# Romans 9, according to Ergun Caner



## Marrow Man (Dec 2, 2009)

This may be the the worst interpretation of Romans 9 I've ever heard. Isn't Caner president of Liberty now?

[video=youtube;WRmSJzEeMb0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRmSJzEeMb0[/video]


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2009)

Brilliant exegesis! 
Irrefutable rhetorical argument!
How, oh how, have I missed the obvious?
I will now need to resign my PB membership.



Not!


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2009)

Liberty Seminary... ironically.


----------



## SolaSaint (Dec 2, 2009)

I must admit, how does one answer his question. Did God hate Esau because he was Esau? How does the Calvinist answer this?


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2009)

God hates His enemies, sinners. God loves those who are yet sinners, but have been redeemed by His Son. 

God hated Esau because Esau was His enemy from before he was even born and he was not redeemed by Christ. Esau was a rebel like everyone else.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 2, 2009)

> ...or did God hate Esau because of what Esau did?





> Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, *neither having done any good or evil,* that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)



He must have skipped this verse.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 3, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> I must admit, how does one answer his question. Did God hate Esau because he was Esau? How does the Calvinist answer this?


Start here.

Caution: assigning any emotion to God, such as what we humans consider "hate" is contra to our Confession...as is any sort of discussion that implies eternal justification.

AMR


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 3, 2009)

Actually it isn't the worst I have ever heard. My Systematic professor sees Romans 9-11 as a giant hypothetical situation. It doesn't really happen like this, but if it did God would still be justified in doing it.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 3, 2009)

BTW, not only is Dr. Caner President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, he is also professor of apologetics there. I find that even more scary.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

I assume he's an evidentialist. That sells me on presuppositionalism.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Dec 3, 2009)

I have a cousin who is a Southern Baptist pastor working on his second PHD. He lives far away and I don't know him really well, but him and his children are contacts of mine on facebook and I have noticed that they really like this guy. I've also seen him make some jabs at calvinists on there. I was pretty excited to be in contact with him, but very dissapointed to find out that he was a dispensational arminian type baptist as opposed to the reformed type I thought he was before. My grandpa who was a calvinistic amillenarian southern baptist pastor for 40 years gave my Caner following cousin advice when he was first discerning his call. I don't know what happend


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Dec 3, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> This may be the the worst interpretation of Romans 9 I've ever heard. Isn't Caner president of Liberty now?
> 
> YouTube - Has Ergun Caner even read Romans 9?



I don't see how Caner's view can go anywhere but a mandatory denial of the immutability of God.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

I believe Caner has some personal issues with Calvinism and the suggestion that God actively damns people. It's an affront to the excuse he has made for God in light of his father's unbelief, if I surmise correctly. Rather than coming to grips with the fact that God did predestine him to damnation and admitting God isn't the feel-good buddy Caner imagines, Caner has resorting to trying to "take" that power away from God and "excuse" Him, so that he can continue on with his idolatry. 

Caner ought to be wary of what he does, as he is accountable for what he preaches. God is not love, love, love. Rather, God is Holy, Holy, Holy. He is the Sovereign, and He disposes of His creation as He pleases.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 3, 2009)

> God is not love, love, love. Rather, God is Holy, Holy, Holy.



Isn't it better to say that Love is Holy? God is indeed Love.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

what I meant was that God is not first and foremost Love. Indeed, He is Love. However, this must be understood in the context that God is above all Holy. Each of His attributes is Holy and Perfect as a result. God is Wrath, Holy Wrath. God is Love, Holy Love. God is Mercy, Holy Mercy.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 3, 2009)

I've just been scrubbing things so I'm not sure that my mind is quite functional with cleaning fumes, but when you said that it sort of screeched to a halt. Do God's attributes present themselves in ascending and descending order?

-----Added 12/3/2009 at 03:02:22 EST-----

Joshua I'm out of thanks. But I'm sure that if my mind were clear that would have also been my more concise response.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> I've just been scrubbing things so I'm not sure that my mind is quite functional with cleaning fumes, but when you said that it sort of screeched to a halt. Do God's attributes present themselves in ascending and descending order?
> 
> -----Added 12/3/2009 at 03:02:22 EST-----
> 
> Joshua I'm out of thanks. But I'm sure that if my mind were clear that would have also been my more concise response.



No, but I believe that when it is said God is Holy, that has implications with regard to the rest of His attributes. He is Holy Himself, in that He is set apart. However, each of His attributes are also Holy, in that each are uniquely divine in their expression, i.e. perfection. His Holiness extends to the entirety of His being so that not just His own self is Holy, but also all of that which extends from Him in the form of a communicated, discernible attribute.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > I've just been scrubbing things so I'm not sure that my mind is quite functional with cleaning fumes, but when you said that it sort of screeched to a halt. Do God's attributes present themselves in ascending and descending order?
> ...



But surely this applies to all of His attributes, all of which He *is* -- so it also applies to love?

-----Added 12/3/2009 at 03:18:29 EST-----



Joshua said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua I'm out of thanks. But I'm sure that if my mind were clear that would have also been my more concise response.
> ...



Whatever, Grinchikin. You secretly don't believe in clean socks.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Dec 3, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > a mere housewife said:
> ...



Is this a glimpse into how In-Laws communicate?


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

Yes, and that's exactly what I said, that He is Love, Holy Love. 

When I said that God is not love, love, love, I'm referencing the fact that the only attribute of His emphasized with the three-fold pronouncement is His Holiness, not His Love. Many today seem to think otherwise, and I would place Caner in that camp. They believe that God is Love, Love, Love and would never damn such "nice" people like sinners without giving them a "chance". Ergo, they result to synergism and Arminianism. Mistakenly, they thought He was one like themselves.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 3, 2009)

You guys are sooo frustrating. Why are you picking on poor Dr. Caner? He explained Rom 9 so that only a "hyper" Calvinist could disagree. I can tell because of the authoritative way he sounded. Next to Norm Geisler doesn't everyone find Dr. Caner to be the best apologist in the world??? 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . not.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

Josh has been in the rat brains again.


----------



## Herald (Dec 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Josh has been in the rat brains again.



Josh *is *rat brains.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Yes, and that's exactly what I said, that He is Love, Holy Love.
> 
> When I said that God is not love, love, love, I'm referencing the fact that the only attribute of His emphasized with the three-fold pronouncement is His Holiness, not His Love. Many today seem to think otherwise, and I would place Caner in that camp. They believe that God is Love, Love, Love and would never damn such "nice" people like sinners without giving them a "chance". Ergo, they result to synergism and Arminianism. Mistakenly, they thought He was one like themselves.



Andrew, thank you: that clarifies. I was confused by the seeming opposing of the attributes against one another after the manner of what seems to be their error: as if He were like ourselves with attributes that are not His existence, and His love could vs. His holiness.



> Is this a glimpse into how In-Laws communicate?


For better or worse, Joshua is not my in-law: my real in-law is someone who denies fictionalising me as one of the most scatterbrained and ridiculous persons ever to inhabit space (you can read more about this attack upon my character in one of Joshua's recipe threads, here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f84/snack-meal-lazy-bachelors-33722/#post417037). Joshua is much more _like_ my big brother (though we're not actually related at all).


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 3, 2009)

[video=youtube;h3yZMlempDw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3yZMlempDw[/video]

Here is Dr. White discussing the sermon by Dr. Caner


----------



## Herald (Dec 3, 2009)

Listen, Hickster. Don't make me come down there and box your ears...again.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Dec 3, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> For better or worse, Joshua is not my in-law



If you say so, but I am still not convinced . . .


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 3, 2009)

Don't believe in "hypers"? Don't believe in "hypers"? By Dr. Caner's definition, I am a hyper-Calvinist. Imagine that? As a Baptist, I'm not even Reformed. But, to that Baptist I'm a hyper-Calvinist!

Alice, where was that little bottle they gave you again? The Mad Hatter Hicks is confusing me.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 3, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Don't believe in "hypers"? Don't believe in "hypers"? By Dr. Caner's definition, I am a hyper-Calvinist. Imagine that? As a Baptist, I'm not even Reformed. But, to that Baptist I'm a hyper-Calvinist!
> 
> Alice, where was that little bottle they gave you again? The Mad Hatter Hicks is confusing me.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 3, 2009)

> When I said that God is not love, love, love, I'm referencing the fact that the only attribute of His emphasized with the three-fold pronouncement is His Holiness, not His Love. Many today seem to think otherwise, and I would place Caner in that camp. They believe that God is Love, Love, Love and would never damn such "nice" people like sinners without giving them a "chance". Ergo, they result to synergism and Arminianism. Mistakenly, they thought He was one like themselves.



I remember a little diatribe by Paul Washer on the "God is Love" bit. Something to the effect that God is love, so He hates sin. Washer's example was "I love children, so I hate abortion." It is an natural progression/extension of his love of children, as is God's hatred of sin and His damning of souls.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 4, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> This may be the the worst interpretation of Romans 9 I've ever heard. Isn't Caner president of Liberty now?
> 
> YouTube - Has Ergun Caner even read Romans 9?



He ignored Romans 9:11 which teaches that God's choice of certain individuals was not based upon their deeds. 

He ignores what the whole chapter of Romans 9 is saying. It does not at all say that God hated Esau because of what he did.


----------



## SolaSaint (Dec 4, 2009)

Can we all agree with this verse, if I haven't taken it out of it's proper context:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

I feel we have no idea how the word "Hate" compares with the attributes of God. I feel we must be very careful when trying to place God in our own little box when it comes to His nature especially. Some things are better left up to the mystery of God. Wouldn't we all agree it's a mystery that He chooses some while not others?


----------



## bookslover (Dec 4, 2009)

The more basic question is: what kind of nut names his kid "Ergun?"


----------



## Herald (Dec 4, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> This may be the the worst interpretation of Romans 9 I've ever heard. Isn't Caner president of Liberty now?
> 
> YouTube - Has Ergun Caner even read Romans 9?



And THAT, my friend, is the crack in the doorway that leads to open theism.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 4, 2009)

bookslover said:


> The more basic question is: what kind of nut names his kid "Ergun?"



He and his brother were raised as Muslims and converted to Christianity. That also explains why he is a professor of apologetics -- his apologetical expertise pertaining specifically to Islam.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 4, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > The more basic question is: what kind of nut names his kid "Ergun?"
> ...



That expertise is also questioned by many Muslims. There is a whole website dedicated to pointing out his false Muslim teachings. 

I am not going to comment on how devout of a Muslim he was or not. Just saying that other Muslims think he was a muslim by name only.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 4, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...





Two things to consider:

1) This isn't totally shocking, since he misrepresents Calvinism. One might expect that to extend to other areas as well.

2) OTOH, there seems to be a little game here that many wish to play (the old "No true Scotsman fallacy" -- but sometimes it is a warranted objection, though): the insistence that when a person leaves a particular faith/tradition/religion, they never were a part of it to begin with, and they only misrepresent those beliefs. As an inexact analogy, consider the complaints by those in the Federal Vision movement; all I ever hear by its defenders is "no one understands us; everyone just misrepresents us." While that may be true at times (every Christian has probably experience someone who has left the faith failing to understand even the most basic of Christian doctrine), it wears thin after a while. The truth is, just are there many different facets of FV theology, there are different movements within Islam that do not agree. So if someone grew up a Sunni, then a Shi'ite might come along and complain that their beliefs were being misrepresented. There are nominal Muslims and liberal Muslims, just as there are the same in "Christianity." Of course, Ergun Caner and his family might have, in fact, been members of the latter.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 4, 2009)

I totally agree that a game is going on in the background. The youtube videos try to make it out that Dr. Caner was never a muslim. I disagree with that. If anything I think the videos cast doubt on how well Dr. Caner really knows Islam.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 4, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I totally agree that a game is going on in the background. The youtube videos try to make it out that Dr. Caner was never a muslim. I disagree with that. If anything I think the videos cast doubt on how well Dr. Caner really knows Islam.



Very well stated and many thanks for pointing this out. As I said before, it isn't shocking. Sad, but not shocking.


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 4, 2009)

Is it un-Christian to call people like this "morons"?

He echoes what Falwell had to say about Calvinism.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 4, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> Is it un-Christian to call people like this \"morons\"?
> 
> He echoes what Falwell had to say about Calvinism.



Before Falwell died, he called Calvinism (or, more specifically, the doctrine of limited atonement) "heresy."

[video=youtube;XBbcGIrgOds]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBbcGIrgOds[/video]

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.


----------



## Herald (Dec 4, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> MMasztal said:
> 
> 
> > Is it un-Christian to call people like this \"morons\"?
> ...



The DVD "Amazing Grace" features a theology professor at Liberty Seminary who is an outspoken Calvinist. Does anyone recall his name? I don't have the DVD.


----------



## Parsifal23 (Dec 14, 2009)

Zenas said:


> God hates His enemies, sinners. God loves those who are yet sinners, but have been redeemed by His Son.
> 
> God hated Esau because Esau was His enemy from before he was even born and he was not redeemed by Christ. Esau was a rebel like everyone else.



couldn't have said it better myself

-----Added 12/14/2009 at 07:49:20 EST-----



austinww said:


> > ...or did God hate Esau because of what Esau did?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well yeah when you have all ready inserted your presupposition into the text you don't need to deal with those pesky things like context or exegesis

-----Added 12/14/2009 at 07:51:25 EST-----



Chaplainintraining said:


> Actually it isn't the worst I have ever heard. My Systematic professor sees Romans 9-11 as a giant hypothetical situation. It doesn't really happen like this, but if it did God would still be justified in doing it.



We have a winner _that's_ the worst interpretation I have ever heard


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Dec 14, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> I must admit, how does one answer his question. Did God hate Esau because he was Esau? How does the Calvinist answer this?



Who _doesn't_ hate Esau?


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 19, 2009)

Then, there's this guy...

[video=youtube;e78-6fmI5i8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e78-6fmI5i8&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## Herald (Dec 19, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Then, there's this guy...
> 
> YouTube - Calvinism Schmalvinism



Wow. Calvinism is right from the pit of hell, eh? I've never been more liberated to preach the gospel than since I embraced the doctrines of grace. Knowing that God is control of the calling and saving of souls emancipates the minister of the gospel. I preach the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit, knowing that God has ordained it as the means by which He calls sinners to repentance. Gone is the need to play on the heart strings of the audience. THAT is from the pit of hell.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 19, 2009)

I suppose William Carey was one of them "lib'ral babdists."

At least that's what he learned in "Bible college."


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 20, 2009)

"dirty Calvinists" Wow, how loving of him!


----------

