James White Challenges Ergun Caner

Posted by Joe Thorn - 22/02/06

After all the drama on Tom’s blog surrounding Ergun Caner’s strange assertions and attitude in the comments section, James White has offered to travel to Liberty University to debate the man on his own turf. I wish Caner would take him up on the offer. Read some of the exchange on White’s website here.

11 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I’m not a fan of James White’s tone and manner. However, I do find that he consistently insists on substantive discussion, based on scholarship and facts. Caner’s has not struck me as similarly burdened in this whole thing (at least not in his remarks in the thread at Tom Ascol’s blog).

    I think it’s highly unlikely that Caner will accept a debate. Basically, he went over to the blog, talked a bunch of trash about Calvinism (with very little substance to back it up) and now he’s in a difficult spot. On the issue and on the merits, he’s not in White’s league. Now he’s just going to have to find the least embarassing way out of this that he can.

    I don’t think a debate would serve a constructive purpose. It might not be as bad as White v. Hunt, but I think the outcome would be similar, at leas that’s what Caner’s performance in the comment thread says to me.

    Now, Ben Witherington v. White would be a much more interesting and constructive matchup.

    Comment by David Wright — February 22, 2006 #

  2. what is accomplished by a debate? most calvinists seem to think their guy will surely beat the other guy, and vice versa. so… what’s the point, other than hurt pride? surely there won’t be a mass exodus on either side to the other. it seems like this is trench warfare. nobody’s budging, and most everybody knows where they stand, regardless of which side is right.

    it might be interesting to hear, but outside of the scholasticism involved, what’s the real purpose?

    Comment by Joe Kennedy — February 22, 2006 #

  3. David,

    I completely agree with your first two paragraphs.

    Joe,

    To say that there is no point but “hurt pride” I think entirely misses the point. A debate is warranted because:

    1. It should be able to establish the historical facts, some of which have been butchered by caner.

    2. It will present a cogent, honest perspective of Calvinism for people to consider, even if they do not embrace it. I am okay with people rejecting what I believe. But I want them to at least understand it, not a caricature.

    3. It is good/healthy to lay this stuff out for consideration, even debate. It stimulates theological conversation, and if carried out with charity, can really produce fruit.

    4. People will learn from it. A large number of college students, who have not yet made up their minds, and are trying to figure things out can be helped by something like this. Also, I know pastors who have yet to put in the work necessary to figure out what they believe on these subjects. They too could be helped. I do agree though, that many listening will not change their minds, or be open to correction.

    5. I think Caner has really stepped in it, and I think a person needs to come clean when they do. This is not about hurt pride, but people owning up when the screw up.

    I dislike all the arrogant posturing on both sides of the debate, and I have come to hate even the expression “bull dog tenacity” long before I saw Caner’s website. It is often a cliche way of saying a person is lactless, and highly opinionated. But I believe we can have civil debates that are honest and challenging.

    Comment by Joe Thorn — February 22, 2006 #

  4. Good points, Joe. And it would be great for college students to hear a legitimate debate so they can, maybe, make an informed decision on where they stand. But do you really think that many people will even know a debate happened? I’m not convinced that most people are all THAT interested.

    And yeah, I think the brothers Caner really blew it. They got a lot of bad publicity and sounded a lot like the set of twins from American Idol who got arrested for fraud. I won’t bring up Simon’s description.

    Do you think involving them in a debate would solve anything? They’ve effectively shown they aren’t prepared or even remotely open to serious debate on Calvinism. Including them, it seems to me, would just make things worse.

    But it’s a sexy draw. At least for those of us who saw Ascol’s blog. That’s not really a whole lot though, is it? All I’m trying to say is that in a perfect situation, you have two people on opposing ends debating theology. There aren’t knock-down, drag-out fights. Just point, counterpoint. It’s civil. Unless you include the Caners (although I doubt they’d do anything terribly stupid off-line), and then you’ve got guys who have, essentially, no argument but a straw man. So then it’s just a beat down on the non-Calvinist guys. That’s no good (some might like it, I dare say). Anyway, I’m just not sure it’ll work- having watched NT Wright debate/dialogue with John Dominic Crossan on the resurrection, I can say it wasn’t a huge draw.

    In theory- great idea. In practicality- not a good idea with the Caners, and probably not a big draw either.

    Comment by Joe Kennedy — February 23, 2006 #

  5. Joe (Thorn),

    you left out, it is historically the Christian thing to do - to have an honest toe-to-toe debate where all sides can defend their positions and allow the Spirit to work. This occurance has brought about the end of many, many heresies, and has helped Christians to understand the nuances of theology for two thousand years.

    Joe (Kennedy),
    What the Caner brothers did was pour gasoline on a debate that had only previously been only a spark. There will no doubt be repurcussions. If they are allowed to loudly voice these views without the civility of formal debate, then those who already took that side will have ammunition to continue an assault of words which will no doubt drive a wedge between the two previously cooperating groups in the SBC. However, if this is headed off by means of a respectful debate (which is why debates have rules), then this could be a gentlemanly means of stopping wild hared arguments and reinstitute sanity in our disagreements. This debate could insure that the Scriptural basis for each view stays in the forefront, and not false accusations and meaningless slurs. Putting the Scriptures in the limelight is what we all want to do here, and one means of doing that would surely be this debate. Even if few tune in at the time of the debate, the recording of it could live on for years, providing a recordable point of reference to look back on in case the informal debate ever gets out of hand again. At least that is our hope.

    Comment by D.R. Randle — February 23, 2006 #

  6. One of them should debate this.

    (1) Theologically, Reformed theology has a highly developed theology of the concept of the “covenant” which the decrees underwrite. I find it disturbing that two Christian men from Muslim backgrounds are arguing against this fundamental concept. Reformed theology is, conceptually, the most Jewish of the Protestant theologies. It smacks of simmering background issues in these two mens’ lives. For the sake of their growth in Christ, they must confront these issues.

    (2) They repeat the charge of “fatalism” v. Reformed theology. IMO, this comes from their background as well, as Islam teaches fatalism. Ergo, when they see Reformed theology’s doctrine of providence, they conflate with Islamic fatalism. Ergo, the charge. Again, they need to confront these issues for the sake of their walk with the Lord. It is a sin to equate biblical theology with paganism, even if that is your own background.

    (3) The charge has been made that Beza influenced Calvinism with scholasticism. They need to be confronted with the fact that the Arminianism which they espouses was *also* articultated through scholastic categories, in fact moreso. Moreover, the confessions are all infralapsarian, not supralapsarian, so it is difficult to see how Beza’s supralapsarianism overly influenced Dort or later groups, when Dort was infralapsarian. Moreover, Dort is not the sum and substance of Reformed theology. By far the majority of Reformed theology, esp. in the modern age, is exegetical, not merely confessional, particularly in Reformed Baptist circles. These men supposedly teach church history. They need to be confronted with this for professional reasons.

    (4) Apropos 3, they have made particular claims about Baptist history and Southern Baptist history in particular which are demonstrably false. On this, I would like to see Tom Nettles and Emir Caner debate. Emir apparently thinks he and his brother’s book of biographical essays and their companion volume on their presidential addresses qualifies them as authorities on Baptist history in the Convention. From a publication standpoint, they are publishing out of their field, since most of their work has been vs. Muslim apologetics.

    (5) Apropos 4, their behavior here undermines their credibility as apologists v. the Muslim community. In fact, I would say their behavior here is exactly like that of many Muslim apologists in both tenor and content. When an apologist like Dave Hunt misrepresents Reformed theology ad infinitum, it undermines his credibility as an apologist vs. the RCC or any other group. The same can be said of the Caners with respect to Muslims if they continue down this path.

    (6) These issues are fundamental to the understanding of the gospel and they way we do evangelism and grow churches. Remember, Ergun has explicitly appealed to baptism numbers of these large SBC churches…the very ones that can’t get half of their members into church on Sunday and have large member to baptism ratios that are embarrassing to the denomination.

    From John L. Dagg’s Manual of Theology:

    “While men regard the call of the gospel as an invitation which they may receive or reject at pleasure, it accords with their state of mind to institute the inquiry, whether God is sincere in offering this invitation: but when they regard it as a solemn requirement of duty, for which God will certainly hold them accountable, they will find no occasion for calling His sincerity in question.”

    The objection to the latter, if thoroughly analyzed, will be found to contain in it some lurking idea that it is safer to trust in something else than in God’s absolute mercy.. As such lurking trust is dangerous to the soul, the doctrine of election has a salutary tendency to deliver us from it. IT tends to produce precisely that trust in God, that complete surrender of ouserselves to him, to whihc alone the promise of eternal life is made; and if we reject the doctrine, we ought to consider whether we do not, at the same time, reject our only hope of life everlasting.

    and

    The gospel brings every sinner prostrate at the feet of the Great Sovereign, hoping for mercy at His will, and in His way: and the gospel is perverted when any terms fall short of this are of this are offered to the offender. With this universal call to absolute and unconditional surrender to God’s sovereignty, the doctrine of particular redemption exactly harmonizes.

    (7) I fear if they continue on this path, P.H. Mell’s words about one of his anti-Calvinist opponents will come true.

    He made it v. Russell Reneau, who made it his business to exterminate Calvinism from the earth. He was the perennial anti-Calvinist. It could easily apply to either Caner, since to be honest, most Calvinists on the internet at least had no idea who I either of them are apart from their recent behavior.

    Referring to Reneau (and I would say to every anti-Calvinist I heard in recent history), Mell wrote in Predestination and the Saints’ Perseverance,

    “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.”

    Comment by GeneMBridges — February 23, 2006 #

  7. Joe, I think the reasons you give for a debate are good. But wouldn’t it be better if two well-matched people debated? I do agree that Caner ought to come clean for integrity’s sake . . .

    Comment by David Wright — February 23, 2006 #

  8. Yes it would. I remember a debate at Willow Creek between a well known apologist and an atheist who was so clearly outmatched it was embarassing. The batevate gave Christians a reason to high-five, but it was not a good debate at all.

    Comment by Joe Thorn — February 24, 2006 #

  9. Joe, D.R., ect., If there is one thing I’ve learned from the blogosphere, when you sign your name to something, you become accountable for every word. Aparently, no one warned the Caners. I thought the words published at White’s blog were more telling of what Ergun thinks his role is- a pitbull for those who may not be able to be so blunt. The word “purge” is definitely a red flag. The rant will continue if accountablity for his words are not demanded. I think the inflamattory nature of his comments alone deserves accountabliity. We are responsible for our words, are we not?

    Comment by Travis Hilton — February 24, 2006 #

  10. We are indeed.

    Comment by David Wright — February 24, 2006 #

  11. Travis, you are right about the accountability. I think this unfortunate turn of events will come back to haunt the Caner’s. Something that I learned at Seminary is that the most arrogant professors in the end become the ones with which you most like to disagree. Also, I think his use of the word “purge” speaks more to his ignorance about what is happening in the seminaries. I for one know that Dr. Kelley at NOBTS is happy to hire Calvinists and continues to do so. He cares more about scholarship than this so-called “purging.” It’s a testimony to New Orleans that most of the Ph.D. students in the theology department were Calvinists. I suspect this is the case at Southeastern and Southwestern as well (no need to mention Southern). The future of the seminaries is firmly in the hands of Calvinists. That is something that thankfully Ergun can’t stop from his place at Liberty.

    Comment by D.R. Randle — February 24, 2006 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress with GimpStyle Theme design by Horacio Bella.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS.