Q: DIDN’T YOU SAY THAT CALVINISTS ARE WORSE THAN MUSLIMS?
A: Yes, absolutely. For a small portion of these people, just daring to question the Bezian movement is heresy. They will blog and e-mail incessantly. I call it a “Calvinist Jihad,” because just like Muslims, they believe they are defending the honor of their view. They can discuss nothing else. I have even had a few call for my head! Dr. Falwell and I have laughed about it, because they are so insistent, and they miss the point completely. There are plenty of schools to which the neo-Calvinists can go, but Liberty will be a lighthouse for missions and evangelism to the “whosoever wills.” Period. The difference is, Muslims know when to quit – for these guys, it is the only topic about which they can talk.
The previous is Dr. Ergun Caner’s of Liberty University opinion of us Calvinists. We are Baptist. We love to discuss theology. We believe that God is sovereign and full of mercy and grace. But according to Dr. Caner we are worse than Muslims.
Why would he say such a dumb thing, you may ask. Well, sadly, it is simple. Ergun is theologically ignorant of the Doctrines of Grace. And I mean he doesn’t even have an elementary understanding of the issues of God’s election and reprobation. Just consider his answer to the following question:
Q: HOW DO YOU DEFINE HYPER CALVINIST?
A: If a person holds to reprobation, this is a clear sign. If anyone believes that God has created souls damned to hell, and predestined them to hell, then they would be a poster child for Hyper Calvinism. To do so, they would have to jump over all of the biblical texts we cite. They usually stick to the same four or five they like. That is why I used 1 Timothy 2:1-8.
A second point would be the issue of infant damnation. Drs. Akin and Mohler have been explicit on the fact that if an infant dies, they go to heaven. Dr. White does not believe it is that “simple.” If anyone believes that there is even the possibility of an infant (”non-elect”) going to hell, that would be clear hyper Calvinism. Since they do not like that term, I have also offered neo-Calvinist. Apparently that isn’t acceptable either.
Those who fit in that category usually define “hyper Calvinist” in terms of an ethic – they say that since we cannot know the fixed number, we tell everyone. They call it a “well-intentioned offer.” That is simply poor logic. I repeatedly ask them, “Will the elect get saved, whether we tell them or not?” Obviously, if you hold to hyper Calvinism, you must ultimately answer “yes.”
You would think that somewhere along the way a man in Dr. Caner’s position would have at least learned the basics of Calvinism, the rudiments of Reformed Theology. I personally know of several new Christians who know more than the doctor. Even a humble little blog like Fide-O could be of some help to Ergun. But you would think… well, we quit being surprised long ago. I hope Dr. Caner represents the last vestiges of several generations of deficient Baptist education.
I wish to restate my complete support for Drs. White and Ascol. Their integrity is being specifically attacked by Dr. Caner, and I believe that Dr. Caner is COMPLETELY wrong — not only theologically but ethically as well. I wish no evil upon Dr. Caner but I do request as a fellow Christian that he shut up, repent of his lies and learn at least the basics of Calvinism before he reveals anymore of his ignorance.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Caner said, The difference is, Muslims know when to quit – for these guys, it is the only topic about which they can talk.
Don’t the Dispys wish!
Great post; questionably funny comment. Funny that Caner himself (as a bible believing Christian) would have to believe that God makes souls knowing they are going to hell. Both “sides” believe this. So does he label himself as a Hyper-Calvinist?
Question: When referring to 1 Tim. 2:4, do you all (or anyone who cares to chime in) typically hold the view that:
1. God desires all types of men to be saved in reference to verses 1-2?
2. Or that God desiring “all men to be saved” does not mean that he has to save all men. But then wouldn’t this seem to be contradictory?
3. Other/please explain
~Brian
Doesn’t Caner have something better to do with his time. Maybe he could go to glamour shots and have some more pics taken so we can all see them.
Seriously, is he really that vain?
ERGUN, study more, stand in front of a camera less. It will keep you from where you are.
Calvinist Gadfly called him the Evangelical Chihuahua and he explained further “all bark, no bite”
too bad I guess we have agree with that
Ergun Caner said:
For a small portion of these people, just daring to question the Bezian movement is heresy
Apparently, Dr. Caner is playing fast and loose with history, yet again. There is no record of Calvin ever disagreeing with Calvin, and they were contemporaries. What’s more, Beza was a supralapsarian. Nobody really denies this. The problem is that all the confessions are Infra, not Supra. It’s hard to see how that makes what we believe “Bezian.” I’d wager that Caner hasn’t read Beza or studied him in depth. If he has, it does not show.
What he’s trying to do is play the “Protestant Scholasticism” card by smuggling Beza’s name into the discussion. The problem, however, is that Dr. Caner is using an argument against Covenant Theology (the argument that CT was developed to counter speculative Protestant Scholasticism, which has a wee bit of truth to it, but not to the extent Ryrie and others allege) to argue against the Five Points of Calvinism and Dort themselves. Now, on the one hand, CT and Calvinism are related, but on the other, CT and Dort are quite distinct. You find CT in the WCF and LBCF2 in a less explicit form, not Dort.
I’d add that if you’ll go back and listen to Dr. Paige Patterson from June @ the SBC, he did the same thing, by trying to differentiate between “Dortian Calvinism” and his “moderate Calvinism.” Of course, he needs to look to the Remostrance for his doctrines, which is rather ironic.
Oh, and Jerry Vines did the same thing. These men are all playing the same game. It’s time that James Renihan or Tom Nettles or others step up and refute these errors en toto. R. Scott Clark is no friend to Baptistery, but he is a top notch Beza scholar. Somebody should ask him to write an article on this topic.
If anyone believes that God has created souls damned to hell, and predestined them to hell, then they would be a poster child for Hyper Calvinism.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Does God have infallible foreknowledge? Yes. So, He creates men He knows will reject Christ? Yes. So, God created souls damned to hell. Why? He has no answer for this, and you won’t get one.
What does it mean to be “predestined for hell?” Does it mean “God puts fresh unbelief in their hearts?” Does it mean that people go there unwillingly? Or does it mean that everybody that goes there is justly condemned in their sins. Why does Caner object to this? God is honoring their “free will decision.” Isn’t this what Dr. Caner says God must do? He leaves them alone and does not “violate their free will,” and they sin and go to hell. If He hardens them, it is judicial; He merely gives them what they rightly want and deserve. Ergun Caner is like the Pharisees who complained about John the Baptist not eating and drinking and then about Jesus eating and drinking.
Dr. White does not believe it is that “simple.” If anyone believes that there is even the possibility of an infant (”non-elect”) going to hell, that would be clear hyper Calvinism.
Notice what is not said. What is not said are things like this: Calvin believed in infant reprobation. However, Calvin also said that such infants did not die in infancy. Rather they grew up and sinned and died early deaths, so those so reprobated don’t die as infants, but as children.
What’s more, unless Dr. Caner believes God is subject to time, he has to affirm reprobation as well, for, if election is based on foreseen faith, then it follows that reprobation is based on foreseen unbelief…and all of this happens before the foundation of the world.
Apparently that isn’t acceptable either.
Caner acts like it is within his power to “offer terms” for us to use, as if he is the sine qua non of Orthodoxy and we must bow to him. Forgive me for not kissing the ring. Pardon me, but nobody had heard of Ergun Caner with reference to Reformed Theology until very recently, so he has no such right. What’s more, would he care to read the LBCF2, he’d find that we are NOT “neo-Calvinists.”
Perhaps this has to do with our beliefs about infant salvation. Okay, well, that makes just about all Calvinists of the past hyper-Calvinists. Most Calvinists of the past, however, have simply held that faith and the promise are marks by which we may know assuredly that all those who believe and their children, dying such, are elect and saved, while the absence of sure marks of either election or reprobation in infants, dying such outside the covenant, leaves us without ground for inference concerning them…It is this cautious, agnostic view which has the best historical right to be called the general Calvinistic one. Warfield, Works, 9:431-434.
In fact, if Dr. Caner would consult Warfield, he might learn a thing or two. He’s too smart for that though. What did Warfield know?
Those who fit in that category usually define “hyper Calvinist” in terms of an ethic – they say that since we cannot know the fixed number, we tell everyone. They call it a “well-intentioned offer.” That is simply poor logic. I repeatedly ask them, “Will the elect get saved, whether we tell them or not?” Obviously, if you hold to hyper Calvinism, you must ultimately answer “yes.”
Within this we find a number of factual errors and a non-sequitur. First of all, “That poor logic” would apply to Spurgeon. If you don’t know, then you must conclude you tell everybody. If you hold to real hyper-Calvinism you might believe what Caner says…but if you believe that God has determined that those who will be saved will be saved through the hearing of the gospel itself and we are to order our lives by what God commands of us, then this difficulty is alleviated. So, no, Dr. Caner, that is NOT illogical at all. If it is, please name the logical error in the syllogism: God has elected some to be saved and left others to die in their sins. He has also determined that all who will be saved will be saved through the hearing of the gospel, which is to be preached through us. He has not, however, informed us who is elect and who is not. Ergo, we must preach to all persons everywhere in order for the elect to hear the gospel and be saved.
What’s more, there are a number of things that are included in hyper-Calvinism, and the definition is, to a certain extent, person variable. It ranges from believing that only Calvinists can be saved/are saved; or making certain doctrines test doctrines (like the five points), or denying common grace. So, its NOT “an ethic” it is a historical, theological definition.
In fact, what we have here is a classic case of a man arguing against hyper-Calvinism all the while, in his own theology, making the same error. In hyper-Calvinism, the “well intentioned offer” is not valid unless God seconds your call from the pulpit, eg. hyper-Calvinists of the past and some in the present will preach the necessity for the hearer to search for a “warrant to believe.” Dr. Caner does this same thing. For he believes that if the atonement is not general, then the offer from the pulpit cannot be valid. Ergo, Dr. Caner does not believe it is enough that God commands men to repent and believe. He believes he needs God to second his call from the pulpit, not with a warrant to believe, but general atonement. In fact, what Dr. Caner does, and his students should not hesitate to point this out, is fill in the blank for the hyper-Calvinist pastor’s call for his hearers to find their warrant to believe. Dr. Caner has found it for the person in the pew who heard the exhortation to find that warrant. Dr. Caner, like the snake oil salesman that comes to town, has found the miracle cure he can hand out to that struggling soul. Dr. Caner offers them assurance through general atonement. The warrant to believe for which this poor soul is searching, therefore, is general atonement as preached by Ergun Caner. It’s not enough to say, “Jesus died for sinners, and if you repent and believe as God commands you will be saved and you can then know He died for you,” say both Dr. Caner and the Hyper-Calvinist. Will the real hyper-Calvinist please stand up, please stand up…
Question: When referring to 1 Tim. 2:4, do you all (or anyone who cares to chime in) typically hold the view that:
1. God desires all types of men to be saved in reference to verses 1-2?
2. Or that God desiring “all men to be saved” does not mean that he has to save all men. But then wouldn’t this seem to be contradictory?
3. Other/please explain
The text of 1 Timothy refers to Jewish myths and endless genealogies. We must therefore, understand the content of those myths in order to understand what Paul is saying. These myths were probably from the Midrash and anti-Gentile in tenor and were specifically designed to exclude some from salvation. They would form the basis of Jewish Gnosticism, which was designed to create a special class of persons who possessed the “gnosis.” Thus, to counter this, Paul’s usage focuses on the universal offer of the gospel, not to Jews only, not to a specific class of Jews, but to all classes of men, and all ethnicities.
Additionally, 2:6 is a paraphrase of Mark 10:65 which recapitulates Isaiah 53:11-12, where the Suffering Servant atones for the sins of the covenant community, not all people without exception. If you’ll notice, the folks that harp on general atonement will sometimes run to Isa. 53, so their appeal is actually circular. They assume what they need to prove in one or both texts and then appeal to them together. Also, . If “all” is always extensive, then in 6:10 where money is the root of all evil, the text would mean money was at the root of the Fall of both Satan and men.
The difference is, Muslims know when to quit – for these guys, it is the only topic about which they can talk.
A. This is simply a lie, we talk about all kinds of subjects.
B. When we talk about Calvinism itself in reference to Dr. Caner, do you notice that it’s not us who provoke the conversations? If we’re talking about it too much, then it’s in response to them.
C. Apropos B, the only jihadis here are men like Ergun Caner and Dave Hunt. Have you listened to the Berean Call show lately. He’ll take just about anything and turn it into something about Calvinism. We’re not the ones spending 2 hours in our pulpits to misrepresent and attack the opposing side. We’re not the ones closing down comment sections on our blogs to keep out the unwanted, and lest we forget, that trend began not with Ergun Caner but the people at Baptistfire who stated very clearly on their website that any posts that were favorable to Calvinism were not allowed by the rules of their discussion board. We, by way of contrast, have been remarkably open to free speech.
When Ergun Caner says that “Calvinists are worse than Muslims”, it makes you wonder – what is he thinking? But now, thanks to some incredible mental imaging technology, we are able to download his thoughts onto film. Here’s what the film looks like:
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.503
Ok, so maybe I watched too much StarTrek when I was a kid, but that post further examines the absurdity of Ergun Caner’s Muslim comparison.
I think Caner might have come across http://www.baptistburka.com . I may be partially to blame for the crass comparison.
“and I believe that Dr. Caner is COMPLETELY wrong — not only theologically but ethically as well.”
The main part that is grieving me is the ethically part. This is really saddening to me that discussion between Christians over this issue has been reduced to such a childish and un-Christian level. I am more grieved at the behaviour than upset about how he has completely gotten Calvinism wrong and continues to lash out at this straw man.
It is a shame that the national networks run to Jerry Falwell so often instead of Dr. Mohler, R.C. Sproul, etc.
That’s true…but when you think about it that’s to be expected. Mohler, Sproul, etc. present a much more consistent Christian worldiview along with a very consistent and strong theology. The world wants no part of that, so they turn to these others. Watch carefully. When Dr. MacArthur is on Larry King, it’s usually part of a very large panel; it rather obviously limits his ability to respond in a meaningful fashion.