of his parables.  Numerous other examples could be provided.
Rejoinder: But even if we had no answer, can the matter seriously be doubted?  Does the person asking the question really think that the Bible is either incomprehensible or should not be understood by taking one part in relation to another?  

Even the Roman Catholic "Catechism of the Catholic Church," puts it this somewhat poetic (and consequently imprecise) way (CCC 102): 
Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.
We understand that Rome wishes to deny Christians the ability to judge her doctrines by Scripture, but surely it cannot be denied that Scripture does interpret Scripture.  How else would one read it?  As just isolated statements each possibly meaning anything at all?  The very notion seems bizarre.

-TurretinFan

Tuesday, January 07, 2014

The Middle Name Issue Revisited (and some miscellaneous items) with Ergun Caner

Middle Name Issue
Ergun Caner apparently preached "What Worship Looks Like" at FBC Lyons on November 17, 2013. Around 20:45 into the mp3, Ergun Caner states: "My father's middle name, Mehmet, I took when he passed, it means Mohammed in Turkish." (link to mp3)

That is nice as clarification that Caner's name is not really "Ergun Mehmet Caner," as he has put on his books about Islam. One problem though: from what we can tell, it wasn't so much "when he passed" (August 25, 1999) as "after 9/11," as seen in this post (link).

Recall that Norm Geisler wrote:
The Charge that Caner has Used various Names in Publications. Dr. Caner has used “E. Michael Caner” in one book while using “Ergun Mehmet Caner” in other books. Why? His mother desired that he use Michael, a name she always wished to give him, while Dr. Caner used “Mehmet” in honor of his father, especially after his father's passing in 1999. Some have even attacked his nickname, “Butch,” which he has used since moving to the South and was a name given to him by those who had difficulty pronouncing his first name.
Always wished to?  It's his real name.  And again - "after his father's passing" may be true, but "after 9/11" would be more accurate.

Interestingly, Dr. Caner's father apparently legally changed his middle name to Mehmet from Martin back in 1980 (link to post).  I'm not sure whether the "Martin" name was simply an immigration name error, or something else.

I would like to see any evidence that Caner used "Mehmet" as his middle name before his father's passing (to justify Geisler's "especially") or before 9/11, to justify Caner's own comments.

More Creative Childhood
Ergun Caner apparently preached at the 2013 Summer Bible Conference on July 21, 2013 (link to evening video - Around 30 minutes into the presentation, Ergun Caner states: "I was in high school. And I've always been fat. There's never been a skinny picture of me." When you look at his high school yearbooks, he doesn't look fat (link) - same when you look at his childhood pictures (e.g. this).

What's even the point of making something like this up - claiming to have been a fat kid growing up?

Apparently Ergun Caner was on "Fortress of Faith" in June 2012 for a two-part series - but the audio from that appearance has apparently been removed. (link to first part)(link to second part)(another source - also apparently removed - part 1 - part 2)

An Immigration Account, a "Late in Life" conversion account, and the Middle Name again
Caner also apparently spoken in the morning session for the 2013 Summer Bible Conference.  During that session, around 32 minutes into the recording, Caner alleged: "152 miles almost directly west of here, is where - when we first came to America - we went to the mosque, there in Toledo." (compare here and here)

Around 34:30 "I got saved, almost in college.  A high school boy, going into college."
Around 35:00 "Got saved late in life."

I wouldn't usually think of high school as "late in life," but perhaps that's just me.

Around 42:30 "Ergun Mehmet Caner - Ergun, Mehmet, that's my father's middle name and I took it upon his passing ..."

See the discussion above regarding the middle name.

Around 53:30 "I was raised to hate you."

I would be interested if anyone who went to that particular mosque can confirm that they taught Muslims to "hate" Christians.

Around 53:45 "the five pillars: Abinadab, Salat, Zakat, Swan, Haj, they would do the Kalimah"

"Abinadab" is someone who had possession of the ark of the covenant for a while in the Old Testament.  It's not one of the five pillars.

Around 54:15 "Even those who aren't violent, they know what jihad means, jihad al-asghar - they know what it means and 134 miles from right here, that's what I was taught."

Is Caner seriously suggesting he was taught physical warfare at the mosque in Columbus?

Around 57:00 "Three and a half years - almost four years - he kept coming. Freshman year, Sophomore Year, Junior Year, at Gahanna Lincoln.

It looks like Caner is saying that he was saved midway through his senior year - basically the fall semester of 1983.  In other places, he has alleged it was

Around 69:00 "A year later, Williamsburg, Kentucky - going to college, trying to study the Bible - both my brothers get saved.  All three - three boys raised as devout Sunni Muslims. Three boys, sons of Acar Mehmet Caner, three boys come to America -- Erdem and I were already born, Emir was born here -- three boys come here to be Islamic missionaries to you - to build mosques."

If Ergun was saved his junior year, then one year later he was still in high school.  If Ergun was saved his senior year, he wasn't saved in 1982, but in 1983-84.  And to top it all off, Emir claims he himself was saved in 1982.

-TurretinFan

Friday, January 03, 2014

iTBN Contributions - Ergun Caner

For a full list of iTBN appearances, see the following link (Link). Apparently, Dr. Ergun Caner was a guest on a series of episodes of "The King is Coming," with Dr. Ed Hindson, and also on a previous show hosted by Pastor Jentezen Franklin. The most disappointing comments are from that last show, but I've posted a short synopsis, below.

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Buffalo Creek Baptist Church - Easter 2013

Apparently, on Easter 2013, Ergun Caner spoke at the Buffalo Creek Baptist Church (link to mp3). It was interesting to hear the testimonial parts of his message:

(all times are approximate)

(1:10) "To be very honest, again - for those who are visitors, I am Turkish, born in Sweden, raised as a Muslim, Christian. Born-again, blood-bought, believer in Jesus Christ. And having come from Islam to Christianity, you can imagine the trips to Israel are unique."

(2:10) "I didn't get saved until later in life. I was in high school, getting ready to go into college: devout, practicing Muslim. Oldest son of three, all three boys are now preachers of the gospel. All three raised as Sunni muslims - all three with a father that built mosques."

(5:30) "And then to participate in the hunt? I'm all about it. Yeah, you're eighteen years old, but it's my first one! I'll kick a grandma through a moving fan, to get an egg."

From what we can tell, Caner was saved around 15 or 16. How that's "later in life" or "eighteen years old," I don't know.

(25:30) "You want to know what kind of PhD I am? I got three masters degrees, and a PhD, and when I went to Criswell College, I had one goal - not a cowboy's game, not a ranger's game, not the dallas crew - I wanted to go to the sportatorium. I wanted to see a Von Erich claw. So, I love my rasslin'."

Technically, I believe he has a D. Theol. The point that he loves his wrestling is taken, however.