Showing posts with label Video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Video. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
40 Arabic Words vs. 33 Greek Words
Just as 300 Greek soldiers stopped more numerous Persian warriors, so 33 Greek words are greater than 40 Arabic words, as James White and IV Connerly demonstrate:-TurretinFan
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Rap on Reformed Worship
The Sola System has produced the following rap video, which provides an argument for Reformed worship in the style of a rap (apparently recorded back in 2008):-TurretinFan
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Why Cross-Examination is Essential - Illustrated
Carl Trueman pointed this out for a somewhat different reason (related to Rob Bell) - but the video below illustrates why cross-examination is so important in debates. In fact, it's why cross-examination is the heart of live debate.
It also illustrates how a properly conducted cross-examination can lead the listener to the truth, even if the cross-examined party is not interested in being truthful.
-TurretinFan
It also illustrates how a properly conducted cross-examination can lead the listener to the truth, even if the cross-examined party is not interested in being truthful.
-TurretinFan
Friday, December 24, 2010
Further Response to Mr. Albrecht Regarding Debate on Veneration of Images
In a new video (audio + slideshow only), Mr. Albrecht has responded to the comments in my post (link to post) regarding the debate. This is in addition to the comments he submitted to me by email, and which are already addressed in the original post via an update to that post. I've provided the following written response and a largely-overlapping video response (just audio), below.
Mr. Albrecht responded to the comments on my blog by way of video. He stated that I didn’t heavily emphasize the Old Testament prohibition on the veneration of images – his justification for this claim was simply his assertion that the Old Testament doesn’t prohibit the veneration of images. This assertion is patently false. I highlighted many passages which specifically prohibit the veneration of images, such as Exodus 20:5, which states: “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.”
Or Leviticus 26:1, which states: “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.”
In point of fact, Mr. Albrecht barely engaged the text of Scripture. Instead he focused his time in other areas.
One of his main arguments to attempt to distinguish away the Old Testament texts was to assert that “There is, however, a clear distinction between idolatry and veneration.”
Can Mr. Albrecht show us this distinction in the Bible? No, he cannot.
Can Mr. Albrecht show us this distinction from the fathers of the first century? No, they don’t make that distinction.
What about the fathers of the second century? No, they too say nothing helpful to him.
He basically has to jump forward in time many hundreds of years to find anything like this distinction being brought out.
He refers to the latria/dulia distinction that Rome is fond of making. He and I debated that topic some time ago. He could not find the distinction in Scripture then – and he still cannot find it now. Even if he could find that distinction eventually enunciated in some father or other after some time, as we brought out in the debate the 2nd Council of Nicaea did not make the distinction that he would like to see.
Mr. Albrecht again appeals to Dura Europos. He states: “There was much stronger evidence to prove the early Christian church venerated images, statues. The Dura Europos is a clear-cut example of this.” During the debate we exposed this error. Nobody knows what sect worshiped in that church. Nobody knows how the images were used – whether just for decoration, for teaching, or for (as Mr. Albrecht claims) veneration. In fact, no one knows even whether the church was ever used.
He claims it is a Christian church from earlier than the mid-200’s. His assertion is empty and untrue.
He claims that I “have to fall back on the assertion that this church is not typical.” Listen to the debate. First he asked me whether I knew of Dura Europos, then he asked me whether it was typical. I told him it was not. That’s hardly me “falling back” on that position.
He then asks who am I to make an assertion that Dura Europos is not typical. Well, he asked me – so I told him. Why would anybody think that Dura Europos was typical? Mr. Albrecht does not give us any good reasons to think so.
He then states that he’s not aware of any scholars who say that unorthodox people worshiped there. I’m not sure what his ignorance of the subject is supposed to prove. Are there any scholars who claim orthodox Christians worship there? If so, who are these scholars? What is there basis for the claim? Mr. Albrecht can’t tell us, because Mr. Albrecht doesn’t know.
Mr. Albrecht claims that he showed that not a single father interpreted the key Biblical texts in the same way in which I interpreted them. There was not time for Mr. Albrecht to show anything remotely resembling that. All Mr. Albrecht did was assert such a thing. He did quote a small handful of fathers who neither explicitly supported nor explicitly condemned the position I took.
Then Mr. Albrecht tries to explain why his unproven assertion is true. His proposed reason why is “the fathers knew the difference between idolatry and true religious veneration.” But, of course, Scripture does not make that distinction and Mr. Albrecht cannot identify any church fathers that make that distinction. It’s another assertion on Mr. Albrecht’s part, but not one he can support with facts.
Mr. Albrecht tried to argue that Ancient Judaism is not on my side. This was another one of his blunders. He quotes Jacob Milgrim who indicates that in the mid-third century there starts to appear in Judaism a “grudging recognition of Jewish art” and that people began to paint pictures on the walls in that time. This just proves my very point. (Read the article for yourself!)
Mr. Albrecht then cites to a pseudographic Jewish Targum that specifically permits for carved stone columns as long as they are not worshiped. This Targum, however, dates to somewhere between the eighth century and the 15th century. It’s hardly representative of ancient Judaism.
And even if it were, it is simply distinguishing between having the images and venerating them.
Mr. Albrecht claims that his quotation from Basil is a “contested quotation.” That’s not true. It’s a spurious quotation. The consensus of scholarship agrees – both among Roman Catholic scholars and non-Roman Catholic scholars.
I pointed out that Mr. Albrecht was relying on a secondary source. I probably should have mentioned that his comments about Judaism were similarly drawn from a secondary source, which is probably why he didn’t realize the pseudographic Targum he quoted was so late.
Mr. Albrecht asserted that he relied on as secondary source “just as everything else Turretinfan relies on in scholarly works on the Biblical or patristic texts are secondary sources.” I’m not sure why this is particularly relevant. There’s no scholarly source that Mr. Albrecht has turned to that says anything other than what I’ve said – his quotation from Basil is spurious.
Mr. Albrecht goes on to argue with one of the patristic scholars who notes that the term “theotokos” became popular later than Basil. Mr. Albrecht misunderstands what the scholar wrote and goes off on a diatribe about how the term theotokos was used early.
Mr. Albrecht makes a serious blunder by alleging that the term theotokos was used “close to two centuries before Basil’s time” by citing a prayer found in a papyrus that was “dated by papyrologists to the mid-200’s.” The mid-200’s would be about 100 years before Basil (330-379). And frankly, given Mr. Albrecht’s numerous mistakes about dates and so forth, I would want to see what his source was regarding this prayer as well rather than just accepting it (though it may be correct).
Mr. Albrecht points out that work was probably not written by the Greek iconoclasts. One of the works that I quoted from does say “It has been attributed to the Greek Iconoclasts,” which is clearly wrong. So, Mr. Albrecht is quite right to point out the editor’s mistake in using the word “Iconoclast” instead of “Iconodule.” I’m not sure if Mr. Albrecht read the other notes, which indicated what this quotation obviously meant, which was that the work had been created during the Iconoclastic controversy. Nevertheless, I fully agree with Mr. Albrecht that it was not the iconoclasts, but the iconodules, who forged this particular letter.
Mr. Albrecht also suggests that many more “m s s” (as he calls them) have been discovered at a later date. I don’t know of any scholarly support for Mr. Albrecht’s assertion, and he does not provide any.
Mr. Albrecht then tries to bolster his position regarding Basil by quoting Basil’s statement that the honor paid to the image passes on to the prototype. This is very interesting, of course, because Basil is talking about worship of Jesus passing on to the Father. I’m not sure if Mr. Albrecht grasps the impact of his seizing on this phrase from Basil. Is his worship of Jesus the same as his worship of images? Does he really want to compare his worship of man-made images to his worship of the true image of the Father?
Basil certainly did not make that comparison. Basil was simply pointing out that by worshiping Jesus was are not becoming tritheists – we remain monotheists, because the worship given to Jesus is not only given to Jesus but to the Father. Basil did not compare the worship of Jesus to the worship of painted boards or statues.
Mr. Albrecht speaks with great emphasis on the word “Image” but he doesn’t seem to realize that Basil is speaking of the Son of God, not some carved stone column or other lifeless idol. I will grant him this – the veneration of Jesus is perfectly acceptable. There is no problem worshiping Jesus. It is man-made images that are the problem. Remember that Scriptures “thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image or any likeness,” it does not prohibit us from worshiping the image of God in the person of Jesus Christ.
Mr. Albrecht says that in the authentic Basil quotation, the use of “icon” in its proper Christian usage is shown. I heartily agree. The one icon we can worship is Jesus himself. Not a picture of Jesus, but Jesus himself, the image of the Father. That’s the proper Christian worship of an icon – and it is the only worship of an icon supported by Basil.
Mr. Albrecht again repeats his statement that “Christianity has always been able to distinguish between proper religious veneration and idolatry.” Yet, as we’ve noted each time – Mr. Albrecht’s assertion is just not supported by any evidence.
Mr. Albrecht next turned to the issue of the Vienna Genesis. He admitted he made a mistake in saying that the Vienna Genesis was dated to the 300’s, and asserted that it was dated to the 400’s. Actually, while some people have placed it in the late 400’s, it appears that the consensus is for the early 500’s.
Mr. Albrecht then claims that he really meant to refer to the “Cotton Genesis.” But Bruce Metzger (who Mr. Albrecht cited during the debate) also tells us that the “Cotton Genesis” is from the 500’s and John Lowden tells us that some scholars (citing Weitzmann and Kessler) date this to the late 400’s (John Lowden, “The Beginnings of Biblical Illustration” in “Imaging the Early Medieval Bible,” John Williams editor), p. 15. The same work indicates the sixth century for the Vienna Genesis (p. 17).
Mr. Albrecht tries to argue that he has provided positive evidence for the veneration of images in the early church, but he has not. The most he has done is to point out that in some instances some of the ancient churches had images in the churches.
Mr. Albrecht responded to the comments on my blog by way of video. He stated that I didn’t heavily emphasize the Old Testament prohibition on the veneration of images – his justification for this claim was simply his assertion that the Old Testament doesn’t prohibit the veneration of images. This assertion is patently false. I highlighted many passages which specifically prohibit the veneration of images, such as Exodus 20:5, which states: “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.”
Or Leviticus 26:1, which states: “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.”
In point of fact, Mr. Albrecht barely engaged the text of Scripture. Instead he focused his time in other areas.
One of his main arguments to attempt to distinguish away the Old Testament texts was to assert that “There is, however, a clear distinction between idolatry and veneration.”
Can Mr. Albrecht show us this distinction in the Bible? No, he cannot.
Can Mr. Albrecht show us this distinction from the fathers of the first century? No, they don’t make that distinction.
What about the fathers of the second century? No, they too say nothing helpful to him.
He basically has to jump forward in time many hundreds of years to find anything like this distinction being brought out.
He refers to the latria/dulia distinction that Rome is fond of making. He and I debated that topic some time ago. He could not find the distinction in Scripture then – and he still cannot find it now. Even if he could find that distinction eventually enunciated in some father or other after some time, as we brought out in the debate the 2nd Council of Nicaea did not make the distinction that he would like to see.
Mr. Albrecht again appeals to Dura Europos. He states: “There was much stronger evidence to prove the early Christian church venerated images, statues. The Dura Europos is a clear-cut example of this.” During the debate we exposed this error. Nobody knows what sect worshiped in that church. Nobody knows how the images were used – whether just for decoration, for teaching, or for (as Mr. Albrecht claims) veneration. In fact, no one knows even whether the church was ever used.
He claims it is a Christian church from earlier than the mid-200’s. His assertion is empty and untrue.
He claims that I “have to fall back on the assertion that this church is not typical.” Listen to the debate. First he asked me whether I knew of Dura Europos, then he asked me whether it was typical. I told him it was not. That’s hardly me “falling back” on that position.
He then asks who am I to make an assertion that Dura Europos is not typical. Well, he asked me – so I told him. Why would anybody think that Dura Europos was typical? Mr. Albrecht does not give us any good reasons to think so.
He then states that he’s not aware of any scholars who say that unorthodox people worshiped there. I’m not sure what his ignorance of the subject is supposed to prove. Are there any scholars who claim orthodox Christians worship there? If so, who are these scholars? What is there basis for the claim? Mr. Albrecht can’t tell us, because Mr. Albrecht doesn’t know.
Mr. Albrecht claims that he showed that not a single father interpreted the key Biblical texts in the same way in which I interpreted them. There was not time for Mr. Albrecht to show anything remotely resembling that. All Mr. Albrecht did was assert such a thing. He did quote a small handful of fathers who neither explicitly supported nor explicitly condemned the position I took.
Then Mr. Albrecht tries to explain why his unproven assertion is true. His proposed reason why is “the fathers knew the difference between idolatry and true religious veneration.” But, of course, Scripture does not make that distinction and Mr. Albrecht cannot identify any church fathers that make that distinction. It’s another assertion on Mr. Albrecht’s part, but not one he can support with facts.
Mr. Albrecht tried to argue that Ancient Judaism is not on my side. This was another one of his blunders. He quotes Jacob Milgrim who indicates that in the mid-third century there starts to appear in Judaism a “grudging recognition of Jewish art” and that people began to paint pictures on the walls in that time. This just proves my very point. (Read the article for yourself!)
Mr. Albrecht then cites to a pseudographic Jewish Targum that specifically permits for carved stone columns as long as they are not worshiped. This Targum, however, dates to somewhere between the eighth century and the 15th century. It’s hardly representative of ancient Judaism.
And even if it were, it is simply distinguishing between having the images and venerating them.
Mr. Albrecht claims that his quotation from Basil is a “contested quotation.” That’s not true. It’s a spurious quotation. The consensus of scholarship agrees – both among Roman Catholic scholars and non-Roman Catholic scholars.
I pointed out that Mr. Albrecht was relying on a secondary source. I probably should have mentioned that his comments about Judaism were similarly drawn from a secondary source, which is probably why he didn’t realize the pseudographic Targum he quoted was so late.
Mr. Albrecht asserted that he relied on as secondary source “just as everything else Turretinfan relies on in scholarly works on the Biblical or patristic texts are secondary sources.” I’m not sure why this is particularly relevant. There’s no scholarly source that Mr. Albrecht has turned to that says anything other than what I’ve said – his quotation from Basil is spurious.
Mr. Albrecht goes on to argue with one of the patristic scholars who notes that the term “theotokos” became popular later than Basil. Mr. Albrecht misunderstands what the scholar wrote and goes off on a diatribe about how the term theotokos was used early.
Mr. Albrecht makes a serious blunder by alleging that the term theotokos was used “close to two centuries before Basil’s time” by citing a prayer found in a papyrus that was “dated by papyrologists to the mid-200’s.” The mid-200’s would be about 100 years before Basil (330-379). And frankly, given Mr. Albrecht’s numerous mistakes about dates and so forth, I would want to see what his source was regarding this prayer as well rather than just accepting it (though it may be correct).
Mr. Albrecht points out that work was probably not written by the Greek iconoclasts. One of the works that I quoted from does say “It has been attributed to the Greek Iconoclasts,” which is clearly wrong. So, Mr. Albrecht is quite right to point out the editor’s mistake in using the word “Iconoclast” instead of “Iconodule.” I’m not sure if Mr. Albrecht read the other notes, which indicated what this quotation obviously meant, which was that the work had been created during the Iconoclastic controversy. Nevertheless, I fully agree with Mr. Albrecht that it was not the iconoclasts, but the iconodules, who forged this particular letter.
Mr. Albrecht also suggests that many more “m s s” (as he calls them) have been discovered at a later date. I don’t know of any scholarly support for Mr. Albrecht’s assertion, and he does not provide any.
Mr. Albrecht then tries to bolster his position regarding Basil by quoting Basil’s statement that the honor paid to the image passes on to the prototype. This is very interesting, of course, because Basil is talking about worship of Jesus passing on to the Father. I’m not sure if Mr. Albrecht grasps the impact of his seizing on this phrase from Basil. Is his worship of Jesus the same as his worship of images? Does he really want to compare his worship of man-made images to his worship of the true image of the Father?
Basil certainly did not make that comparison. Basil was simply pointing out that by worshiping Jesus was are not becoming tritheists – we remain monotheists, because the worship given to Jesus is not only given to Jesus but to the Father. Basil did not compare the worship of Jesus to the worship of painted boards or statues.
Mr. Albrecht speaks with great emphasis on the word “Image” but he doesn’t seem to realize that Basil is speaking of the Son of God, not some carved stone column or other lifeless idol. I will grant him this – the veneration of Jesus is perfectly acceptable. There is no problem worshiping Jesus. It is man-made images that are the problem. Remember that Scriptures “thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image or any likeness,” it does not prohibit us from worshiping the image of God in the person of Jesus Christ.
Mr. Albrecht says that in the authentic Basil quotation, the use of “icon” in its proper Christian usage is shown. I heartily agree. The one icon we can worship is Jesus himself. Not a picture of Jesus, but Jesus himself, the image of the Father. That’s the proper Christian worship of an icon – and it is the only worship of an icon supported by Basil.
Mr. Albrecht again repeats his statement that “Christianity has always been able to distinguish between proper religious veneration and idolatry.” Yet, as we’ve noted each time – Mr. Albrecht’s assertion is just not supported by any evidence.
Mr. Albrecht next turned to the issue of the Vienna Genesis. He admitted he made a mistake in saying that the Vienna Genesis was dated to the 300’s, and asserted that it was dated to the 400’s. Actually, while some people have placed it in the late 400’s, it appears that the consensus is for the early 500’s.
Mr. Albrecht then claims that he really meant to refer to the “Cotton Genesis.” But Bruce Metzger (who Mr. Albrecht cited during the debate) also tells us that the “Cotton Genesis” is from the 500’s and John Lowden tells us that some scholars (citing Weitzmann and Kessler) date this to the late 400’s (John Lowden, “The Beginnings of Biblical Illustration” in “Imaging the Early Medieval Bible,” John Williams editor), p. 15. The same work indicates the sixth century for the Vienna Genesis (p. 17).
Mr. Albrecht tries to argue that he has provided positive evidence for the veneration of images in the early church, but he has not. The most he has done is to point out that in some instances some of the ancient churches had images in the churches.
Friday, December 10, 2010
One More Reason to be a Puritan
Thanks to my friend Dr. White, here's yet another reason to be Puritan, eschew unnecessary holidays, and most of all adhere to the Regulative Principle of Worship:(caution - the sound levels are pretty high and the video makes the necessary point with no sound)- TurretinFan
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Papal Infallibility Debate with William Albrecht
This past week I debated Mr. William Albrecht (Roman Catholic) on the subject of Papal Infallibility. The specific question was whether Vatican I was correct regarding papal infallibility. Naturally, I answered the question in the negative. Here's the video.
(link to mp3)
- TurretinFan
(link to mp3)
- TurretinFan
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
On God's Covenant to Save His People from Idolatry
Matthew Lankford has posted a series of videos from J. Virgil Dunbar on the topic of the unlawful use of images, "On God's Covenant to Save His People From Idolatry."
0. Introduction
Dunbar explains the general thrust of the series.
1. What does God's covenant law say about images made to represent Him?
Dunbar explains that the point of the second commandment is different from the first commandment. The second commandment is related to making images of the true God. It does not forbid images in general. Dunbar explains how God is jealous of such images.
2. How do we know that the world is not God?
Dunbar explains the error of monism and its relation to the second commandment. The second commandment is one way that we know that world is not God.
3. What symbols do you use for God?
Dunbar explains the difference between visual representation symbols and the types and symbols of the Old Testament.
4. What symbols can we use for God?
Dunbar notes that the Old Testament period has passed, but what do we have now? Dunbar explains that we have the Bible and the Sacraments.
5. What did the early church believe about images made to represent God?
Dunbar explains that the early church followed the teaching and practice of the Apostles and did not worship using images.
6. Why does the Roman Catholic Church require its people to use images to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains that Roman Catholic teaching is a complete reversal of the Scriptural teaching on the subject.
7. What did the Reformers believe about images made to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains that the Reformed believers did not use images to represent the Lord and considered such to be idolatry, even as early as Huss.
8. How has the Protestant Church changed, so that they now use images to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains a variety of influences that have led to the present practice, including Dispensationalism.
9. What is the testimony of those who saw God?
Dunbar observes how men ranging from Moses to Isaiah both saw God and opposed the use of images of God.
10. On Islam punishing the image-using church
Dunbar suggests that the iconoclastic movement may be tied to Christian recognition of the judgment of God, by the sword of Islam, against those who worship God with images.
J. Virgil Dunbar's writings can be accessed here.
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
0. Introduction
Dunbar explains the general thrust of the series.
1. What does God's covenant law say about images made to represent Him?
Dunbar explains that the point of the second commandment is different from the first commandment. The second commandment is related to making images of the true God. It does not forbid images in general. Dunbar explains how God is jealous of such images.
2. How do we know that the world is not God?
Dunbar explains the error of monism and its relation to the second commandment. The second commandment is one way that we know that world is not God.
3. What symbols do you use for God?
Dunbar explains the difference between visual representation symbols and the types and symbols of the Old Testament.
4. What symbols can we use for God?
Dunbar notes that the Old Testament period has passed, but what do we have now? Dunbar explains that we have the Bible and the Sacraments.
5. What did the early church believe about images made to represent God?
Dunbar explains that the early church followed the teaching and practice of the Apostles and did not worship using images.
6. Why does the Roman Catholic Church require its people to use images to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains that Roman Catholic teaching is a complete reversal of the Scriptural teaching on the subject.
7. What did the Reformers believe about images made to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains that the Reformed believers did not use images to represent the Lord and considered such to be idolatry, even as early as Huss.
8. How has the Protestant Church changed, so that they now use images to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains a variety of influences that have led to the present practice, including Dispensationalism.
9. What is the testimony of those who saw God?
Dunbar observes how men ranging from Moses to Isaiah both saw God and opposed the use of images of God.
10. On Islam punishing the image-using church
Dunbar suggests that the iconoclastic movement may be tied to Christian recognition of the judgment of God, by the sword of Islam, against those who worship God with images.
J. Virgil Dunbar's writings can be accessed here.
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Misstatements vs. Lies - Dr. James White and Dr. Ergun Caner in Contrast
Dr. James White exposes and admits his own misstatement made over a length of time, and contrasts his situation with that of Dr. Ergun Caner. The video includes a direct personal appeal to Dr. Caner. I hope he will listen to it and take heed to it.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Friday, June 04, 2010
Ergun Caner and Pseudo-Arabic
In the following video, Dr. White and his Arabic tutor (a Christian who is a native speaker of Arabic) critique the alleged Arabic presented by Dr. Caner on a variety of occasions. Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Ergun Caner in Arabic-ish Gear
An anonymous commenter left this link, which he alleges: "may be the video that ends it all." The only thing it is likely to end is your dour mood by giving you a chuckle. In any event, it does have Ergun Caner and he is wearing Arabic-ish gear (think Aladdin):(link to video)Enjoy! (and note the tags for this post)
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Ergun Caner, Sri Lanka, and an Embellished Autobiography
One of the many errors attributed to Dr. Ergun Caner is an error that he made with respect to Sri Lanka. At the 2009 Value Voters Summit Dr. Ergun Caner spoke (scroll down through the videos at this link to find his near the bottom). During this conference he stated (at 15 minutes into the presentation): "In 36 countries around the globe, including Sri Lanka, it is a punishable offense by death for a Muslim to convert." And then again at around 19 minutes into the presentation, "Sri Lanka puts my people to death. We are Murtad - we are converts."
Here are the problems:
The root of the problem may simply be that Dr. Caner is not really an expert in Islam. Growing up having a Muslim father gives one more of a background in Islam than not growing up with a Muslim father, all things being equal, but the same is true of having a Christian father. Simply having a Christian father and even growing up in a church doesn't make one an expert on Christianity.
Undoubtedly Dr. Caner has more knowledge of Islam than the typical evangelical, but unfortunately he's being presented as though he were an expert. And sadly Dr. Caner is contributing to this by apparently exaggerating or embellishing his Muslim background.
In the same speech, he also made a number of troubling autobiographical statements:
It's hard to prove he didn't get excused from school every Friday for a half hour or more to attend prayers at the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. It's also hard to prove that Caner and his family did not wear headscarves. It's hard to definitely prove that Dr. Caner's father was not an ulima.
I realize that some will read the examples above and think that perhaps he was just having a bad day, or perhaps I've isolated statements that are not representative of his speeches. The good news is that some of his speeches have relatively few of these sorts of remarks, others have more.
Here are some examples:
"Church House or Jail House?" North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (Dr. Ergun Caner speaking) afternoon of January 12, 2005 (link to audio).
We'll skip over the issues in the introduction, since that's not Dr. Caner himself speaking, although there are some incorrect statements and Dr. Caner does not take the time to correct them.
Here is a video from Dr. Caner:
(download here)
As you can see, he's a good, compelling speaker. Much of what he says is actually good and helpful. Much of what he says about Christianity is good and actually much is probably more monergistic than he intended. However, when it comes to Dr. Caner's autobiography, there is an inconsistency.
Dr. Caner states (around 1 minute in): "Finally, my senior year in high school to show him, I walked into this little church." Dr. Caner's senior year of high school was 1984 (link to site showing his class list). However, in his book, Dr. Caner claims to have surrendered to the gospel the ministry in 1982 (link to book page). Even if that was December of 1982, that would be in Ergun's junior year of high school, and that's when he allegedly surrendered to the ministry, not when he got saved.
Here's a second video:
(download here)
Here he claims (early in the video): "And in every country where I had lived, we had always been in the majority. I am Sunni. About 90% of the Muslims in the world are Sunni. That includes the Wahabi, which is a subset, which is what Bin Ladin is. But I had never been around Christians."
He also makes an error with respect to when Mohamed's first alleged revelation came, it was when Mohamed was 40 years old, but not on his birthday.
Later in the video (around 11 minutes in) he claims: "And starting in my sophomore year in high school, he just wouldn't let up. All the way through, almost my senior year, 'Dude - you wanna come to this ... '."
Later in the video he appears to confuse Shabir Ally (still living) with Ahmed Deedat (famous Muslim apologist who is now deceased).
At about 19 minutes 50 seconds in, Dr. Caner states that on "November 4, 1982" he got saved. However, as you'll note at the link to his book above, that's the same date that the book claims that Emir got saved and the book claims that Emir was saved as a result of the fact that "Ergun invited Emir to a revival service the following year."
And around 21 minutes in, Dr. Caner states that "A year later, both my brothers got saved." This is the same year gap as in the book, but now it makes it sound as though Emir (and Erdem) got saved in 1983, not 1982, or possibly Dr. Caner got saved in 1981 (his sophomore year), not 1982 (his junior year).
You'll notice that these last two examples, which are all I'll post for now, have far fewer autobiographical issues than those above - and they are still enjoyable to listen to. The man is quite a speaker - he really knows how to work the crowd. Unfortunately, it seems that his comments about his own Muslim background or about Islam in general are not always strictly accurate.
- TurretinFan
UPDATE (from a draft post that never published):
Apparently, Ergun Caner spoke on January 12, 2005, for the North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (link to mp3). It is a version of his "Church House or Jail House" sermon - another instance of this same sermon can be found as a transcript here (link to pdf).
Here are the problems:
- Sri Lanka is not a majority Muslim nation. The vast majority are Buddhists, with a sizable Hindu minority. Muslims and professing Christians each make up less than ten percent, and are groups that are about the same size. There appear to be about forty-eight majority Muslim nations in the world, about thirty-seven of which appear to have some form of Sharia.
- Sri Lanka has some religious persecution, from what I've found. However, sites like "Voice of the Martyrs" report a small number of killings there, and those killings are murders.
- Specifically, Sri Lanka does not have Sharia law and does not punish conversion (although it does punish those who force others to convert, a provision sometimes apparently applied wrongly against Christians). Apostasy is an offense punishable by death under the most literal form of Sharia, but Sri Lanka does not have Sharia.
- While Sri Lanka does have capital punishment on the books (for crimes like murder, rape, and drug trafficking), from what I can tell their last official execution was in 1976 (although there are allegations of war crimes that Sri Lanka denies).
The root of the problem may simply be that Dr. Caner is not really an expert in Islam. Growing up having a Muslim father gives one more of a background in Islam than not growing up with a Muslim father, all things being equal, but the same is true of having a Christian father. Simply having a Christian father and even growing up in a church doesn't make one an expert on Christianity.
Undoubtedly Dr. Caner has more knowledge of Islam than the typical evangelical, but unfortunately he's being presented as though he were an expert. And sadly Dr. Caner is contributing to this by apparently exaggerating or embellishing his Muslim background.
In the same speech, he also made a number of troubling autobiographical statements:
- at 3:30 "My father was an ulima in the Mosque" (questionable: there is no evidence that his father was actually an ulima, sometimes Dr. Caner claims that his father was a muezzin, sometimes an ulima, sometimes both)
- at about 3:50 "My father had other wives" (questionable: the evidence is that his father had one other wife, a woman he married after he and Ergun's mother were divorced)
- at 4:00 "We were devout Muslims" (questionable: there is little evidence that suggests that the Caner boys were devout Muslims - there is strong evidence that their Mother, who had their primary custody, was not a devout Muslim)
- at 4:10 "We were devout, keffiyeh-wearing Muslims." (doubtful: There is no evidence of either Ergun or his Father or brothers ever wearing a keffiyeh. There are photos of them not wearing a keffiyeh, however.)
- at 4:45 "As a freshman, devout Muslim kid" (questionable: There is no evidence that Ergun was a devout Muslim in high school.)
- at 5:50 "going to the Mosque on Jumu'ah" (doubtful: there is no evidence that Ergun went to the mosque for prayer every noon on Friday - that would have required him leaving school during the day, and remaining out of school for the length of the prayers - ten minutes or more - plus the ten minute drive each direction - it's possible, but since there is evidence that his custodial parent, his mother, did not support his being raised in Islam, it seems unlikely that this happened)
- at 6:50 "it was as devout as it gets" (doubtful: see above)
- at 9:20 "Jerry Tackett started in our freshman year and he kept coming for four years" (false/misleading: from what we can tell, Dr. Caner was converted either in his Junior or Sophomore year, perhaps earlier - from what we can tell, Jerry did graduate with Dr. Caner, but the impression given is that it was four years of witnessing that lead to Dr. Caner's conversion)
- at 9:50 "Going into my senior year I finally decided to challenge him" (false: from what we can tell, Dr. Caner was converted before his senior year - also see below where he claims he was converted in 1982, which is either the first part of his junior year or the latter part of his sophomore year, assuming he's stating the right date)
- at 15:00 "That night I went home and I told my father, 'Baba, I'm a born again Christian,' and my father disowned me, 1982." (questionable/misleading: Dr. Caner lived with his mother throughout the school year on school days - and while he may have told his father immediately, there is some evidence from his other that he did not, there is also reason to doubt that the year was 1982, it appears it may have been 1981 - it is true that his father disowned him)
It's hard to prove he didn't get excused from school every Friday for a half hour or more to attend prayers at the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. It's also hard to prove that Caner and his family did not wear headscarves. It's hard to definitely prove that Dr. Caner's father was not an ulima.
I realize that some will read the examples above and think that perhaps he was just having a bad day, or perhaps I've isolated statements that are not representative of his speeches. The good news is that some of his speeches have relatively few of these sorts of remarks, others have more.
Here are some examples:
"Church House or Jail House?" North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (Dr. Ergun Caner speaking) afternoon of January 12, 2005 (link to audio).
We'll skip over the issues in the introduction, since that's not Dr. Caner himself speaking, although there are some incorrect statements and Dr. Caner does not take the time to correct them.
- at about 5:50 "came to this country in my teens" (false - he came to America as a toddler, as shown by his mother's affidavit)
- at about 6:50 "I did wear keffiyeh" (questionable: see above)
- at about 7:20 "Our father was a muezzin in the mosque and an ulima" (questionable: see above)
- at about 7:30 "We wore keffiyeh; we wore robes" (questionable: except that they may have once or twice worn robes - see this photo (link to photo) note that Dr. Caner's website had identified this as being a photo of Ergun and his father, though the man in the photo looks much older than Dr. Caner's father.)
- at about 8:20 "Somewhere around fifty times a year my brother and I do debates with Muslims, Baha'i, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, on college campuses" (questionable: see my previous discussion of Dr. Caner's debates)
- at 15:50 "He is from Johnston County, NC, from a city entitled, and this is the name of the town, 'Possum Kill'" (joke/idiom - I've included this one simply because others have raised this an objection - see discussion here)
- at 17:10 "I said [to his father-in-law], 'There's no cotton in sand, Dad.'" (He may have said this, but he doesn't appear ever to have lived in a sandy desert area.)
- at 49:30 "I always lived in majority-Muslim countries and then I came to America" (false: he was born in Sweden which has never been a majority-Muslim nation, and there is no evidence that he lived in any other nations besides that (for 2-3 of his first years) and the U.S. for the remainder.)
- at 49:42 "He [Caner's father] had many wives" (doubtful: We can only identify Dr. Caner's mother and the woman to whom Caner's father got remarried. In his will, Dr. Caner's father lists as offspring only the children from those two marriages.)
- at 49:50 "Every debate I've ever had, the Muslim, 'Ah you do not understand Islam, you need to understand the Arabic,' What's next? That was my language before English." (false/questionable/doubtful: Arabic was not his language before English. He was born in Sweden, but came to the U.S. apparently at 2-3 years old. His family may have spoken Swedish and/or Turkish, but they do not appear to have used Arabic, aside from the rote prayers. Finally, in the email exchange that Dr. Caner had with Nadir Ahmed, the closest thing to a debate with a Muslim that we can document Dr. Caner having - see here for more discussion of Dr. Caner's debate, dialogs, and discussion - Nadir did not raise the issue of Arabic language knowledge, although I have heard Muslims make similar claims in debating Dr. White.)
- at 55:00 "I kept telling him, 'No,' for three years" (doubtful/misleading: Notice that above Dr. Caner had claimed 4 years. If the 1982 date that Dr. Caner has claimed is correct, and if Jerry Tackett started to talking to Dr. Caner in Caner's freshman year, then the actual time was a little under two and a half years. However, there are reasons to think that the real year was 1981, which would make it a little under one and a half years (According to page 19 of their book, Unveiling Islam, Ergun invited Emir to a revival service "the following year" and Emir was born again on "November 4, 1982").
- at 1:03:15 "I went home and told my father. I said, 'Abi, I am born again - I'm saved." It was November the 4th, 1982, and it was the last day I saw my father. " (false/questionable/doubtful: It was not the last day he saw his father. When his father was dying, he saw him again. There is really no way he could forget about seeing his father on his father's deathbed (his father died in 1999). Additionally, the date is questionable. That date is also alleged, as noted above, to be the date of Emir Caner's conversion, but his conversion was allegedly a year later than Ergun Caner's. Also, as noted above, the evidence suggests that Dr. Caner lived with his mother, not his father.)
- at 1:04:00 "My father disowned me as an act of mercy. Church became my family. You know those kids who show up who don't smell really nice - don't look good - got two different kind of shoes - back in the day of wally baby and the bus ministries - if it weren't for the bus driver I wouldn't be here - if it weren't for for an 80 year old Sunday school teacher that for some reason wanted to teach high school boys - I wouldn't be here. I was a church orphan. A year later both my brothers got saved. All three of us born again." (questionable/misleading: It may well be that Dr. Caner's mother did not support his conversion to Christianity, but his father disowning him did not leave him an orphan. His mother had primary physical custody of him according to the court records we have. Note, however, that he maintains the idea that his brothers got saved a year later. This is consistent with what his book says, although it would mean either that he got saved in 1981 or his brothers got saved in 1983. What is truly remarkable is that I have yet to see any account from his or his brothers where they give any date for conversion other than November 1982, yet they continue to mention that they were saved one year apart.)
- at 1:05:20 "In 1991, my mama got saved. In the baptistry took off her hijab." (doubtful/misleading: We know that in the 70's Dr. Caner's mother was opposed to a motion from Dr. Caner's father that would have required Dr. Caner to be raised a Muslim, and there is no evidence that Dr. Caner's mother continued to wear hijab once she was in the U.S., if she ever wore it. The evidence is that Dr. Caner's mother was not a practicing Muslim from some point in the 70's onward. That does not make her baptism in the 1990's less, but it is sad that Dr. Caner appears to have tried to suggest that she was a devout Muslim woman up to that point.)
- at 1:14:10 "There was a time when I was cool. 18 years old, foot-long Muslim mullet hanging off the back of my head. And I drove a Camaro ... and women would just jump in the thing, forget the little towel-headed, olive-skinned boy ..." (questionable/misleading: Dr. Caner was no longer a Muslim by the time he was 18. He had something of a "punk" hairstyle in high school, but not (as far as we can tell) either foot-long hair or a mullet (UPDATE: Some folks tell me that one of the hairdos in this recent post constitutes a mullet.), and there is no evidence that we've seen that he wore a keffiyeh, indeed, around the hour mark he specifically claimed to have taken it off as a symbol of his conversion. I have no doubt that there was a time when Dr. Caner was cool - he still seems like he would be a fun guy to hang out with.)
Here is a video from Dr. Caner:
As you can see, he's a good, compelling speaker. Much of what he says is actually good and helpful. Much of what he says about Christianity is good and actually much is probably more monergistic than he intended. However, when it comes to Dr. Caner's autobiography, there is an inconsistency.
Dr. Caner states (around 1 minute in): "Finally, my senior year in high school to show him, I walked into this little church." Dr. Caner's senior year of high school was 1984 (link to site showing his class list). However, in his book, Dr. Caner claims to have surrendered to the gospel the ministry in 1982 (link to book page). Even if that was December of 1982, that would be in Ergun's junior year of high school, and that's when he allegedly surrendered to the ministry, not when he got saved.
Here's a second video:
Here he claims (early in the video): "And in every country where I had lived, we had always been in the majority. I am Sunni. About 90% of the Muslims in the world are Sunni. That includes the Wahabi, which is a subset, which is what Bin Ladin is. But I had never been around Christians."
He also makes an error with respect to when Mohamed's first alleged revelation came, it was when Mohamed was 40 years old, but not on his birthday.
Later in the video (around 11 minutes in) he claims: "And starting in my sophomore year in high school, he just wouldn't let up. All the way through, almost my senior year, 'Dude - you wanna come to this ... '."
Later in the video he appears to confuse Shabir Ally (still living) with Ahmed Deedat (famous Muslim apologist who is now deceased).
At about 19 minutes 50 seconds in, Dr. Caner states that on "November 4, 1982" he got saved. However, as you'll note at the link to his book above, that's the same date that the book claims that Emir got saved and the book claims that Emir was saved as a result of the fact that "Ergun invited Emir to a revival service the following year."
And around 21 minutes in, Dr. Caner states that "A year later, both my brothers got saved." This is the same year gap as in the book, but now it makes it sound as though Emir (and Erdem) got saved in 1983, not 1982, or possibly Dr. Caner got saved in 1981 (his sophomore year), not 1982 (his junior year).
You'll notice that these last two examples, which are all I'll post for now, have far fewer autobiographical issues than those above - and they are still enjoyable to listen to. The man is quite a speaker - he really knows how to work the crowd. Unfortunately, it seems that his comments about his own Muslim background or about Islam in general are not always strictly accurate.
- TurretinFan
UPDATE (from a draft post that never published):
Apparently, Ergun Caner spoke on January 12, 2005, for the North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (link to mp3). It is a version of his "Church House or Jail House" sermon - another instance of this same sermon can be found as a transcript here (link to pdf).
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sola Scriptura and Unity Debate
(UPDATE: the audio issues seem to be fixed - you may need to refresh your browser if you tried to view previously) The debate below took place April 10, 2010, between William Albrecht (Roman Catholic) and myself. The resolution was: "Does Sola Scriptura foster disunity and division in the [Christian] body?" This resolution was originally proposed by Steve Ray. Albrecht took the affirmative position and I took the negative position. While the constructive speeches may be of interest, I think both sides will most appreciate the lengthy cross-examination segments, which make up 4/7 of the debate.
If the above doesn't work:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
If the above doesn't work:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Monday, March 01, 2010
Is 1 John 5:10 Parallel and Relevant to 1 John 5:1?
The following video comes from Dr. James White addressing the question of whether 1 John 5:10 is parallel to and relevant to 1 John 5:1, particularly with respect to the issue of regeneration and faith.Also of interest, Dr. White has a presentation specifically on 1 John 5:1, which provides the main argument regarding 1 John 5:1:
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
What Does the Self-Authentication of Scripture Mean?
Roman Catholic blogger at Catholic Champion, Matthew Bellisario, has responded to a post from Jeff Downs (link to Jeff's post) which featured a video from Dr. Tony Curto (video below this introductory paragraph) introducing the topic of the self-authenticating nature of the Bible (link to Bellisario's post).Mr. Bellisario doesn't interact directly with any Reformed arguments on the subject, but he does pose what he seems to view as a challenge for the position:
Bellisario should read up on the doctrine of the self-authentication (also called the self-attestation) of Scripture. Greg Bahnsen has written an article worth reading on the subject (link to article). Some of Dr. Bahsen's explanation is as follows:
- TurretinFan
Well, I would just love to stick this Doctor in a room with all of the ancient manuscripts that we have including the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Apocryphal books with no punctuation, no labeling of the manuscripts, mix them all together with texts that were rejected and see if the brilliant doctor can put together the Canon of Scripture. We will see how self authenticating the text is.One wonders if Bellisario really thinks it works that way - as though self-authentication were a sort of glow that the documents give off under an ultraviolet (UV) light or something like that.
Bellisario should read up on the doctrine of the self-authentication (also called the self-attestation) of Scripture. Greg Bahnsen has written an article worth reading on the subject (link to article). Some of Dr. Bahsen's explanation is as follows:
Hopefully the reader can see that this kind of self-authentication or self-attestation isn't a matter of simply sorting through a bunch of manuscripts. That kind of picture would be a caricature of the doctrine, not an accurate representation of the doctrine.Throughout the history of redemption God has directed His people to find His message and words in written form. Indeed, God Himself provided the prototype of written revelation when He delivered the tablets of law upon Mount Sinai. And when God subsequently spoke by His Spirit through chosen messengers (II Peter 1:21), their words were characterized by self-vindicating authority. That is, it was evident from their message that they were speaking for God -- whether the claim was explicit (e.g., "Thus saith the Lord...") or implicit (the arresting power or demand of their message as a word from the Lord of the covenant: e.g., Matt. 7:28-29).
Moreover, their messages were of necessity coherent with each other. A genuine claim to inspiration by a literary work minimally entailed consistency with any other book revealed by God, for God does not lie ("...it is impossible for God to lie," Heb. 6:18) and does not contradict Himself ("But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no," II Cor. 1:18). A genuine word from God could always be counted upon, then, to agree with previously given revelation -- as required in Deut. 13:1-5, "If there arises among you a prophet..., saying `Let us go after other gods...,' you shall not hearken unto that prophet....You shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice...."
- TurretinFan
Monday, February 15, 2010
Ergun Caner vs. James White: Which is More Like the Jerry Springer Show?
This video (about 1/2 hour long) provides an amusing comparison of Dr. White's debates to various antics of Ergun Caner. The reason for the video is Ergun Caner's claim that Reformed apologists have taken over the formal debate scene and turned it into something like the Jerry Spring Show.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Triune God of Scripture Lives
The following is a trailer for Dr. James White's first debate this year with Dan Barker, on the topic: "The Triune God of Scripture Lives."
The DVD of this debate is available in the Alpha & Omega Ministries Bookstore (link).
The DVD of this debate is available in the Alpha & Omega Ministries Bookstore (link).
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Veneration of Mary Debate with William Albrecht (aka GNRHead)
This is a debate that was conducted on 25 April 2009 between TurretinFan and William Albrecht (aka GNRHead) on the topic of the Veneration of Mary and its Biblical Support (or lack thereof).
At some later point I would like to provide some further comments on this debate. For now, however, here it is for your listening pleasure. It is in five parts on YouTube, but hopefully the "playlist" feature will permit you to play them sequentially.
UPDATE: Lane has posted the entire debate as a single YouTube video here (link).
At some later point I would like to provide some further comments on this debate. For now, however, here it is for your listening pleasure. It is in five parts on YouTube, but hopefully the "playlist" feature will permit you to play them sequentially.
UPDATE: Lane has posted the entire debate as a single YouTube video here (link).
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Augustine vs. Albrecht on the Bodily Presence - Round 2
This is video response to William Albrecht's two videos ( video 1 and video 2 ) responding to previous videos of mine, responding to a still previous video of his.
I continue to point out Mr. Albrecht's errors. I have 11 points:
1) The issue is bodily presence vs. spiritual presence (not real presence vs. bare symbolism).
2) The issue of the "authority of the Catholic Chruch" is a misleading red herring, because Augustine meant the universal church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
3) When Augustine speaks of "divine presence" that does not mean or imply (quite the contrary) a bodily presence, because a body is not part of the divine nature but the human nature of Christ.
4) Mr. Albrecht (not myself) is the one who seems to need to try to turn Augustine into a Roman Catholic. I just take Augustine as I find him.
5) Mr. Albrecht refuses to let the Westminster Confession speak for itself, even when it clearly and explicitly states that the position is a real, yet spiritual, presence.
6) Mr. Albrecht confuses the real Francis Turretin's rejection of consubstantiation with a rejection of the spiritual presence (although Turretin actually affirms this, even in the snippets he quotes, if you listen carefully).
7) Mr. Albrecht errs in suggesting that the Latin word for Spiritual ever means or implies, in Augustine, "corporeal presence" - quite the opposite.
8) Mr. Albrecht still does not seem to "get" that statements like "after the consecreation the bread is [or becomes] the Body of Christ" is something that is consistent with not only the view of transubstantiation, but also with the Reformed view (real spiritual presence) and even the bare symbolic view (which is why I would never try to base my argument on such passages of Augustine if I were disputing this matter with a person who holds to the odd and incorrect position that Augustine held to a bare symbolic view).
9) Albrecht had said: "The great Augustine can no longer be twisted into a pretzel because TurretinFan has run out of ways to rip him apart. Perhaps he'll resort to taking quotes away from him or mutilating what Augustine says, such as his boss Mr. [sic] White has done to advance his theological views in the past." I note that although this is untrue and analogically inconsistent (the metaphors of "twist[ing] into a pretzel" and "rip[ping] apart" are incompatible physically), nevetheless the quotation provides an illustration of the fact that somewhere deep inside Albrecht recognizes that people can use figurative language, although he does not seem to want to let Christ and/or Augustine do so, when it is necessary to press them into service for his church.
10) Mr. Albrecht claims that there are "hundreds of thousands of denominations" - a number so wildly inflated it makes the usual, grossly inflated claim of 33,000 denominations seem almost truthful (for more on the 33,000 denominations myth, see the following website (link)).
11) Mr. Albrecht, in wrapping up, seems still to be a bit sore about his friend Mr. Steve Ray and himself getting busted for citing Pseudo-Athanasius as though it were Athanasius.
-TurretinFan
I continue to point out Mr. Albrecht's errors. I have 11 points:
1) The issue is bodily presence vs. spiritual presence (not real presence vs. bare symbolism).
2) The issue of the "authority of the Catholic Chruch" is a misleading red herring, because Augustine meant the universal church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
3) When Augustine speaks of "divine presence" that does not mean or imply (quite the contrary) a bodily presence, because a body is not part of the divine nature but the human nature of Christ.
4) Mr. Albrecht (not myself) is the one who seems to need to try to turn Augustine into a Roman Catholic. I just take Augustine as I find him.
5) Mr. Albrecht refuses to let the Westminster Confession speak for itself, even when it clearly and explicitly states that the position is a real, yet spiritual, presence.
6) Mr. Albrecht confuses the real Francis Turretin's rejection of consubstantiation with a rejection of the spiritual presence (although Turretin actually affirms this, even in the snippets he quotes, if you listen carefully).
7) Mr. Albrecht errs in suggesting that the Latin word for Spiritual ever means or implies, in Augustine, "corporeal presence" - quite the opposite.
8) Mr. Albrecht still does not seem to "get" that statements like "after the consecreation the bread is [or becomes] the Body of Christ" is something that is consistent with not only the view of transubstantiation, but also with the Reformed view (real spiritual presence) and even the bare symbolic view (which is why I would never try to base my argument on such passages of Augustine if I were disputing this matter with a person who holds to the odd and incorrect position that Augustine held to a bare symbolic view).
9) Albrecht had said: "The great Augustine can no longer be twisted into a pretzel because TurretinFan has run out of ways to rip him apart. Perhaps he'll resort to taking quotes away from him or mutilating what Augustine says, such as his boss Mr. [sic] White has done to advance his theological views in the past." I note that although this is untrue and analogically inconsistent (the metaphors of "twist[ing] into a pretzel" and "rip[ping] apart" are incompatible physically), nevetheless the quotation provides an illustration of the fact that somewhere deep inside Albrecht recognizes that people can use figurative language, although he does not seem to want to let Christ and/or Augustine do so, when it is necessary to press them into service for his church.
10) Mr. Albrecht claims that there are "hundreds of thousands of denominations" - a number so wildly inflated it makes the usual, grossly inflated claim of 33,000 denominations seem almost truthful (for more on the 33,000 denominations myth, see the following website (link)).
11) Mr. Albrecht, in wrapping up, seems still to be a bit sore about his friend Mr. Steve Ray and himself getting busted for citing Pseudo-Athanasius as though it were Athanasius.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
False Ecumenicism
In this discussion, our undercover correspondent discusses false ecumenicism with someone who tries, initially, to claim that he is not interested in making converts.
(direct link to video)
-TurretinFan
(direct link to video)
-TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
