« Yes. Yes. Yes. | Main | The Uganda Children's Choir MUJIZA performs at Brewton-Parker College »

Mar 07, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Max

"We are going to have education that is focused on wisdom more than knowledge. Anybody can give you knowledge, but only God can give you wisdom."

Praise God! One of SBC's institutions of "higher" learning gets it! Education doesn't produce one ounce of revelation unless it is filtered through the wisdom of God. It's refreshing to hear Dr. Caner on this course with BPC students. God, take these students to an altar ... raise up a new breed of SBC pastors/leaders through BPC!

dr. james willingham

Looks like Calvinists are out for Brewton-Parker, since reference is had only to the traditional Southern Baptists, a very clear and definable group, one that owes its existence to the Calvinists (Sovereign Grace believers is the more biblical correct term, based upon Roms 5:21 and Hebs.4:16, vide especially on the latter, John Bunyan's address on that verse) who also gave us religious liberty, so Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke. Isaac Backus, John Gano (who baptized George Washington), Oliver Hart, Elijah Craig who led the committee that met with the colonial legislators and made an agreement that in exchange for their freedom to practice their faith, the Baptist ministers would go back to their communities and encourage the young men in their communities to enlist in the Patriots Cause, Elder Elijah Craig was apparently so successful that one whole regiment in the Virginia Colonial Militia, meaning every soldier in the regiment, bore the last name of Craig (one of those Scottish Clans). And John Gano was the last man to address the Continental Army before it disbanded. And then there is the launching of the Great Century of Missions or the modern missionary movement. William Carey and Richard Fuller are two of the well-known leaders in England, and in America there was Luther Rice who enlisted Southern Baptists in the world missions effort and who in his Memoirs encouraged people also to preach on the Sovereignty of God and Predestination, saying in essence, it is in the Bible and you had better preach it. There is more, much more, but I wonder if Dr. Caner will remember those who believed in Particular Redemption (so called Limited Atonement). After all, it was the so-called limited atonement people, the believers in particular redemption or redemption according to purpose who really launched the great missions effort. There were General Baptists here in North Carolina, but it was not they who were the sparks of the Second Great Awakening or they who took part in the first or in the launching of the missionary effort.

Dr. Caner has mentioned several men who definitely held to Sovereign Grace. Will such ever be invited to teach at Brewton-Parker? He might note that Dr. George W. Truett, speaking at the Spurgeon Centennial in London England, where he was introduced to the audience by the Prime Minister of the British Empire in 1934, said, Calvinism presses down upon the brow of man the crown of responsibility (cr.(Inspiration of Ideals). Really!

Ron F. Hale

Dr. Willingham,

I think you must be of the persuasion that if you declare it long enough and loud enough that the Sovereign Grace Baptists have been the only one's with any sense,patriotism, and mission-mindedness --- that most people will actually start believing it. Both sides have had their scholars and missionaries. Those of the Anabaptist tradition would have had many, many more scholars and missionaries but a something kept happening to them--they kept getting burned at the stake and drowned in the rivers of Europe (by the thousands).

Andrew Barker

Dr. Willingham appears never to have taken on board the fact that God doesn't care two hoots about our theology as such, at least, that's what I'm coming to believe.

Personally, I cannot see the attraction that Reformed theology (philosophy) has for people, apart from the intellectual challenge of squaring numerous circles. I also cannot see how the belief that God chooses an elect would inspire anybody to missionary work. BUT, I do not question for one moment that God calls some of his children of whatever 'theological' persuasion to work on the mission field.

People hear God's call despite their theology, not because of it.

peter lumpkins

Thanks all.

Dr. Willingham,

Dr. Caner will invite an amazing platform of expositors to preach at BPC I assure (and as faculty to teach). They will be men who preach Jesus and invite people to Jesus. We will have altar calls not philosophy clubs, mission trips not TULIP conferences, camp meetings not logical-fallacy lessons...you know: things few Calvinists get into (wink, wink).

As for Particular Redemption spawning modern missions, I'm afraid you're historical summary is hardly credible. Indeed it was a definitive move away from strict Calvinism which sparked interest in modern missions. Beginning with Fuller who came to reject Gill's petrified doctrines of grace, Carey, Rice and others shook off the shackles of Limited Atonement and embraced General Redemption. And until strict Baptist Calvinists in the SBC become more balanced in their historical perspective, leaving behind the reductionist historiography Founders Ministries has thoroughly embraced, there will be little understanding between us.

Thanks always for logging on.

With that, I am...
Peter

Vic Fordham

I am very proud of BPC's new focus: wisdom not knowledge. The hyper Calvinists have been after the Caners for years (particularly "Dr." White). I think Dr. Caner is a down to earth sinner like the rest of us and I'm glad that he isn't self-righteous and that he is upfront with his bias. Honesty is rare. Paul said he is chief of sinners; I'm glad to see someone with a PhD that isn't full of himself. As a BPC Alum, I say: Excellent choice to our trustees.

Lydia

"As for Particular Redemption spawning modern missions, I'm afraid you're historical summary is hardly credible. Indeed it was a definitive move away from strict Calvinism which sparked interest in modern missions."

So true. Who needs missionaries when you have a state church mentality? It was more about conquering a people and then later coming to the New World to create the Puritan New Jerusalem theocracy. Nicolaitans. Some call that missions.

Their cruelty did not last, thankfully, and many of NE Puritan descendents became Unitarians! YRR icon, Jonathan Edwards', "covenant family" included slaves and brought us the reprobate Aaron Burr, his grandson. Oh, the examples of such are right at our fingertips these days. What mentors for young men! Slave owners, tyrants who burn people at the stake for disagreeing with them, drown those who practiced believers baptism and on and on it goes.

Frankly, it is not hard to see a gradual move away from Calvinistic thinking over the last few centuries. Even the Presbyterians, for the most part, finally decided to focus on social justice instead of the embarassing determinist god who foreordained all the poverty, inequality and disease.

What is up with all the one sided historical ignorance in that movement? Because truth is embarassing? Thank Goodness our Founder Fathers did not go in for the determinist god thinking.

But we are getting a taste of what Neo Cal/YRR missions is starting to look like:

While filming a promo in Dubai (UAE) for the new student missions conference, CROSS, John Piper (standing in front of the Burj Khalifa tower) makes this statement:

“And that tower and this city are coming down!”

Wish I could share the promo but they took it down. Seems they did not think through the response it might have not to mention that a Muslim Imam doing the same here in front of a mega church would be considered a threat.

Piper, the mission minded "thinker". Right. And these young sculls full of mush still follow him like lemmings.

Censored

@ Vic, Caner doesn't have a Ph.D. He has a "Th.D." that doesn't require any course work.

@ Lydia, Piper is certainly missions minded and a great Bible teacher.

@ Peter Lumpkins, you apparently know nothing about history. Carey, et al, did not reject the doctrines of grace.

peter lumpkins

Mr. Carpenter (i.e. “Censored”),

Did you think I actually wouldn't know it was you logging? What a Georgia hoot.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m glad you did log on (even if you attempted to do so incognito) since I possess some spare moments to show just how glaringly removed you are from reasonable discussion. Hopefully, those few who've been thus far duped by your shaded verbosity on blogs (J.D. Hall and James White), twitter, and Facebook pages—not to mention suckering the few poor saps in the printed news media into printing your all-thumbs conclusions concerning Ergun Caner—I say, hopefully, those few duped will see clearly how the Ph.D you claim hardly assisted you in learning how to display common sense. Let me show you what I mean, John.

You write to Vic: “Caner doesn't have a Ph.D. He has a "Th.D." that doesn't require any course work.” While your statement concerning Dr. Caner’s degree is accurate, your follow up summation concerning the Th.D. qualifies nicely as one of the most ignorant, uninformed assertions concerning the nature of a Th.D. one might make. The fact is, historically both degrees have been rigorously steeped in research demands and represent academic tracks designed especially for those who may want to make the academy their vocational focus. Both Harvard and Duke offer the Ph.D. and the Th.D. which, according to Harvard, represent the “highest degree awarded” in their respective fields, both of which are “intended to prepare persons primarily for teaching and research.”

Boston University also offers the Th.D. “to students wishing to enhance their knowledge and competence in research, teaching, and service in certain advanced areas of theology and ministry. It has a strong academic specialization, which integrates a major discipline with a minor discipline…” BU goes on to say, “Like the PhD, the ThD is a rigorous academic research degree.” Hence, your assertion that the Th.D. “doesn't require any course work” is what we call in West Georgia literary hog slop. Conclusion: you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

What is more, Mr. Carpenter, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary all offered Th.D. degrees up until only recently, historically speaking. Indeed in Southern seminary’s Towers magazine, the authors briefly profile the switch from Th.D. to the Ph.D. citing the first Th.D. degrees awarded in 1894, with the seminary starting to use “the more familiar doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) designation for its research-based doctoral degrees” in 1929 (Vol. 11, April, 2013, p.18). Nonetheless, Southern still offered the Th.D. degree alongside the Ph.D. degree up until the last quarter of the last century.

Nor may we ignore that if what you imply is true concerning the inferiority of the Th.D. degree, the odd place that may leave us when we think of some familiar names who hold doctor of theology degrees, names you probably otherwise would respect: Carl F.H. Henry, Timothy George, George H. Martin, Michael A.G. Haykin, and John Piper to name but a few.

And, of course, we should not forget your old friend in Phoenix, James White who holds…can you say it with me, John?—a T-H-D degree. What a Double Georgia hoot!

So much for your inept conclusions about Ph.D.’s and Th.D.’s.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Yes, I have every single link to demonstrate my assertions should any one want them.

peter lumpkins

Mr. Carpenter also attempted to correct Lydia for reasons not apparent. Lydia neither questioned Piper's missionary motif nor his abilities as a Bible teacher. Instead she questioned the kind of missions upon which Piper focuses. Critics like Carpenter seem to fling pooh-poohs just for the sake of flinging pooh-poohs. No other reason surfaces--at least that I can tell...

peter lumpkins

Finally, Carpenter asserts about me "you apparently know nothing about history. Carey, et al, did not reject the doctrines of grace."

Once again, we have striking ig-norance concerning the actual facts. Note my words:

"Indeed it was a definitive move away from strict Calvinism which sparked interest in modern missions."

Now, I ask the reader: where in my statement here or in the entire comment above did I either explicitly or implicitly state Carey and others rejected the doctrines of grace as Carpenter claims? I neither stated nor implied any such thing. I unequivocally stated one reason spawning the awakening was a "definitive move away from strict Calvinism" not a denial of the doctrines of grace. The shift I explicitly noted began with Fuller's embracing of General Redemption.

These are the types of surface-slush reasonings men like John Carpenter put on people's words. They show up with preconceived notions and rather than read carefully what someone claims, they break open their bucket of Calvinistic beans and begin to spray gas on everyone in sight.

And, these guys really expect careful readers to take their claims seriously concerning their interpretations about Ergun Caner? Not this Redneck from West Georgia.

With that, I am...
Peter

Patrick

"And, these guys really expect careful readers to take their claims seriously concerning their interpretations about Ergun Caner?"

I'm not really even sure how "interpretation" comes into play with the issues concerning Caner, but I'm sure you're more than willing to explain it in the most condescending way humanly possible.

Turretinfan lays out the bulk of the facts in the Caner situation and does so with far more generosity towards Caner than is likely necessary. Please explain to this ignorant buffoon what "interpretation" has to do with a presentation of the facts.

[link removed]

peter lumpkins

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for your comment. Well, I'm unsure how to explain 'what "interpretation" has to do with a presentation of the facts.' The relation seems intuitively apparent to me. You appear to be suggesting that when we have a situation where, say, conflicting propositions (i.e. 'facts') surface, only a single inference necessarily follows, an absurd suggestion if I may condescend for a moment. Allow me a quick example.

In John 7:1ff, apparently Jesus’ unbelieving half-brothers attempted to persuade Jesus to go to the Feast of Tabernacles (v.3). Jesus informed them they should go up but stated He was not going (v.8). Later, however, John records Jesus did go up but went up “not openly but secretly” (v.10). Laying aside the issue of textual variants present in V.8 (doctoral dissertations have been written on this single textual variant; some translations like KJV, NKJV, & HCSB supply “yet” in V.8 while others like NASB, ESV, RSV do not have “yet” in V.8), understanding John’s presentation of the facts is actually possible apart from “interpretation” in what way exactly, Patrick? How do we correctly understand this simple gospel pericope by just rehearsing your so-called “presentation of the facts”?

The truth is, there are a number of possible interpretations John’s “presentation of the facts” spawns. To name but a few:

A) Jesus obviously intended to state He was not “yet” going;

B) Jesus changed His mind;

C) Jesus lied.

Skeptics have predictably capitalized upon the latter one since the rise of textual criticism. Each of these “interpretations” (i.e. inferences) attempt to deal with John’s straightforward “presentation of the facts.”

What you apparently want us to accept pertaining to Caner-critics, harassers, and stalkers like Hall, White, and Carpenter--not to mention your citation of an anonymous cowardly critic like “Turretinfan” (whoever the heck he or she is)-- is, their “evidence” needs no “interpretation” since it happens to be an objective, unbiased, straightforward “presentation of the facts.” This sounds strangely like the skeptics who charged Jesus with lying about going to the Feast because He wanted to sneak in unawares. What a Georgia hoot…

Oops! Sorry, Patrick. My time for condescending dialog is now over. Got to run. Hope you have a nice day.

With that, I am…
Peter

P.S. Yes, I deleted your link. This is my site, not an advertising agency. And before anyone accuses me of "censorship," please google 'Turretinfan' and read to your heart's desire...

dustin germain

It seems that people tend to bash the "critics" and castigate them for being anonymous, but yet many open, known critics repeatedly offer to meet in person and discuss, and yet that never happens. Ergun says "my critics have never been in the same room as me", as if the critic is unwilling to meet, when in reality neither Ergun Caner nor yourself would ever allow them to be in the same room as the critic. Ergun repeatedly says he like hostile crowds...so why not meet with James white [who is not a hyper calvinist] and have those discussions? Why have we never seen, in the last 5 years, Ergun Caner sit down with a critic and have it out and talk things through?

Patrick

"Why have we never seen, in the last 5 years, Ergun Caner sit down with a critic and have it out and talk things through?"

Because in their minds, what's to talk through if he's done nothing wrong? Even addressing the critics would be adknowledging that there's an issue, and their position seems to be deny, deny, deny and hopefully all of this will go away. How they can have that attitude and a complete blindness to what's going on is beyond me, but that seems to be the general attitude.

peter lumpkins

Hi Dustin,

First, I have no idea your point in comparing the criticism of cowardly anons with refusal to meet with known critics.

Second, a person possesses no moral obligation to sit and "discuss" a critic's repeated moral slur that he or she is a liar, a fraud, a huckster, a charlatan, and that regardless of whether the critic is anonymous or known. Guys like you and your buddy, Hall, Dustin, routinely pillage a person's integrity, claim he or she to be void of honesty, exploit their name in every dirty way possible, but then glibly ask that person to sit down, meet, and talk about it over a cup of coffee. Do you not realize how socially creepy not to mention repugnant such a request to be? I nor Dr. Caner nor any reasonable person I know would ever entertain such an unreasonable request, but you come here and presume it to be socially normal, which only shows, in my view, how either incredibly naive you are or shockingly out of social touch you are or desperately needy you are or perhaps even how extremely stupid you think I or Dr. Caner is. Jesus wasted no time proving His moral integrity to those who charged Him with public drunkenness and gross gluttony. Neither shall we.

Third, you tacitly presume both Caner's critics and mine hold some type of authoritative role to which we are ecclesially and morally accountable. How you gain such a biblical-less presumption is easy to see but hardly justifiable. No, Dustin. Neither you, nor James White, nor JD Hall, nor any number of professing Christian critics you might cite—anonymous or otherwise--fit the NT role biblical discipline demands. Not letting that stop you however, you chase, harass, stalk, and aggravate the victim (i.e. Caner, me, or another) demanding they “publicly repent” of their horrible sins you and/or others have already definitively concluded they've committed before God and men. So, tell me, Dustin: exactly what are we supposed to “discuss” if your mind is already made up we’re the sinful, wicked frauds you've made us out to be?

Fourth, nor are we interested in sitting down to “discuss” anything with those who argue for and practice secretly recording meetings with others dumb enough to trust them. No thanks. I didn't fall off a turnip truck regardless of what some of you believe about West Georgia rednecks. Simply put, trust must be the underlying soil for genuine dialog and transparency to take seed. And, frankly I wouldn't trust most Caner critics beyond the end of my nose. You've unfortunately but consistently proven personal harm not brotherly healing seems to be the driving force behind this entire fiasco.

Fifth, to the contrary, sufficient scholarly evidence exists to align James White’s theology with Classic Hyper-Calvinism.

Sixth, your idea of “sitting down” is instructive: “Why have we never seen, in the last 5 years, Ergun Caner sit down with a critic and have it out and talk things through?"

I've already addressed most of this above. But the phrase “have it out” bears predictable resemblance to what I've observed as your community’s notion of settling most any issue—d-e-b-a-t-e. That’s chiefly about all you guys know. Debate it! Debate is the summum bonum—the highest good—of internet apologetics geeks. Debate solves all the world’s problems. Just “have it out.” Indeed, in my view, it’s not too much to say that at times, you guys act as if Jesus said “Go into all the world and debate the gospel” rather than “Go into all the world and preach the gospel.”

Now, I've spent way too much time already dealing with this. I suggest you go back to JD Hall’s website and give me what for there since I simply have neither time nor desire to tit/tat back and forth with you here.

With that, I am…
Peter

Max

Dustin writes "Why have we never seen, in the last 5 years, Ergun Caner sit down with a critic and have it out and talk things through?"

I suspect that Dr. Caner knows that if you let someone's weakness control your strength, they own you! So he moves forward with the call on his life while the critics accuse. And, as Peter notes, debating is not preaching the Gospel.

peter lumpkins

Hi again Patrick,

Well, no your interpretation of the "presentation of the facts" is once more inundated with skewed reasoning based upon what you suppose in your mind is the content of what we're thinking. I plainly indicated what we think; namely, neither I nor Dr. Caner has any moral obligation to sit down and "discuss" our integrity with those who ceaselessly proclaim publicly that we're liars, frauds, charlatans, and dishonest deceivers, especially when the accusers hold no biblically sanctioned role in exerting ecclesial authority over us. As I mentioned earlier, Jesus saw no benefit in "discussing" with Pharisees whether their public charges of drunkenness and gluttony had merit. He frankly didn't seem to care what the Pharisees thought of Him. Nor do we especially care what you think of us. Thus, no sit-down discussion about our character will ever take place with the current crop of Caner-critics so far as I am concerned. Hope that's clear.

However, that's not to say we are accountable to no one. We have and do fully recognize those authorities God's placed in our lives. Dr. Caner has cooperated fully with every biblically sanctioned authority who's raised an issue about his life. He further has fully cooperated with vocational authorities, including four trustee bodies who's viewed the same evidence alleged against him you and I have examined. And, after hearing Dr. Caner's responses, the independent boards have without reservation failed to find him unworthy of the office he now holds. They do not hold to your fallacious view, even morally absurd view, that a simplistic "presentation of the facts" necessitates we hang Caner by the neck until he is dead. That's the preconceived conclusion of virtually every Caner-critic spawned by Muslim hate-sites on one hand and James White on the other.

Even so, critics like yourself continue to hound, harass, and condemn though you hold absolutely no biblical sanction to exercise or enforce New Testament discipline against Caner or me for that matter. Nor does your ilk limit the hounding harassment personally to Dr. Caner, attempting to usurp the conclusions of every biblical-professional authority which has thoroughly dealt with the issue. Instead, Caner critics like White, Hall, Germain, Cylatt, and others go after every Caner-supporter they can find, swarming them on twitter and facebook if a positive word is ever written about Ergun Caner. Why the local girl scouts had Caner critics on their site poisoning their minds with their non sequitur literary hog slop I dealt with above. That's the Caner-critic world which I read almost daily. The magnitude of their obsession takes one's breath away. Heck, Hall has apparently bought a Facebook advertisement hawking his unmitigated rage against Caner which only shows up in zip codes around BPC.

Congrats! These are the types of stalking, ungodly personas you've joined up with Patrick. Be my guest.

But don't come here acting as if I'm going to let you or others who support this hate-filled, sickening version of professing Christianity publicize the thoughtless, and at times, stunningly ignorant moral charges without fully justifiable basis and not in response be bold, blunt, and perhaps even condescending if the circumstances call for it.

I suggest that if you want to log your unconvincing barbs without thorough dissection, you should head on over to JD Hall's site where I assure you'll receive all the kudos you apparently crave apart from "deny, deny, deny."

I trust your rest of the day a fair one.

With that, I am...
Peter

JND

Online Ph.D. What a joke.

peter lumpkins

Hi JND

I encourage you to implement a simple practice which will foster understanding: ask before assume. You'll experience a less stressful life.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Shaver

J.D. Hall's site only allows comments from folks who will agree with his accusations against Caner. Real class act huh?

As for myself, would love to sit down with and discuss the concerns of these sick puppies. Edification, however, would not be among the results of such a meeting.

Mark

Scott,

I merely questioned JD bloggers method of how they have dialogue of those who profess the gospel but who don't always agree within cyber-space and the response was retaliatory.

I suggested it is possible to have serious dialogue and stay civilized without becoming toxic.

What I got was "Hyper-Off Topic" responses ignoring the concerns I raised on how we communicate in front of cyber audiences while they authenticated their poor cyber behavior.

The comments to this entry are closed.