All the Evidence Against Ergun Caner Compiled

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-ergun-caner-affair-one-collation-of.html

Cashing in on 9/11

I was thinking a bit more about the Caner scandal. At one level, there is Caner's generic fraud. That's bad enough. But there are aggravating factors.

Because the 9/11 attack was a dozen years ago, it fades from consciousness for most of us–except for those they left behind. But I think back on some of the images. Widowed spouses. Orphaned children. Stranded office-workers diving to their death from fiery skyscrapers–choosing instant death over burning alive. Cars in park-and-rides waiting for murdered office-workers who never return to drive them home. Pentagon employees frantically digging through rubble in search of survivors.

And along comes Ergun Caner to cash in on this tragedy. For him, this is a career opportunity. He's like a grifter posing as an insurance adjuster after a natural disaster. 

In addition, given the fact that he has a Muslim background–even though he was never the devoutly observant Muslim, much less jihadist in training, that he made himself out to be–he of all people ought to respect the significance of this tragedy rather than exploit it for ill-gotten gain. How dare he speak before American audiences, bilking his scam for all it's worth.

But one of life's ironies in a fallen world is how often the wicked have diehard friends while a righteous man may be deserted in his extremity.  

See no evil

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://sbcvoices.com/its-none-of-my-business/

First off, there's the irony (hypocrisy?) of someone who does a post entitled "It's NONE of My Business." Ironic because he's making it his business to tell others what is not their business. 

But I am convinced that much of it is more playing the busybody than the noble voice of righteousness. 

Yet he has publicly inserted himself into the middle of this very debate. It's okay for him to play the busybody. 

Caner and I are not part of the same church. None of my offerings are going to support him or Brewton-Parker College. We are not part of the state convention. Our only connection is that we are part of the same association of autonomous, voluntarily-connected local churches known as the Southern Baptist Convention.

They belong to the same denomination. Caner has a corporate identity as well as an individual identity. He's a Southern Baptist. Moreover, he's now a high-profile representative of the SBC. 

It's perfectly appropriate for other Southern Baptists to publicly distance themselves from him. To disassociate themselves from him. To say, "He doesn't represent what we represent. He doesn't speak for us. "

Moreover, that would be appropriate even if you and he didn't belong to the same denomination. To the extent that he's a well-known spokesman for the Christian faith, other Christians are entitled to say, "He's not my representative. I didn't authorize him to speak on my behalf. Don't judge my faith by his antics!"

Do I have authority over Ergun Caner, or is he in authority over me? Nope. Not in the slightest. Therefore, I do not believe that a public rebuke of him is either my duty or my right.

Why cast the issue in terms of authority rather than right and wrong? Why does Miller assume you need a special right to speak the truth or point out that someone is in the wrong? Why must you be in a position of authority over someone else to say what they are doing is wrong…if it fact it's wrong? 

People confront Caner about his background stories less because they are concerned about his background and more as a result of his harsh treatment of Calvinists and Calvinism. I would also say (to be an equal opportunity offender) that many have defended him for the same reason – they supported his attacks on Calvinism!

In some cases that's true. But that's a hasty generalization. 

But  Paul told us to leave wrath in the hands of God and not to attempt to bring vengeance and justice on our own.

That trivializes the concept of vengeance. In Scripture, prohibitions against personal vengeance are intended to forestall blood feuds or lynch law. 

By Miller's logic, there is no place for church discipline. 

Is there not some value in private instead of public rebuke? I know that many have argued (convincingly to me) that Matthew 18:15 does not directly apply to blogging…I think the same principle works for personal conflict. 

That contradicts his earlier contention:

Do I have a relationship with Ergun Caner? No. Never met him. Never exchanged a word, even an online word, with him. He and I are not in the same church or association.

Either he has a personal relationship with Caner, in which case Mt 18:15 is applicable–or else he has no personal relationship with Caner, in which case Mt 18:18 is inapplicable. Once again, Miller is trying to have it both ways.

Libertine moralists

Based on rumors that Ergun Caner may be a candidate for the presidency of another SBC educational institution, Jared Moore and Mark Lamprecht have been attempting to forestall that eventuality by reminding people of Caner's past transgressions, for which he remains evasive, impenitent, and even defiant. Moore and Lamprecht are simply endeavoring to maintain minimal standards of ethical purity in a Christian denomination to which they belong. 

To my knowledge, Cancer decided to cash in on 9/11 fervor by recasting himself as a jihadist who converted to Christ. It was a smart career move while it lasted. But from what I've read, critics like James White and Turretinfan have produced stacks of evidence implicating Caner in a scam to reinvent his past. 

And it isn't just outside critics. The fact that Liberty U eased him out, despite the institutional incentive to put the best face on the situation, is independent corroboration.

However, Peter Lumpkins has, once again, been running interference for Caner. Here's what's striking. Lumpkins is a classic example of a legalist and moralist when it comes to teetotalism, but an antinomian libertine when it comes to a genuine ethical issue like Caner's résumé inflation. 

The Pharisees forbad what Scripture permits or prescribes while they permitted or prescribed what Scripture forbids. 

Lumpkins is a modern-day Pharisee. On the one hand, Scripture permits (even praises) moderate alcohol consumption. Conversely, it condemns the kind of blatant, massive fraud that Caner stands accused of. On the other hand, Lumpkins invents a nonexistent virtue (teetotalism) while condemning a nonexistent vice (moderate alcohol consummation). Conversely, he defends genuine wrongdoing. 

Where's the standard of holiness? 

Copyright for me but not for thee

On the one hand:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/06/03/youtube-joins-in-the-great-evangelical-cover-up/

On the other hand:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/09/27/my-monday-schedule-dmca-and-youtube/

Ergun Caner Still Ignorant of Islam

Ergun Caner's Attempt to Cover Up His Deception Against the Marines

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2013/06/blogger-files-grievance-with-texas-bar.html

Is Caner scared the government will prosecute him for his treachery against the U.S. government? He has every reason to be.
 

Ergun "Pinocchio" Caner

Consistency

Since evidently Peter Lumpkins has not permitted my comment to display on his blog, I will post it here:

Dave Armstrong said:

If White would ever simply say he's sorry (as Peter noted), and messed up (like all of us have many times, being mere sinful mortals), this thing could be so over, and he would gain a lot of people's respect for such an acknowledgment.

Hey Dave,

While you're calling protestant apologists to admit their errors, do you have a similar call to repentance for Ergun Caner?

Thanks,
Evan

A Dividing Line You Should Listen To

I think a lot of our readers follow James White's blog and at least occasionally listen to his webcast. For those who don't follow the blog or missed the most recent webcast for some reason, I highly recommend listening to it. You can read a brief and incomplete overview of the program on the page I just linked. But some of the most significant information isn't discussed until near the end of the program, and it isn't mentioned on the page I just referenced. Listen to the whole thing. It's instructive on so many points. It not only further illustrates the problems with Ergun Caner and his ministry, but also says a lot about modern American politics and those who are closely associated with our political system. When people think of political corruption, they often think of things like sex and money. What's worse is the sort of theological corruption that's so widespread today, including in conservative Republican circles. The false priorities, theological ignorance, apathy, religious pluralism, and lack of discernment, among other problems, are appalling. James White emphasized the problems with Caner and those closely associated with him, like Norman Geisler, but I would add that there are so many negative implications for other contexts as well. This incident is yet another illustration of the corruption of our society and political system in general and how unreliable even many conservative politicians and pundits are.

Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner, Ergun Caner

"I don't know about you, but could it get any weirder? I mean, you have people running around the web pulling down conference talks and sermons, while at the same time some organization of non-English speakers is posting nonsense articles in praise of Ergun Caner as a "renowned" theologian. All while Caner continues his silence, and his critics ignore the real issues (while engaging in the politics of personal destruction). Simply amazing." Click here for more on Ergun Caner's phantom persona.

p.s. This most recent episode of Ergun Caner attempting to collect all the feathers from a burst down pillow on a windy day is reminiscent of when Caner had 32 publicity glamor shots on his website.

The Ergun Caner Debacle and the Gullibility of Evangelicals

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has written a timely piece on the Ergun Caner scandal titled, "Evangelical Bunko Artists: How I learned the Hard Way that Pious Gullibility is No Virtue."

Given what has occurred with the ongoing saga surrounding Dr. Ergun Caner, former president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, I, as an elder of a small church in Greensboro, NC am weary of hearing about the lies and deception that occur in broader Evangelicalism. For the uninitiated, I'll recap Dr. Ergun Caner's scandal in one sentence: it involves fabricating an entire portion of his life that never happened and repeating that lie over and over and over again behind dozens of pulpits and in other apologetic contexts in order to give chutzpah to his current apologetic "ministry". Scandals, cover-ups, and perpetual liars like this are one of the many reasons why I and other pastors like me have no desire to be associated with present-day broader evangelicalism. Reformed and Sovereign Grace Baptists might be a small group, but at least we strive to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and if we do have a habitual, unrepentant liar in our midst, we follow Scripture in dealing with him or her. But of course, disciplining unrepentant, habitual liars doesn't do well in building huge congregations; which explains why our churches typically average less than 100 congregants (including children and visitors) on any given Sunday. When you follow Biblical protocols for handling unrepentant sin, it doesn't leave much room in the congregation for professing Christians living in habitual, unrepentant sin.

As Johnson points out in his article, evangelicalism and fundamentalism has a sordid history of "snake oil peddlers" including Linda Davidson Stafford, John Todd, Mike Warnke, Alberto Rivera, Bob Larson, and Ted Haggard and even though these folks have been publicly discredited as deceivers, people still follow them. But why do people continue to follow them? 2 Timothy 4:3-4 answers this question:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Timothy says that for whatever reason, some people want to turn aside to myth-makers because it fits with their own desires. Men that ought to know better will even go so far as to"exhonerate" liars and even post an endorsement sheet that further confirms the liar in his sin and undermines the credibility of the person(s) "exonerating" them. After all, if acclaimed apologists are willing to conveniently ignore critical information in order to protect a "brother's" reputation, yet they would be quick to condemn the same behavior in an opponent of Christianity and possibly even use it to further support their apologetic arguments against an unbeliever, why then should an unbeliever take seriously anything they have to say in defense of the faith?

I've seen this kind of thing many times while explaining the false prophecies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to a Jehovah's Witness. Many of them have admitted when showing them photocopies of their own documents that they have studied the same documents in their Kingdom Hall libraries. They come up with every rescuing device in the world to explain how such blatant false prophecies don't undermine "the organization". It's a shame when evangelical apologists do the same thing. We ought to do more for the truth than what the cults are willing to do for a lie.

Sadly, the gullible and self-deceived follow liars that arise "from among our own selves" (Acts 20:30) because they want the myth-makers to tell them something exciting, sensational, and mysterious, especially if the deceiver can play a tune on their heart strings. Worse, they'd rather have an unrepentant sinner for a spiritual leader rather than a godly man because the sinner makes them feel justified in their own sin. After all, if Ted Haggard can have a homosexual affair and he's been "exhonerated" in some sense, then why can't I? I'm sad to say that Ergun Caner is simply another snake-oil myth maker and people are buying and promoting his "goods" in spite of the fact that he has been publicly discredited.

In spite of the documented fabrication about his past Jihadi training as a child in his own words, Ergun Caner, has been "exhonerated" by the likes of apologists Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. John Ankerberg even though he was asked to step down from his position as Dean of Liberty Seminary. I'm not up for crucifying anyone, but given his blatant lies, it is my opinion that Dr. Caner should have been fired on the spot and his church should publicly call for his repentance per Matthew 18:15-17. All Drs. Geisler and Ankerberg are doing is further confirming and enabling Caner in his sin and discrediting their own work by supporting an unrepentant liar.

With its emphasis on decisional regeneration combined with a shopping mall/market-driven pragmatism of "doing church", modern evangelicalism has created this mess because it has filled the pews and pulpits with false converts. Yes, I just clearly suggested what other men have been cautious to say, Dr. Ergun Caner's lack of repentance is the mark of a false convert. If any reader of this blog wants to challenge me on that statement, then go ahead. However, if you want to contend that he's a Christian brother given his perpetual lying combined with his lack of repentance in light of his unwillingness to answer clear, unambiguous questions that have been asked of him, then I leave you to your opinion. It's not as if he hasn't been given space to repent after the issues have been clearly laid out before him. So go ahead; defend the defenseless. And yes, I do hope that I'm wrong about Caner's spiritual condition. Believe me, I do not enjoy writing about such things; but given the current state of this scandal, what am I left to think, especially light of what God says about men that continually behave this way? (1 John 3:8-10)

So, when you see the debacles, scandals, scams, and snake-oil peddlers; just remember that pseudo-Christian cults aren't the only unpaid bills of the church.

President of Liberty Theological Seminary Found Incompetent Explaining the Rudiments of the Trinity

Update: James White corrects Ergun Caner on the Trinity: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3876

"Ergun Caner is the president of a theological seminary. He claims to be a former Muslim, to debate Muslims on university and college campuses literally all around the world. He is the head of the Global Apologetics program at Liberty. Global apologetics. Think of it. So here is an associate pastor at what seems to be a pretty rural little Oneness Pentecostal church asking one of the most basic questions you can ever field on the topic of the Trinity. This is the one, single time Caner had to try to present the orthodox position on anything in this interview (I refuse to call it a debate: words have meanings). The resultant flood of incoherent verbiage is simply shocking. Not only does he contradict himself, he clearly diminishes the concept of sonship to a merely incarnational term. I cannot possibly imagine how anyone can make heads or tails out of his response, and surely, the Oneness folks could not. And oh, what must the Liberty students have been thinking? Finally their great champion steps forward after all this time to present the truth and...what happens?" Read the Entirety here.

Tabula Predestinationis Bezae Contra Canerum et Pattersonum et Vineum

Tabula Predestinationis Bezae Contra Canerum et Pattersonum et Vineum

“Calvinism was altered by Beza.”

“Beza made predestination the head of all doctrine.”

“We disagree with the Bezian/Dortian system.”

“I disagree with your Bezian presuppositions.”

“Calvin may not have been/was not a Calvinist.”

All of these remarks have appeared in recent statements made by Ergun Caner, Paige Patterson, and/or Jerry Vines in the past year. They frequently appear in anti-Calvinist sermons. Given that most of my Baptist brethren are unfamiliar with Theodore Beza in particular, these statements require some response; but my brethren are probably too unfamiliar with the material to respond. In my portion of this series for SBF, I would like to focus on the historical – theological claims being made, as they are all, in my opinion, “working from the same script.”

I want to be clear, my presentation is not about the merit of Beza’s theology or everything he wrote, nor the merits of the theology of Drs. Caner, Vines, or Patterson. Rather, I am confining my remarks to the historical claims being made by these persons with respect to the development of Reformed theology.

Let me begin by pointing out that all theology develops in some manner. The Apostle’s Creed did not fall from the sky by the hands of angels, nor did the Creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon or any historic confession. Frequently, theology has been written in dialogue with that which is considered schismatic. Scripture is the raw material of which good theology is made, but the form of the articulation develops in response to the needs of the day. For example, you will not find a 19^th century theologian interacting with the arguments put forth by Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd, because Open Theism was not on the table when John L. Dagg, James A. Boyce, and the Hodges were writing theology. Today, you’ll find theology texts that make a point to interact with Open Theism.

Second, this discussion will intersect with the phenomenon known as “Protestant Scholasticism.” The reigning theological method from the twelfth century through the late seventeenth century was known as scholasticism with the interregnum of the Reformation being strongly influenced by Renaissance humanism. Humanism drew men back to the original sources; and the original sources, the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible, served as the basis for a form of exegesis that challenged many of the doctrines that dominated the late medieval church. The 1550s, however, left Protestant scholars with the challenge of teaching theology in newly formed academies. These theologians had the responsibility of systematizing the exegetical theology of such founding figures as Luther and Calvin. They resorted to the method of teaching systematic theology-scholasticism-that they themselves had learned as students. This new Protestant scholasticism retained the same method used in the Roman Catholic schools, but adopted the doctrinal norms of the Reformation.

Historians have traditionally viewed the post-Reformation dogmaticians as rigid and inflexible, advocating a dead dogmatism that obscured the vital Christocentric approach of the early reformers. This approach has focused on the discontinuity between the Reformation and post-Reformation era and finds its roots in the nineteenth century dogmaticians such as Heinrich Heppe who argued that predestination served as the central and controlling doctrine in the theological systems of such important post-Reformation figures as Theodora Beza. Beza placed predestination at the beginning of his Tabula Praedestationes, before his discussion of the doctrines of creation and salvation. This organizational change from Calvin's positioning of the topic led, allegedly, to a rigid system controlled by the divine decrees. Such terms as "speculative" or "rigid" were pejorative when compared to the adjectives such as "vital" or "Christocentric" applied to the writings of Luther and Calvin.[i] I will contend that Drs. Caner, Patterson, et. al., are merely repeating these often cited and clichéd remarks, and, in so doing, are ignoring the source documents themselves. Thus, their case is vastly overstated.

The thesis that Beza’s Tabula is a system or prospectus for a system begins not in antiquity, but in the 19^th century, with Heppe. William Cunningham’s work published in 1862, one year after his death, dealt with this directly in chapter seven[ii], so it is not as if there was no response to this thesis from the time it was first put forth. One wonders if Dr. Caner, for one, has ever bothered to read it. In the 19^th century, historians and theologians were greatly concerned with identifying what they believed to be a unifying theme in theology, which they alleged formed the central theme of the theologies they critiqued. Some of their claims have proven to have more merit than others. For example, the claim that Arminianism is largely organized around libertarian free will is a claim that Arminians themselves have readily admitted. Our concern here is to examine the Tabula and see for ourselves if, as Dr. Caner in particular has asserted, Beza made predestination the head of all doctrine in a manner that deeply affected the development of Reformed theology, particularly in a manner that differed with Calvin substantially.

Who was Beza?

Theodore Beza, in Reformed theology, stands in relation to Calvin much the way that Melancthon stands in relation to Luther among the Lutherans. It should also go without saying that Calvin does not function for the Reformed the way that Luther functions for Lutherans. At the time the Tabula was written, Calvin was still living. Even if there were to be found some discrepancy between Beza and Calvin, Calvin is merely the name of the theological leader of the most successful Reformed community of the Magisterial Reformation, Geneva, but he was a contemporary of Haller, Bullinger, Beza, Bucer, and the French Reformers. His name is not invoked because his theological thoughts are considered of special status beyond the others. Likewise, much of Calvin can be found in the work of Bucer independently of Calvin and even Gottschalk many centuries prior.

There is no documentary evidence of tension between Calvin and Beza. Beza served as Calvin's ambassador to some of the most important colloquies etc from 1557-63, even before Beza came to Geneva. Beza was defending Calvin against Bolsec in the mid fifties already. Beza was Calvin's most trusted advisor. He succeeded Calvin as the president of the company of pastors until 1580. Neither is there any evidence that Calvin rejected Beza's formulations. was not shy about criticizing those whom he believed to have erred seriously, and Beza wrote the Tabula in direct dialogue with Calvin. A priori rationalism? I deny this charge as well for Beza. He was and remained a great humanist[iii] scholar who didn't begin publishing theology until the mid 1550's (when he was in his early 30's). He was quite adept at reading texts in context and interpreting them according to their intent, and he supplied exegetical arguments for his theology. His theology was inductive. Hence, he derived his doctrine of predestination from Scripture, not natural theology, not “a priori rationalism.” Remember, he lectured on the Greek New Testament for ten years before he ever came to Geneva.

The Tabula was published in 1555, in the context of the Bolsec Controversy. He was not directly involved in the proceedings between Calvin and Bolsec, but he was Calvin’s ally, and Calvin averred to the literary skill of Beza in the course of the debates. During the debate, Beza corresponded on the topic, as he wrote his Tabula between 1551-55, and we possess documentation that he corresponded with Bullinger, Calvin, Vermigli, and Haller. The Tabula was thus composed with the Bolsec Controversy as a backdrop between 1551 and 1555 and published at the time of the final discussions with the Bernese.

Given this correspondence, it is difficult to see how Beza said anything that “changed” Reformed doctrine and of which his contemporaries would have disapproved. Peter Martyr Vermigli’s correspondence shows praise of Beza’s work. Beza also interacted with Calvin concerning Calvin’s own Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, and, along with Bullinger, showed concerns that Calvin’s tendency to index his responses to Pighius’ work itself by taking Pighius’ form was wont to provide a fully orbed response. Beza also took pains to edit his own work to bring out Scriptural proofs and specific refutations into a proper order. The reason, therefore, that there appears to be a discrepancy between Calvin and Beza in their ordering of their thinking is that Calvin had a particular foil in mind, Pighius, and he pegged his responses to Pighius’ work. Calvin was also a pastor and wrote with an understanding of how the “average person,” particularly the person who did not believe or understand the Reformed view of the doctrine of election should learn it. Beza, by way of contrast, wanted to give what he believed to be a more comprehensive and organized methodological response to a different foil, Bolsec, and, as we shall see, Calvin’s own work licensed Beza to do this..

Bolsec had accused Reformed theology of “making God the Author of Sin” (sound familiar?). His overall views reflect the synergism of medieval theology. Calvin had little to say to Bolsec at this time, because he had said much to Pighius in response already. Also, compared to Pighius, Bolsec had the appearance of a dilettante.

Bolsec was a Thomist, and he followed Aquinas in asserting that predestination is first to grace and then glory. The Reformed, in contrast, asserted that predestination is to glory first then grace. The former is a synergistic construction when applied to soteriology; the latter is monergistic. That is, Bolsec affirmed that election is grounded with a view to those who would obey the gospel (e.g. foreseen faith/perseverance) and reprobation is grounded toward the rebellion of the others.

Bolsec also said we should appeal to faith and election together. Norman Geisler today, also a Thomist, has made virtually the same statements in his Chosen But Free. Bolsec essentially put forth the notion that, because there is not past, present, or future with God, rather, due to God’s timelessness, He knows all thing in one single eternal decree by way of “eternal simultaneity,” election and faith are thus to be considered simultaneous. This was the gist of Pighius’ view as well.

Aside from the fact that this construction becomes functionally meaningless when Geisler and his Reformation counterparts employed it, because they invariably come back to saying election is based on foreseen faith, this fails to make some elementary distinctions. The order of which we speak is not temporal; it is logical. The Reformed then, and today, believed that this was not a difficult thing to understand, and, in fact, little children could grasp it.

For starters, God does have a concept of cause and effect in that logic is an attribute of God's mind. He does understand that in order for x to occur as a concrete instance of what is in his mind, y must come to pass. It's an ends-means relation. We understand cause and effect and the antecedence of x to y; ergo God does too, or else we have no ground for the logical process. God also grounds the passage of time in His creation. His own Word recognizes that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. The very terms "in the beginning" and "before the foundation of the world," are about a cause-effect relation and a logical relation. God does exist outside of time, but that also means He orders and grounds time.

Bolsec (and Geisler) are conflating ontology and teleology. The timelessness of God does not mean there is no teleological order to His attributes or the working of His mind. Ontologically, God is unaffected by relational sequence as to His person, but He is conscious of sequential duration, because sequential duration is a part of the ordering of his decree, which reflects the order of his mind. We know this because we have a sense of past, present, and future that, because it exists and will exist, is grounded by His mind. For God, all of these are internally intuited and not arrived at chronologically through a process, but the concept or idea of durational sequence or succession is a distinct epistemological, not ontological category. God knows all our thoughts and actions in the past, present, and future, and at the same time knows His own thoughts and actions in relation to each other and to our own and in what order. Thus, He can inspire Paul to say, "He chose before He created." He knows that He created the sea and dry land before He created birds and fish and animals and man.

What’s more, even without these considerations, as the Reformed have consistently stated since before the rise of Arminianism, there is no text of Scripture that says that election is based on foreseen faith; that theological construction in Arminianism and medieval synergism is derived not from Scripture but from Thomism; and Arminius’ own objections to unconditional election reflect the same objections from the same sources, not Scripture. Likewise, just as our modern critics, Bolsec confused primary and secondary causality, and Beza’s Tabula, as had Calvin’s responses to Pighius’ discussed this at length, since this failure to discriminate between the order of being and the order of knowing spills over into the failure to discriminate between distant and proximate causes and the modality in which decrees are seen to be executed, as well as the distinctions between necessary and sufficient conditions within Reformed Theology.

A concrete example would be something like this: Election is unconditional in the sense that human merit (or responsiveness) is not a necessary or sufficient condition of election. God does not choose according to human merit (or responsiveness). By contrast, demerit is a necessary, but insufficient, condition of reprobation. It is insufficient inasmuch as everyone is sinful, so God does not damn anyone for that reason alone—otherwise, everyone would be damned. It is, however, a necessary condition, for God doesn’t damn the innocent, but the guilty.

Put another way, a decree makes a thing certain, but it does not, in itself execute the result. Decrees are necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. Election is a necessary condition of election, but a man must believe. Election is executed by a positive intervention of God by the effectual call and the Word of God. The Holy Spirit uses this instrumentality to regenerate the heart of man, and he believes and repents. He is converted and justified. Thus, election requires calling, and it is this work that God does that is sufficient as a condition to effectuate the decree of election and cause a person to believe and repent, thereby satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of salvation (from our perspective), since justifying faith is not alone and will continue by perseverance to the end, by the preserving power of the means of grace, the Word of God, the mortification of sin, all by the grace of God Himself working in that person.

Reprobation as the decree is the flip-side of election, finding its ground in God not demerit. Bolsec conflated reprobation and damnation (just like Drs. Caner and Vines and the other anti-Calvinists). It’s true, as a decree, it can be construed as “unconditional” finding its terminus in God’s will alone apart from demerit, but as preterition, all the reprobate are simply passed over in their sins, in this secondary sense, related to the cause of damnation, so the relation is not symmetrical as to its execution. When Scripture speaks of the hardening of the heart, very often it is speaking of men who have seen plain and otherwise incontrovertible evidence from their experience of miracles, hearing the message, and study of Scripture (as the Pharisees of Jesus’ day or Pharaoh or even Judas Iscariot). In that event, this hardening proceeds as a temporal judgment for sin, since God can begin exacting judgment on such sin before a man dies.

Using Bolsec’s charge that Reformed theology “makes God the Author of Sin,” we can then see the problem is not only a conflation of ontology and teleology relative to election and reprobation and the consequent conflation of reprobation/preterition and damnation, but a conflation of necessary and sufficient conditions. These failures are symptomatic of a larger failure, namely the confusion of cause and effect, which we often lay at the feet of unbelievers, particularly atheists and evolutionists.

God is the author of evil, in the sense that He is first cause of all things. This simply goes with the pay grade. His decrees, through either action or inaction render events necessary, but, evil is the result of effacious permission, not His direct causation, or a result of His judicial hardening of sinners, an act of justice Scripture supports repeatedly, as in Romans 9 and in Romans 1. Nothing happens that compels a man or demon to act in a way it does not wish to act or against its nature. He may withhold constraining grace, as in the fall, in order to render a thing certain, but the agent of the evil, in this case Adam simply acts in accordance with his nature as a second cause, for reasons and motives sufficient for himself and arising from his own nature. Men thus do what God decrees, but for motives all their own. In so doing, they may incur judgment. In this way men act as infallibly as if they had no liberty, yet as freely as if there was no decree rendering their acts certain. See, for example, the predestination of Judas betrayal and Jesus crucifixion. These men did, with evil desires, what God desired and planned to happen since before creation, for Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world itself. The point here is the responsibility is a necessary, but insufficient condition for moral blame. The blame lies not with the distant or primary cause, but the close or proximate cause of an act, for he/she complies with the sovereign decree of God while hating God, and/or His people in the process. Judas was predestined to betray Christ, but he did not betray Christ because He loved Him and wanted to ensure that He would die for the sins of His people. He betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver, and had even been pilfering the purse during Jesus’ ministry.

Beza agreed on the distinction between God’s decree and its execution, largely mirroring the logical distinctions between a necessary and sufficient condition. He did this because this is what he saw in Scripture. Calvin himself had already used these distinctions in his commentary on Ephesians and his commentaries on Romans and John. He had also discussed them in the Institutes.[iv] Beza appears not to change Calvin, but to follow Calvin in his way of expressing these distinctions.

He may also have taken up this issue in response to discussions among the Swiss Reformed in which they expressed concerns about reprobation and damnation. Were they one and the same? Sampaulier and others not only insisted that reprobation laid on foreknowledge of the fall but they also collapsed reprobation and damnation. Beza responded by distinguishing between issues of order and of temporal priority. This is in line with distinguishing between reprobation and damnation and primary and secondary causality. The bulk of the Reformed confessions have followed this same distinction, with the exception of the Second Helvetic Confession, though it does not ground reprobation as a decree in the foreknowledge of the fall. Beza saw Bolsec’s objections for what they were, medieval Thomism and medieval synergism.

Bolsec and Bullinger did share a common distaste for the possibility of a symmetrical modality in the execution of the decree of election and it’s flip side, reprobation in both Calvin and Beza. That debate would remain within Reformed theology to the present in the discussions between supralapsarians and infralapsarians of the following eras, which we will take up in a subsequent article in this series.

The Tabula Itself

Contrary to critics, Beza opens not with his own words but the words of Augustine. He wished to begin by asserting that predestination is a very delicate topic, but it was important to consider, because it is a biblical doctrine and a doctrine that should draw men’s attention to the contemplation of the majesty and glory of God and His grace and not themselves.

Beza is careful to show that God’s glory is not an end to itself, relative to the teaching function of the Tabula. Rather, his concern is soteriological and Christological. Indeed the Tabula addresses only two doctrines: predestination and Christology.

Bolsec said that both election and reprobation must be grounded in human choice, ergo the decree was dependent upon human choice, not antecedent to these considerations. Beza immediately saw this for what it was, nothing less than the synergism of Romanism. More importantly, it was exegetically untenable. Beza also sought to point out that God’s willing all things does not mean that God wills all things in the same manner. Bolsec’s contemporaries today fail to make these same distinctions.

Beza’s Method

Ergun Caner has repeatedly stated that Beza “made predestination the head of all doctrine,” as if Beza began with this assumed presupposition and then proceeded to teach all theology around it, and that this is somehow at variance with Calvin’s own views. We will now, therefore, move to a discussion of this order within the Tabula.

Bolsec had demanded not to be answered with vain similitudes but Scripture. Beza agreed, and, as if anticipating his critics today, included an extended list of Scripture proofs. He was, after all, an exegete. It is from this exegesis that he derived his theology.

As to order, Calvin followed an a posteriori, teleological (order of knowing) order, in his Institutes, reasoning pastorally, that we should reason from the secondary causes which we know and see to the primary causes, which we do not obviously know or see. Beza chose, however, to follow an a priori, ontological (order of being) order. Positioned in this fashion, predestination/election would appear in a text not under the header of soteriology[v], but under the header of Theology Proper.[vi] If the teleological order is followed, the reverse is true, and you find predestination/election under soteriology. This would indicate we are to examine predestination not ontologically by the order of decrees, but by the examination of our faith.

It is likely, in my opinion, that Dr. Caner and our modern critics, including some Amyraldians, play on this to insinuate that if we approach the matter ontologically, we are using a “decretal grid,” (even imposing it on Scripture) and buying into the tendency of hyper-Calvinism when, in its evangelism, it tells folks they need a warrant to believe based on some sort of subjective sense that they are elect by God’s decree. (These are, of course, the same folks who insist that general atonement must underwrite the general call, so they are the ones who are looking for warrants to believe, not us, but I digress). What’s more, Beza was a supralapsarian. So, if you are or are perceived to be a supralapsarian (either classical or modified), they will accuse you of hyper-Calvinism. Do you see, now, how all of these assertions go together? These accusations are all rooted, in my opinion, in their misreading of Beza, and it makes me wonder if they have ever bothered to read Beza for his own merits. Moreover, if there was a discrepancy with Calvin, why was Bullinger concerned that Calvin’s views, not just Beza’s, could be construed to result in equal ultimacy (that is, a symmetrical execution of both election and reprobation)?

Calvin had already told Bolsec that God’s will is the supreme cause and necessity of all things.[vii] In The Eternal Predestination of God, Calvin has stated that election precedes faith by the divine order, but the individual sees not the decree but the effect of it, which is his faith[viii], and in the Institutes, he said that although the initial understanding of election must follow the teleological order, the ontological order must also be taught and confessed in order to keep believers from being mislead by an exclusive emphasis on the effects of God’s will. He wrote:

If we try to penetrate to God’s eternal ordination, that deep abyss will swallow us up. But when God has made plain His ordination to us, we must climb higher, lest the effect overwhelm the cause. For when Scripture teaches that we are illumined according as God has chosen us, what is more absurd and unworthy than for our eyes to be so dazzled by the brilliance of this light as to refuse to be mindful of election?[ix]

Beza’s Tabula presents the ontological order in its chart. He chose this order, therefore, because he is presenting this component of theological education and wanted to respond to Bolsec’s failure to discriminate between primary and secondary causality and the order of being and the order of knowing. The Tabula was written to supply the very referent Calvin had noted should be taught and confessed.

Beza’s own explanation is that believers do not learn of election by following the chart from top to bottom (the order of being he presents) but from the bottom up (as Calvin stated).[x] He also wrote that “unless there is some significant reason to do otherwise believers should ascend from the lowest degrees up to the highest.”[xi] What is his warrant for this? Is it “rationalism?” No, it is Scripture, for he cites that this is precisely Paul’s order in Romans. Paul begins with the depravity of man, justification by faith, sanctification, and then proceeds to predestination and election and reprobation. Beza said that this is the Pauline order and the order to be followed.[xii] Further, he even said that “this is the order for all theology.”[xiii] Thus, Beza did not view the order of the Tabula to be the primary order of theological investigation as a whole within the Reformed tradition, as Dr. Caner has insinuated!

In 1559, Calvin restructured the Institutes by moving the doctrine of providence from its a posteriori location with predestination and placing it in the a priori position, in the doctrine of God. Much has been made of this. The common allegation is that Calvin removed predestination (not providence) from its usual placement in the doctrine of God and positioned it in soteriology, but it had been there since 1539! Beza’s Tabula was written in 1555, four years before the restructuring. There is no record of Calvin disagreeing with Beza’s work or his order. Beza’s ordering simply takes what Calvin said about the ordering and teaching seriously, and he fills in the material that Calvin stated was to be confessed and learned.

Is the Tabula a prospectus for an entire theology or a method for teaching theology? As we have already seen, with respect to method, Beza did not believe this was the case with respect to the method. It is also not readily apparent that he intended it to be a prospectus for a systematic theology. Aside from predestination, the only other topic that is greatly developed is Christology. He presents no methodological system whatsoever.

Like Calvin who viewed Christ as the mirror of election, Beza, in chapter 2 declared predestination the primary source and foundation of salvation; then in chapter 4, he built his Christology around the idea that we cannot rest merely on the fruits of faith but on Christ Himself, as the ground and assurance or rest. There is, in his view, no eternal decree of predestination apart from Christ. The center of Beza’s theology is, therefore, not predestination, but Christ. Christ stands over predestination, all predestination is “in Christ,” and “there can be no enactment or execution of election apart from Christ, in whom the divine Word is Incarnate.[xiv] This is wholly in line with Calvin’s Christology and his doctrine of predestination as well.

In conclusion, in this brief treatment, we have now examined the Tabula, and we have found the claims of Drs. Caner, Patterson, and others without merit. They should jettison this clichéd and trite portion of their script. Alternatively, rather than producing sound bite responses in their lectures or their responses to James White[xv] about “Bezian presuppositions,” they should produce their own treatment of the material to substantiate their claims. It is easy to misrepresent dead men or to repeat one hundred and fifty years of criticism uncritically; it is easy to feed a flock that is not familiar with the material those sound bites, but it is quite another to actually interact with men like Richard Muller, R. Scott Clark, William Cunningham (in the 19^th century no less!), Carl Trueman, John L. Farthing, Jeffrey Mallinson, and scores of others going back before the 60’s to Paul Oscar Kristeller . It has sometimes been asked, when we Reformed / Sovereign Grace Baptists respond to these claims, why we appeal to Paedobaptist theologians and historians. We do it, because our own Baptist theologians have become too indolent and they have long neglected the study of this period of history and have, instead, relied on the likes of Heinrich Heppe, Kickel, Armstrong, and Bray to do the work for them. They also have a tendency, perhaps as a reflection of the ecclesiastical battles with Paedobaptists in the 19^th century, to concentrate on Baptist history, but we do not live in a theological or a historical vacuum chamber.

One more thing...as if to anticipate his modern Baptist critics, Beza, humanist and exegete that he was, obliged us with extended lists of proofs from the Word of God in direct response to Bolsec, who requested it.[xvi] As always, for the Reformed, Sola Scriptura and ad fontes[xvii] were the basis of his writing. The same view emerges in his little Confession of Faith or his little Catechism (Q/A). He is Christ-centered, pastoral, and a theologian who is conscious of the attributes of God relative to Christology. He does not even address them until he gets to Christology. I would suggest reading Richard Muller’s, Christ and the Decree, 1988.

The Tabula is not a prospectus for all of theology; nor is it out of synch with Calvin, nor is it grounded in some sort of rationalistic scholastic method. Rather, it represents a movement toward a confessional structure that is rooted in the exegesis of Scripture. It does make logical distinctions, but they are made where he believed Scripture warrants their making. Exegesis laid at the based of the Tabula, just as it lays at the base of Reformed Theology and its confessions. If it is to be argued that his approach is “scholastic” and “rationalistic” one need only look at what the critics of Reformed Theology were saying in that age themselves, for they certainly borrowed heavily from Thomas Aquinas in particular. To call attention to this method is for the critic both then and now to call attention, whether he realizes it or not, to his own. It is certainly time for the anti-Calvinists to stop making Theodore Beza their whipping boy. It would make for a much more effective presentation by the critics if they would actually produce some original research, instead of repeating trite clichés that crumble upon close examination. Let’s see Ergun and Emir Caner, who both are supposed to be professors of history and theology, interact with the materials on this subject produced by Richard Muller, R. Scott Clark, and Jeffrey Mallinson, among others.[xviii] When they begin doing this, perhaps we’ll take them seriously. Alternatively, we could just get out of our own Baptist box for a change and read Beza for ourselves, like Dr. R. Scott Clark requires in his classes at Westminster Seminary in CA.

---

[i] Martin I. Kauber, Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sept. 2002.

[ii] William Cunningham, The Reformers & The Theology of The Reformation, Chapter 7, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000 edition.

[iii] A scholar in the Humanities, notably the language arts, in this age: the Greek and Latin classics, Hebrew, Latin, classical and Koine Greek, and philosophy, and theology. This is not modern secular humanism.

[iv] Calvin, Instituties, III.xxi.7

[v] Doctrine of Salvation

[vi] Doctrine of God

[vii] Kingdon and Bergier, Registres, 107, in Richard Muller, “The Use and Abuse of a Document,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds. (Waynesboro GA: Paternoster), 1999/2005 as part of the Studies in Christian History and Thought series

[viii] Calvin, Eternal Predestination of God.

[ix] Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiv.3.

[x] Beza, Tabula, VII (5).

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid (6).

[xiv] Tabula, II, viii.

[xv] James White, AOMin.org, “Happy Thanksgiving To You Too, Dr. Caner,” Nov. 23, 2006

[xvi] Kingdon and Bergier, Registres, 104 in Muller, 46.

[xvii] To the sources

[xviii] A good start for the reader himself would be Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds. (Waynesboro GA: Paternoster), 1999/2005 as part of the Studies in Christian History and Thought series. Also see William Cunningham’s The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth), 2000.

The Functional Hyper-Calvinism of Dr. Emir Caner or "Will the Real Hyper-Calvinist Please Stand Up?"

On the DL for 11/16/06, Dr. James White critiqued Dr. Emir Caner's sermon on Calvinism at Thomas Road Baptist Church. In his sermon, about 30 (give or take a few) minutes into it, Dr. Caner wanted to know of the Calvinist, "Can you honestly tell a person that Christ died for them...when you witness be honest and tell them that Christ might not have died for them..." He then proceeded to connect general atonement with evangelism, insinuating that unless you can tell a man Christ died for him in particular, you are being insincere and he has no reason to believe.

If I was to critique this in Dr. Caner's presence I would ask him if he's a hyper-Calvinist. In hyper-Calvinism, we are told that we need to have a gospel warrant to believe in order to convert. So, I don't think this is a case of putting a person on a "guilt trip," as Dr. White noted in his critique, rather Emir Caner is, in my opinion, "jonesing" for a good old fashioned warrant to believe. All he's done is deny that we can subjectively discern God's decretive will for a warrant to believe (hyper-Calvinism) and replace that particular epistemic warrant with general atonement. So, where the hyper-Calvinist has no concrete epistemic warrant to speak of, Dr. Caner has found a more concrete warrant, namely that Jesus died for everyone, therefore he died for you. Emir Caner is a functional hyper-Calvinist, the very thing that he calls Dr. White.

The logic is quite simple. Unless God seconds your call from the pulpit in some manner, then the call is not genuine. General atonement is a concrete marker. Since Christ died for everybody, you can know He died for you; thus you have a gospel warrant to believe. The problem is, Scripture never frames the gospel in those terms or the atonement in those terms. There is not a single text of Scripture that records anybody being told to believe because Jesus died for them. I would ask, if the only the elect believe it anyway, and the reprobate will not, then where's the harm in simply declaring that Christ died for sinners? The elect will believe Christ died for them by virtue of placing faith in Christ. Dr. Caner wants to offer assurance to the sinner. This only panders to his self-interest, and it conflates assurance and conversion. The warrant to believe is found not in discerning God's decretive will or in general atonement, but in the universal command of God that all sinners should believe in Christ and repent in order to be justified and be saved. Why is that not warrant enough? God did not give Abraham a list of detailed assurances that all would be well and instructions on how He would fulfill His promises when he called him out of Ur. He gave him a covenant that began with a command and continued with a promise. This is the same way it works in evangelism. Why can Dr. Caner and others like him not grasp this?

Moreover, Dr. Caner creates the impression that you must believe a particular doctrine of the atonement in order to be saved. That too is a function of some forms of hyper-Calvinism. If you don't believe me, remember that Dave Hunt has stated that he doesn't believe anybody who says he was saved and at that time believed the doctrines commonly called "Calvinism" is really a Christian.

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they “shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life” (). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.

Will the real hyper-Calvinist please stand up?

UnHoly War: Systemic Unholiness and Anti-Calvinism - A Commentary on the White-Ascol Caner Debacle

I've been asked to comment on this topic. There are those who have observed and noted that this is a systemic problem. I'll reproduce what they have said to me and then follow with my (lengthy) reply.

I'm not as directly involved in some of these disputes. It's just something I monitor from time to time. And, as a result, I have formed a broad impression. What I notice is what seems to be an emerging pattern on the part of many fundamentalist critics of Calvinism. Examples include the Caners and other players at Liberty U, as well as Dave Hunt, along the two guys you were dueling with at Strangebaptistfire, in addition to the KJV-only crowd. These are a few examples which come to mind.

And this is a systematic lack of simple honesty. To begin with, these critics don't seem to feel that they are under any obligation to acquaint themselves with the actual position of the opposing side by consulting the opposing side. Moreover, when their straw man arguments are corrected, they continue to retail the very same straw man arguments.

And I think this raises a more general question: why do certain fundamentalist leaders or spokesmen feel that a Christian doesn't have to be honest? Why to they act as if they are exempt from doing the right thing? Why do they think that even after their error is pointed out to them repeatedly, it's okay for them to brush off correction and continue with business as usual?

It looks to me as if this attitude has been very entrenched. It's become so habitual that it's expected. This is their standard modus operandi. Dr. White has often had to discuss this at a specific level, but I think we're at the point where this needs to be addressed at a separate issue. How did this behavior come to be acceptable in their theological circles?

What we're dealing with here goes to a fundamental breach of holiness. Pervasive dishonesty is unholy. And that brings me to a second point: is there something about easy believism and the antinomian version of eternal security which is feeding into what has evolved into a theological culture of unholiness? Where the idea of holiness in word and deed is no longer an essential ingredient of Christian ethics and the walk of faith? Is there's something about popular fundamentalism which selects out for contrition and spiritual self-examination by cultivating a shallow notion of conversion as well as a superficial notion of piety?

I think this attitude needs to be confronted at a general level and on a regular basis. From what I can tell, it has become endemic among certain fundamentalist leaders and spokesmen. Second nature. To take an invidious comparison, I've reminded of the way the liberal media automatically discounts Muslim violence. After all, they're just Muslims! What do you expect?

On a related note, a guy like Dr. White couldn't be habitually dishonest even if he wanted to be. That's because White is a public debater.When you're a public debater, when you engage in a public debate before a live audience, with cross-examination, and a public record of the event (audio,dvd/transcript), you leave yourself very exposed. You can't hide behind a keyboard. You can't play to a sympathetic clique. You can't choose what questions to answer, and what questions to duck.If you duck a tough question, everyone will see the dodge for what it is. The dynamic is completely different. It forces a measure of accountability. A debater doesn't have to answer a tough question, but if he's evasive, it will show. If he's evasive, he will pay a price in the court of public opinion. He will disillusion some of his one-time supporters. That is undoubtedly a major reason why some of White's most vociferous opponents avoid getting into a setting where they are not in control of the variables.


The examples would be used to make a larger point. Although it cannot be prevented, this behavior should not be allowed to go unnoticed or unchallenged. Rather, it needs to be highlighted and challenged on a regular basis. Not just in the narrow terms of backing out of a debate and then blaming the opponent, but as a separate issue of whether a Christian is called to a life of holiness. For honesty in word and deed is a necessary ingredient of holiness.

I've tried to stay out of this fray for the past few months. I'm one of the ones that, in the back of my mind, thought they'd find a way to back out. This is, in my opinion, common currency in the SBC at present in some respects.

In the past, we in or formerly of the SBC have observed good men mowed down by third parties doing the dirty work of others. Misrepresentations of their views abound in the wake of those episodes. "Did you know that so and so believes such and such?" Then the judge's gavel comes down, and the man and/or his church and his associates are systematically ostracized.

The blogs have changed this, as has the internet. Men like Ergun Caner and the trustees of the IMB can't hide anymore. The news about what they have done travels too quickly. In Dr. Caner's case, he seems to have a habit of opening his mouth without thinking first. On the one hand, I feel like I'm watching the followers who don't match up to their predecessors. The architects of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC were never this sloppy. What's more, they were more diplomatic, though I'm well aware of underhandness that went on many times that is traceable, at least in part, to one particular character. On the other hand, I'm tempted to see this as the logical outworking of a culture that promotes baptizing a million while your own church continues to decline; a culture where the church with 200 faithful members and 50 extras every week is called a "failure" and "unevangelistic" whereas the church that baptizes 300 people in a year, and only 30 are added to the attendance in the process is called a success. This is what happens when you baptize the unconverted.

Baptist churches are congregational, at least for the most part. I lay this at the feet of members who look the other way as long as the numbers are up. I lay this at the feet of a faculty and staff at LU that doesn't sit Ergun Caner down as a group. President or not, and tell him to knock it off, because he is dragging down the whole institution. I especially chalk it up to Dr. Falwell, who is both Chancellor of the university and senior pastor of the church to which the university and seminary are attached. He needs to do the work of a pastor, and not the CEO of a multinational corporation. I feel like I'm watching a "sanctified" (and I use this term broadly) version of Enron unravel. Why should the greater society listen to us, when this is the way our "leaders" (and use this term even more broadly) behave? Why is it that Dr. White is the bad guy, when he's the one standing up for integrity?

What's more it seems these anti-Calvinist rants are more personal than anything else. Perhaps these men feel threatened. Let's face it, the John Pipers and John MacArthur's of this world are few and far between. These rants often come from men in the large churches. To some extent, I know it comes from the smaller ones, but the most vocal persons come from men with large ministries. What do they fear? A loss of numbers? Well, might I ask which is more successful? 1600 members with 250 showing up, 200 of whom are members, or a church of 200 members, with 250 showing up, 200 of whom are the members? On this level these persons remind me of fast food addicts. They've grown up on Big Macs and fries for so long that they don't want to give up their Super Size options. They've grown fat in the process and don't want to change the menu to a healthier option. When Mommy and Daddy tell them they are going to go to Subway instead, they throw a temper tantrum in the corner. It's disgusting. They need a spanking.

However, all that said, this isn't necessarily a new thing. In the 19th century Russell Reneau tried to exterminate Calvinism too. Never heard of him before? Well, consider that nobody reads him today, but lots of folks know who P.H. Mell is. Mell rebutted Reneau in his own body of writing. In doing this, he prophetically said, "Calvinism has never heard of him before, and if its advocates ever think of him hereafter it will never be in a connection flattering to his vanity." http://www.founders.org/library/mell1/predest.html The same is true of Ergun Caner, Dave Hunt, and the rest.

What Mell says in Predestination and the Saints' Perseverance is worth noting because, if one didn't know it, one would think that he was writing today and addressing Ergun Caner or Dave Hunt (emphasis mine):

The following tract appeared, first, in weekly numbers, in the columns of "The Christian Index", and is republished, with slight alteration and addition, at the request of many brethren. The controversial feature is retained, not because it is thought that Mr. Reneau's name will add any dignity to it, but because,


1. I have not time to re-write it.

2. If all allusion to Mr. R's publication were removed, it would lack congruity and completeness. It discusses Predestination and the Saint's Perseverance, because they are the doctrines assailed; and it is ostensibly confined to a consideration of Mr. Reneau's arguments.

3. Those who have requested its re-publication desire it to retain its original form. Mr. R's production, which it reviews, has been extensively distributed through parts of Georgia and Tennessee and has been lauded as a complete refutation of Calvinism. It is thought, therefore, that, in such localities, it is better calculated to do good in its present form. Besides, men are more likely to read an argument when it is associated with controversy than when it is presented in the form of abstract discussion.


I have been pained to notice, for some years past, on the part of some of our ministers, in some localities in the South, a disposition to waive the doctrines of Grace in their public ministrations. While some have been entirely silent about them and have even preached, though not ostensibly, doctrines not consistent with them, others have given them only a cold and half-hearted assent, and some few have openly derided and denounced them. This, in many cases, has resulted, doubtless from a lack of information and from an apprehension, therefore, that the doctrines of Grace are synonymous with Antinomianism. For this reason, I have thought that a concise and popular exposition of those doctrines was urgently demanded. It is true, there are many able treatises on them, extant; but, they are all locked up in voluminous Bodies of Divinity and, therefore, not accessible to the general reader. I confess, then, that it was to supply, to the extent of my ability, this demand and to counteract, as far as I was able, the tendencies to Arminianism, that I took up my pen. For this purpose, I was glad that the pretext of answering Mr. Reneau was afforded me; and, with this object in view, I extended the discussion on the subject of Predestination beyond Mr. R's objections. Should this publication have the effect to confirm my brethren in the faith once delivered to the Saints and serve, in any degree, to counteract the tendencies in our midst to Arminianism, I shall have accomplished my main design in writing.

Of course, it will be understood that the term, Calvinism, is used in conformity to custom and not to imply that the doctrines embraced in it originated with the Genevan Reformer.

...

This is a pamphlet of twenty-eight pages and contains the substance of two sermons delivered in various parts of Middle Georgia in 1849. They created quite a sensation at the time, and their author, having no further use for them for the pulpit, has slightly expurgated them, and the world is now blessed with them in a more permanent form. They are designed as attacks (in their author's opinion, it would seem, very effective ones) upon the Calvinistic doctrines of Predestination and what is called, the Final Perseverance of the Saints. There is nothing original about them, excepting the spirit that is exhibited and some ingenious misapprehensions of the plain language of Calvinistic writers, which no one before has been so constituted as to fall into. Leaving these out of view, the remaining is made up of arguments in a diluted state, borrowed, without acknowledgment, from standard Arminian writers; and if we were assured that our readers are in possession of the authors on the Calvinistic side of the question, we should consider ours (excepting in so far as we may be performing a service to our author) a work of supererogation. This publication, we suppose, is but an earnest of what is to follow as we are told on page 1: "We are determined that if it (Calvinism) lives any longer than we do that it shall not be our fault." We hope that on this announcement, our Calvinistic readers will not give way to unnecessary alarm: Calvinism had survived Arminius, and Whitby, and Wesley, and Fletcher, and Watson, and a host of other able assailants. Let us live in hopes, therefore, that it may possibly survive even Mr. Reneau.


Our author, however, has formally declared war against Calvinism and, in effect, announced that he has not only drawn his sword but thrown the scabbard away. The war under his direction, is to be of the most sanguinary character. Nothing short of complete extermination will satisfy him. "We have determined that if it (Calvinism) lives any longer than we do that it shall not be our fault." No quarter is to be granted perhaps none is to be asked. Conscious of his strength, he may be confident that he will occupy the victorious position of Samson when in triumph he sung: "With the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men;" or perhaps, like the same Samson in adversity, he anticipates that, by a mighty effort of strength, he will rejoice to overwhelm in one common destruction both himself and his enemies. However this may be, we confess it shocks us to hear such a blood-thirsty determination announced. There are to be granted no terms of honorable capitulation -- the forces of Calvinism are not to be cheered with the hope that, if it come to the worst, they can save their lives by surrendering at discretion. Entreat as piteously as they may for mercy it is in no case to be granted them. The lifeblood of one or both, it is sternly decided, must water the ground! Is not this the nineteenth century? Has not the savage ferocity of war been mitigated by the spirit of the Gospel and by the humanizing influences of advancing civilization? We hope our author, for his own sake, will reconsider this determination. It may make Calvinism desperate. If he has no bowels of mercy and no respect for "the spirit of the age," -- if none of the softer or the nobler motives can influence him, then let prudence and sound policy cause him to haul down that blood-red flag If he has unrelentingly determined that the forces of Calvinism shall, in no case, be prisoners on parole, let them have the consolation to know that they shall be prisoners of some sort, or they will sell their lives as dearly as possible.


But, after all, we are more than half inclined to think that the danger to Calvinism from him has its existence only in our author's harmless self-complacency. That he considers himself a warrior of no inferior stamp -- destined to achieve victories which no polemical hero before him (he tacitly acknowledges) has been adequate to, is abundantly evident, not only from this, but from other passages of his production; but we see no reason why any else should labor under the same delusion -- surely there is none to be found in the performance before us. It is no uncommon thing for men to "think of themselves more highly than they ought to think." Where they are composed of materials suitable for the purpose and placed in a favorable position, a very little encouragement makes them in fancy swell out beyond all reasonable proportions: and there is no conception of themselves too exalted for them to entertain. Herod, while listening to the adulation of his courtiers, fancied himself a God; and a wise king of Macedon, aware of his propensity of poor human nature, enjoined it upon one of his household to repeat to him daily, "Remember, O King, that thou art mortal!" We are not quite sure that a monitor of the same kind would not be of service to our author?


Notwithstanding, however, he broadly intimates that he has much confidence in his success, his language would seem to imply that he has some apprehension that he may, after all, fail in his super-human enterprise. "If it lives any longer than we do, it shall not be our fault.'' He will at least make a conscientious use of the strength he possesses. He feels that a solemn responsibility rests upon him in the premises -- that much has been given him and therefore much will be required of him. The blood of all the controversialists flows through his veins -- the strength of all the champions of Arminianism nerves his arm" -- "his height is six cubits and a span" (1 Sam. 17:4), and he is commanded to use his resources for the annihilation of Calvinism. Will he come up to his responsibilities? If he fails it shall not be his fault! But suppose Calvinism should not be accommodating enough to die when he attacks it, how will he infallibly know that he has acquitted himself as in duty bound? We fancy that we see him now harassed by the most painful uncertainty. Some months ago he made his first attack and discharged at his enemy seventy-two paragraphs (all numbered off), and since then silence has reigned over the field of operations. If he fancies that this silence is caused by his complete success and that Calvinism lies among the slain, it becomes our painful office to inform him that it is not dead but sleepeth and that we are the only one of its friends that seem to have been awakened by the noise of the attack! But then what becomes of his conscientious determination so to act as to avoid blame? Could he not have hurled one paragraph more? Did he have no other shot to fire? Perhaps another shot, more lucky than the rest, might have reached his enemy's heart and freed the world of bondage. Why then did he not discharge it? If he did all that he could, what becomes of his ostentatious profession of strength? Verily there seems to be an antagonism here -- Strength vs. Conscience. His exalted conceptions of himself, or his conscience, one or the other, must give way. Our author's estimate of his powers must be lowered, in the present aspect of the case, or (his conscience remaining lively) he must be in the most painful state of uncertainty as to whether he is to be any longer responsible for the existence of Calvinism. Verily, Atlas requires much strength to sustain the weight of the world!


"I am determined, that if it survives my attacks!" Surely Mr. Reneau's perception of the ludicrous must be defective? Calvinism has never heard of him before, and if its advocates ever think of him hereafter, it will never be in a connection flattering to his vanity!


We confidently believe that no publication in the language of the same length, contains as great an amount of bitterness and as many examples of misrepresentation as that upon which we are animadverting. The author seems to have written with the feelings of the man, who having the most self--satisfying confidence in his own prowess, and having ostentatiously called upon the whole world to witness the ease with which he would demolish his antagonist, is made conscious at last of a disgraceful failure, and vents his impotent rage by abusive epithets at a respectful distance. Like the Mexican Chief, who soothed the mortification of repulse by pronouncing the American General so ignorant of military science as not to know when he was defeated -- or, more properly, like the blustering quarrelsome urchin, who said if he could not chastise the larger boy he could make faces at him.


The following examples of his style and spirit, under appropriate heads, are given, not because they are the worst of their kind, but because they are shorter and can be more easily extracted.


His Courtesy and Liberality. -- "But in order to carry out their Calvinistic scheme, this talk, &c., has been made a part of their visionary scheme and theories;" -- "To exhibit still further the mad scheme of this system," &c., p.16. "No man that prefers the truth to his own prejudices, it would seem to us, could doubt that Jesus did intend on this occasion to teach that his disciples might lose their religion." "Calvinists holding on to their error with a zeal worthy of a better cause." -- "if we were to admit this foolish hypothesis." p.19. "No man can mistake here provided his prejudices have not blinded him and so wholly perverted his understanding that nothing could instruct him." p.21. "Is there a man on this Camp-Ground stupid enough to believe such to be the true meaning of these texts of Holy Writ? Every one who has sense enough to know the road to the mill knows better." p.23. "We feel that enough has been said to satisfy every honest enquirer after truth, that it is possible for a man to receive the grace of God in vain and thus perish everlastingly." p.23. "Do Calvinists think the world dull enough to believe that such argument makes out their doctrine?" p.27.


His CANDOR. -- "It is palpable that Calvinists hold that God's elect are ordained to everlasting life without any regard to their Christian character." p.14.


His DOGMATISM. -- "This is indeed a very convenient method of proving an unscriptural doctrine." p.6. "If we believe no more concerning predestination than the Bible teaches, we will never believe the Calvinistic notion on that subject." p.11. "Neither these" (passages of scripture) "nor any others prove anything at all in their favor." p.27.


His REFINEMENT. -- "If a poor reprobate were to commit such crimes, eternal damnation in Hell-fire would be the consequence, but let one of these predestinated pets commit them, and they will have the headache or some other punishment and then bask in heaven's smiles world without end." P. 15.


Any where else than in a sermon, this would be called slang. Other examples under this head we deem it proper to suppress, as they are too gross to meet the eye of our lady readers.


His DEFERENCE TO THE BIBLE. -- "Convince us that Christianity tolerates such things, and we will plead its cause no more." p.15.


Finally, in the way of extracts: "We fear our Calvinistic friends will not easily forgive us for our frank dealing with their favorite doctrines." p.17. "If our Calvinistic brethren feel hurt, they may rest assured that we deliver these sentiments out of no unkind feelings. It is because we thus believe that we thus preach." p. 12. We hope that after this none of our Calvinistic readers will be so unreasonable as to continue dissatisfied. True, our author says that they are "silly" and "dull" and "stupid" and "prejudiced" and "dishonest" and "without sense enough to know the road to the mill", but "it is because he thus believes that he thus writes." Let us, therefore, be grateful for his tenderness and repress our complainings.


The Bible addresses us in plain and intelligible language, While there are many mysteries in it that angels desire in vain to look into and many things difficult to be understood which the perverse frequently wrest to their own destruction, those truths which pertain to eternal life are revealed in the most unambiguous language. God does not dishonor Himself and trifle with His creatures by making their salvation to depend upon the reception of doctrines that are either unintelligible or contradictory. His system of heavenly truth is harmonious and consistent; and revealed with perspicuity and precision. Commencing here on earth with the first "principles of the doctrine of Christ" -- with "repentance from dead works and faith toward God," it ascends a glorious chain, each link shining more brightly as it rises into the pure heavens above until it glitters in the effulgence that shines from God's throne. We are not only commanded to search the scriptures, but we are encouraged by the promise that we shall know if we follow on to know the Lord. Like his sanctification, the path of the Christian's knowledge is as the shining light that shines more and more unto the perfect day. God designed that His people should understand His truth-- nay, He has made their salvation to depend upon their belief of it -- and it is His will that they should all come into the unity of the faith, that they should be one as Christ and the Father are one. Why then is there such a diversity of sentiment in the Christian world? Why is it that even evangelical sects draw from the scriptures systems so diametrically opposite? That good men do differ in theological sentiment is indisputable and is as lamentable as it is true; but the reason is not to be found in any ambiguity in the word of God. Some of the difference, perhaps, is to be ascribed to the diversity of their mental constitution and the different way in which the same evidence strikes different minds; much to the force of early bias, to the influence of association, and to the distorted media, therefore through which the truth is seen much to the carelessness with which many read the scriptures and to the indolence which causes them to construct a system out of fragments of Bible truth; but without doubt no inconsiderable part of the disagreement is to be attributed to presumption. Professing Christians (sometimes unconsciously) not infrequently form in advance an idea in their minds -- drawn from the teachings of others or from their own reflections -- of the character of God and of the doctrines which he ought to promulgate and then afterwards consult the Bible to prove that their views are correct; and some carry their presumption to such daring lengths as to reject the Bible if it fails to sustain them in their positions. May not those opinions, which would rob Christ of His divinity, which deny the doctrine of the trinity -- and those others which would make eternal life the portion of all mankind, have their origin here?


While we are far from the bigotry which would make us assert that the denomination to which we belong are the only people exempt from this presumption, and as far from the illiberality which would induce us to apply it to any individual who may differ from us -- while we are free to grant, until evidence appear to the contrary, that all evangelical Christians who differ from us are as honest seekers after truth as we are; we feel no hesitation in placing any one in this category who openly confesses it to be his appropriate place. Such our author has done. He has, in effect, declared that, if it can be shown to him that the Bible teaches Calvinism, he will reject it, and turn his back upon it. "Convince us that Christianity tolerates such things, and we will plead its cause no more." p.15. Like the madman in "The World's Anti-slavery Convention" who said: convince me that the Bible sanctions slavery, and I cast it to the winds and learn my religion from the flowers of the field. The "things" he refers to here are such as he ascribes -- it matters not whether justly or unjustly -- to Calvinists, and which do not therefore, by universal consent, bear upon their face the infallible marks of falsity. Convince him that the sentiments of Edwards, and Doddridge, and Baxter, and a host of other worthies -- who lived in the faith, and who being dead yet speak -- are tolerated by the word of God, and he will plead its cause no more! Verily he has placed himself in a dilemma from which it is impossible that he can be extricated. If he knew in his heart that these sentiments, which were so horrifying to him, were no less decidedly rejected by all other Christians, and that he could therefore with safety stake his reverence for the Bible upon their falsity, then he was guilty of bearing false witness against his brethren. But if he sincerely believed that they were the sentiments of his opponents, then he stands convicted of prescribing terms to Almighty God and of saying to Him that if it can be proved that He sanctions Calvinism, he will plead His cause no more!


He utters a threat that, in a certain contingency mentioned, he "will plead the cause of Christianity no more." It is evidently his intention here that somebody should take warning -- But who? Not his opponents, surely; for if their measure of his efficiency come up to the half his pretensions, they would rejoice that there is a prospect of his quitting the field:(2sp?) not his friends and co-laborers; for they are innocent of any blame in the premises. Against whom then is the threat uttered? Is it possible that our author is unconscious of its impious nature!


The advocates of Calvinism seem to be in a strait here betwixt two. If they permit the argument to go against them by default, they give up what they conceive to be important scripture truth: if they vanquish their assailant, they do it at the expense of making an infidel of him -- or we should rather say, of driving him into open connection with infidels for his threat contains already all the essential elements of infidelity. No explanation can make it much better for him, but we would fain hope, that this sentence escaped him in the heat of chronic passion!


And this is the man that with so much confidence intimates that he is destined to exterminate Calvinism from the land. How will he do it? He has fallen upon a poor expedient to prepare the way for success. We thank God that, in this highly favored land, the doctrine of the Reformation so generally prevails: "The Bible, without note or comment, the only and the all sufficient rule of faith and practice." The people profess to yield themselves with humble submission to the teachings of God's word, and they will say to him and to all others like him. "Let God be true, but every man a liar."


It is a rule in parliamentary proceedings that if the provisions of a bill do not conform to its title, it is to be rejected. Were our author's first sermon tried by the same principle, it would meet with the same fate. It has seldom been our lot to read a production (as far as the argument is concerned) so desultory and incongruous. He uses his arguments in as arbitrary a manner as he does the figures with which he begins his paragraphs. Question them as closely as you may, you will fail to learn from them their adaptation to the case in hand. Old as they are and as much as they have seen of the world, we venture the assertion they have never found themselves in such strange connections before. What dependence they have upon each other and what support they mutually afford, it is difficult to discern. And yet they need all the assistance they can obtain; for, divest them of the martial livery put upon them by their present owner and exorcise them of the evil spirit with which they are possessed, and they are exhibited to be of the most feeble and attenuated nature with hardly strength enough to maintain a perpendicular attitude. Besides, being employed from their youth for other purposes now that old age and hard usage are added to constitutional weakness, they do not possess the flexibility which would make them useful auxiliaries in an employment so contrary to their natures and their habits. Never, perhaps, were very innocent arguments so badly treated. Another example, doubtless, tending to establish the truth of the old saying -- that we esteem that lightly which cost us little.


But, we have said that the production is desultory and incongruous. In the title, the author proposes to attack Calvinistic Predestination; but, in giving a description of it, he defines (in a lame and ungrammatical way) Election; while the attack itself is leveled chiefly at the doctrine of necessity, as opposed to the Arminian idea of Liberty or self-determining power! Why is this? Is it because he is ignorant of that which he professes to assail; or, aping a skillful General, does he design to weaken the point aimed at, by compelling the garrison (as expecting a general attack) to occupy, at the same time, the whole line of defence? Does he amuse us with feigned attacks, that he may mask his real intentions? If so, we submit to him whether this comports with the confidence, more than hinted, that his forces are sufficient, by dint of mere strength, to raze our fortress to its foundations and to put the garrison to the sword? And it may be well, too, for him to bear in mind that, while deceptions on a warlike theatre and on a large scale are called by dignified names and, when successful, are applauded in a more limited sphere, they degenerate into mere tricks which not infrequently bring their perpetrators into merited contempt.


Election and the doctrine of Necessity are important parts of Predestination, but they do not constitute the whole of it. Why, then, did he not give to his readers a definition of Predestination in the very words of its advocates and attempt, fairly and in a manly way, a refutation of it in all its parts and as a whole? Only two suppositions can be given. Either he did not comprehend that to which he was objecting, or he designedly left it in uncertainty that he might avail himself of all the prejudices and misapprehensions of his hearers -- that, by using disjoined parts (and disfigured at that) of the Calvinistic system, united with others of his own invention, he might construct a hideous image (adapting it to his capacity as an adversary) and call it Predestination; and, having demolished this, his depraved creature (to the relief of Calvinists, no less than of Arminians) might set up a shout of triumph, as if he had gained a victory over Calvinism. This course may have been very successful (on a small scale) for the time; but our author will find that it will re-act, with retributive force upon himself. He may have thought, while skipping about, with such marvelous agility over all parts of the field (excepting the right one) -- making so much noise and raising such a smoke- that he would bewilder his adversary and gain the admiration of the lookers-on; and, if he should fail of victory, find at least in the smoke and dust a concealment from the resentment he provoked. But let him know that Calvinism, if it feel so disposed, can trace him out in the deep obscurity he has created, and, having dragged him forth into the light, can bestow upon him before the world the chastisement which will be salutary, not only for his correction, but as a warning to all like him inclined.


Our author possesses some of that ingenuity which is efficient in misrepresenting an opponent and is gifted in no ordinary degree with the powers of denunciation and abuse but he seems to be entirely destitute of analysis. We defy any one to extract a complete skeleton from this sermon. It would seem as if he sat down to write, without any system in his mind and with nothing to guide his ideas but the bitter feelings by which they were impelled. The only difficulties, therefore, in the way of answering his arguments consist 1st -- in finding out what they are, and 2nd -- in perceiving what bearing they have upon the subject after they are discovered. In his title, he essays to give us a treatise on Predestination; but, excepting the arbitrary use of the word, his denunciation is of any other Calvinistic doctrine rather.

Amphora coepit
Institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?

Again, he professes to treat of Calvinistic doctrines; but in his statement of them, he quotes from the writings of Dr. Hopkins! Now, every polemic theologian ought to know that the Doctor was the founder of a distinct school and is not acknowledged as a Calvinist at all. Many of his sentiments doubtless, as well as those of James Arminius, conform to our system; but this makes the one, not more than the other, a disciple of John Calvin. Why, then, is Dr. Hopkins cited in this connection? If he meant not to violate the common principles of fairness, he furnishes us with another instance of his inability to pursue steadily the object before him. Having a grudge against the Calvinists, he belabors the Hopkinsians! Let him take care lest he may by mistake kill the wrong man. That would be very sad and may be, if possible, a source of regret even to him. But, why did he not quote from those exclusively who are universally acknowledged as standard Calvinistic writers? To have done so would have given him less opportunity perhaps for the exercise of his peculiar gifts; but it would have been more candid, and we will say also more manly. It matters not though the language quoted from Dr. Hopkins expressed exactly Calvinistic sentiments; it is enough to know that we are no more responsible for him than we are for Mr. Reneau. And this is another specimen of his candor! It would seem that he is so bent on the destruction of Calvinism as to feel authorized for this purpose to adopt the Roman Catholic principle that the end sanctifies the means. This, however, is not one of the most glaring of the misrepresentations with which his pamphlet abounds. We do not know that it will be of any avail; but we would advise him, hereafter, to take pains in advance to understand any thing before he attacks it and to endeavor to treat his opponents with justice and candor. It may make him feel better and fare better -- "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."