Ergun Caner Appointment to Brewton Parker College

The Mafia has been laying low for several years, but the recent news that Ergun Caner was selected to lead a Baptist college (which is located not far from where I presently sit) has prompted me to return to the blogosphere for a brief time. It's quite disturbing really to see how so-called men of God are circling the wagons in defense of the indefensible.

It is a matter of fact and public record that Dr. Ergun Caner is an unrepentant, pathological liar who has done much harm to the cause of Christ, especially in regard to the ministries of those trying to reach Islamic people.

Some claim that people like me oppose Caner because of our disagreements over theology. Such is not the case. If this was a merely a difference of opinion over theology, I would be the first to welcome Dr. Caner to our area.

I am posting a video here that needs to be seen by all who care about the truth. You'll want to fast forward to about the 24 minute mark where the presentation begins.

Arminianism and Regeneration-Prior-to-Faith

Article 3 of The Five Arminian Articles of 1610:

That man has not saving grace of himself, not of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is);

[A fairly strong statement that fallen man can do nothing, including have faith in the Gospel of Christ, that is anything other than evil. -GR]

but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in his understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John XV.5; 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

-from pages 546-547 of Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III. (Brackets mine, of course.)

Note well the phrase "it is needful that he be born again of God," and its relation to understanding and doing that which is "truly good"; and, note that the article has specified that faith is included in that true good. This Arminian confession, the foundational Arminian confession, which is the basis of the famed Remonstrance, has clearly specified that being born again must precede, logically, faith in Christ.

What this means is that when synergists of any stripe, even those claiming to be Arminian, argue against regeneration-before-faith, they are not advancing the cause of true Arminianism. Rather, they are denying the doctrine of Total Depravity (which both Calvinists and Arminians affirm) and are siding with teaching of Pelagius. Pelagius, of course, maintained that

a) Adam's fall into sin did not render his posterity incapable of doing Good, and

b) the fact that men are commanded to do Good is proof that they can.

These concepts undergird the position of the mainstream leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is the position that was advanced at the John 3:16 Conference. It is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian in its origin. Classic theologians in both those camps would label the theology of J316C as some form of Pelagianism.

Granted, it is not "hard" Pelagian: it is some greatly softened version, but it maintains the core ideas. Specifically, man's fallen state does not render him incapable of truly doing Good, and the fact that the Gospel commands him to do so is proof that he can.

Again, for those keeping score, Pelagianism is a heresy. Whether or not the J316C version of it is damnable is up to God the Judge; but we can certainly render the verdict that it is a different gospel, and thus anathema (Galatians 1.)

White Horse Inn Selling Jesus American Politics And Pelagius

It takes all types.


I recently posted on this at Treasures.

If you haven't followed what Michael Horton is doing in this series on the state of evangelicalism today and you are in the market for a few hours of often disturbing but informative listening, then I heartily recommend it. There is plenty of solid theology along with Dr Horton's erudite ability to make it relevant for today.

Move Over Nelson Price

Pastor Price, you've got a legitimate challenger in the competition to put out the most outlandish, unsupported slander against Calvinism.

Worst. Post. Ever.

(Or nearly so. You'd think stuff like this would make me angry. But it just makes me tired.)

ht: Contemporary Calvinist

CAN'T

Can't continue with the detailed review of Frank Page's Trouble With the Tulip.

It's too infuriating, and it feels like wasting a bunch of time answering objections that are too purile to deserve any time at all.

If there was any, and I mean any, meaningful interaction with the text of Scripture in this entire book, I'd feel differently.

But here's what I think is the most egregious example of Page's "closer examination" of the issues.

On page 56, he is trying to prove his assertion that God actively desires to save every single individual.

He writes, "Can these verses be any clearer?"

And then he simply quotes 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, and 4:9-10.

End of discussion. No exegesis at all. The verses must obviously mean what he thinks that they clearly mean.

The thing that winds up bugging me the most is the subtitle of the book:

A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism. That's what it claims to be. In actuality, as I have said, the Scripture is not interpreted, but merely quoted (infrequently) and more often simply referenced in the form of proof-text addresses.

This doesn't even rise to the level of a popular introduction to the issues.

A closer examination? I want to scream, closer than what?

I am left disappointed and mildly infuriated. Dr. Page has only proven that he is more Pelagian than the average, educated Arminian; and he's displayed huge lapses of scholarship, with regard to precision and argumentation. What's more, for one who is still lauded for his part in the SBC's "Conservative Resurgence," which is billed as the battle for the Bible, Dr. Page can't seem to trouble himself to actually use the Bible to make his case, or to show in any detail why the Calvinist's interpretations are wrong.

I've been reading a lot of blogging lately which laments the low state of Bible knowledge and doctrinal understanding among Southern Baptist laymen, and it occurs to me that maybe it's because the shepherds can't lead where they themselves refuse to go.

Trouble with Frank Page, part three

The third chapter of TWTT is titled “A Description of Positions” and starts to form the meat of the book, such as it is.

Dr. Page gives very general summaries of the five points of Calvinism, followed by the five points of Arminianism, followed at last by his own “Five Points of Scriptural Soteriology.”

He’s got his own five points arranged so that they’ll fit under the acrostic GRACE. Very clever…not. (It reminds me of certain political advocacy groups in the US who seem to come up with the acrostic they’d like to call themselves, and then are locked into forcing words into their official title for the sake of fitting the acrostic, and not because that’s what they really are. Like COMPASSION: Coalition Of Middle-class Persons Avowing to Save Sick Infants in Our Nation.)

As we’ll see a little later, his GRACE acrostic doesn’t follow the pattern of addressing the same points as the other five-point systems, and even repeats one point for the sake of the label.

If I was going to be all nit-picky, there are things I’d change in his definitions of the TULIP, but not a great lot. They’re basically okay, or would be with minor tweaking.

My complaint at this point is not so much what he writes, as it is how little he writes. In a book whose subtitle is "A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism," Dr. Page spends a whole five pages in fairly large-font print defining the TULIP. A single page per point is a "closer examination?" I hardly think so. This is your doctor ruffling your hair and slapping your fanny and pronouncing you fit as a fiddle.

But under the heading for Limited Atonement, there is a line that deserves some consideration, especially in light of the discussion that has taken place in the comments section of the second of these reviews.

He lists some Scripture references, which he says Calvinists use to defend Limited Atonement, and then laments that Calvinists spend “much time…explaining away the passages which portray a universal application for the atonement.” [p.24]

Okay, I’m thinking that the word “application” there is problematic, at best. Does Dr. Page believe that there are Scriptures that teach that Christ’s atonement is universally applied? This is different than saying the atonement is universally “available,” or even universally "offered" or universally “intended.”

If all sin, universally, has had the atonement of Christ applied to it, then all sin has been perfectly atoned. I do not believe that Dr. Page intends to teach this, but rather, that this is merely another instance in which the holder of the Ph.D. could’ve been a bit more careful in his scholarship. I don’t want to make too much of this instance.

So, we’ll skip down to Dr. Page’s summary of the five points of Arminianism.

Under the heading of “Free Will” he says that this is what the Arminians taught:

“Human beings could certainly choose good or evil.” [p.26]

This is eye-opening, because Page has previously defined the Pelagian heresy as the belief that “every person could choose to sin or choose to be righteous.” [p.14] If I was an Arminian, I think I’d be offended: Dr. Page has basically equated classic Arminianism with Pelagianism.

He goes on to prove still more that his understanding of Arminianism is nearly as thorough as his understanding of Calvinism (tongue planted firmly in cheek there.)

“Even though we are all influenced by sin, the Arminians believed that there was still enough good left in mankind for him/her to accept Christ for salvation.” [p.26]

I’m a Calvinist, not an Arminian, but even I know that this is not what the Arminians believed. The whole reason they came up with the doctrine of Prevenient Grace was to find a way to give fallen man the ability to choose to be saved. They didn’t believe fallen man’s natural condition allowed for that possibility apart from a specific work of grace, which would have the effect of rescuing him from his total inability to receive the gospel.

If Arminianism is what Dr. Page describes, then Arminianism = Pelagianism.

Now, I don’t think his description of Arminianism is correct, but the disturbing thing about it is this:

Dr. Page implies throughout this book that the Arminians have their soteriology basically right. That is, he agrees with all but the last point of what he has described as Arminianism, as we will see.

I don’t know that I’ve been clear enough about what disturbs me on this point:

Dr. Page overwhelmingly affirms the teaching of Arminianism, as he has characterized it. And his characterization of Arminianism is Pelagian. (By his own definition.)

Honestly, I don’t desire for a moment to think about the implications for the president of my denomination.

This is already a long post, so we’ll save an examination of his GRACE acrostic for next time.

Trouble with Frank Page, part two

The second chapter of Trouble With the TULIP is titled “A Brief History.” In it, he hopes to show that the Christian position was non-Calvinistic until Augustine made some previously unknown theological innovations, and then Calvin took them and ran with them early in the 16th Century. In this chapter, Dr. Page sadly begins to evince some sloppiness that is merely surprising when it first appears, but then progresses throughout the book, from surprising to flabbergasting, to frustrating, to maddening, to inspiring uncontrolled facial twitches.

The first surprising thing, for a professional of his stature, is a penchant for simply asserting things which the argument at hand seems to demand that he prove. He says it, so it must be correct.

One such instance of that is in the very first sentence of this chapter:

“The New Testament church taught that Jesus Christ died for all people.” [p.11]

Oh, well then. I guess we’re done. Here I was thinking 71 pages was laughable for disproving Calvinism, and Page has undone the whole system on page 11. I guess the following 60 must be all “filler.”

Here’s another instance of the same penchant, from page 12:

“There was no question in the hearts of the New Testament church as to the God-given ability of all persons to respond to God’s invitation.”

Again, no Scripture is brought to bear, but I guess we’re to believe that this declaration is all we need to undo the doctrine of Total Depravity. Hey, if the early church had “no question” about this, I guess we shouldn’t either.

So, with two completely unsupported assertions, Page has proven that no one in the early church believed in either Total Depravity or Limited Atonement. Man! Look how fast he’s dispatching the petals of the TULIP! Two sentences, two doctrines undone.

And in the very next paragraph, he drops the names of some early church Fathers, “Barnabas, Clement and Ignatius, etc.” [p.12], and without even a single citation or quote, confidently asserts they believed that salvation “was a God-given gift which could be received or rejected.”

Ding, ding, ding. Three shots, three shooting gallery ducks dropped! Wave bye-bye to the notion of Irresistable Grace (even though it will become apparent that Page doesn’t understand it.) Who can stand before such powerful argumentation?

Then he lists four early Church Councils, as a way of showing that the church was unified against heresies. He lists Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. I note that one council he didn’t mention was the Council of Orange, which occurred a little after Chalcedon, and which, by the way, happens to affirm a lot ideas that are now associated with Calvinistic thought.

Another surprising misstep by the holder of the Ph.D. is a particularly glaring argumentation error (not the last, either, as the progression of the book will prove.)

Page has already dogmatically asserted that “There was no question in the hearts of the New Testament church as to the God-given ability of all persons to respond to God’s invitation.” [p.12] On the surface, which is all we have, because he doesn’t bother to explain what he means by this, this declaration goes beyond classic Arminianism (which affirms Total Depravity in regards to fallen man’s native state.) It seems to assert that everyone has the native ability to obey the Gospel, and thereby be declared “righteous” in God’s act of justification. God has allowed that every sinner should have the natural ability to decide to be righteous.

Okay, then later, on page 14, in mentioning Pelagius, Page seems to endorse the church Council’s finding that Pelagianism was/is heresy. He summarizes Pelagianism as the belief “that every person could choose to sin, or choose to be righteous.”

Hmmm. One wonders which it is for Page. Does every person have the ability to choose to be righteous? Is that the consistent, unquestioned belief of the New Testament church? Or is that appropriately labeled as heresy?

Because he has effectively asserted both. Yes, the church believed this. And yes, the church uniformly condemned this a little later.

A third penchant that can only be scholarly sloppiness is one for asserting things that “Calvinists believe” which you could never find a Calvinist to agree to.

For instance, on page 17, he says that Calvin’s belief in God’s sovereignty in salvation caused him to substitute “this belief for the biblical view of salvation by grace through faith!”

Really, Dr. Page? You think Calvin displaced salvation by grace through faith? You think any Calvinist on the planet believes something other than salvation by grace through faith? This is disheartening stuff to read.

Then Dr. Page trots out the mournful violin to lament the Synod of Dort, and how unfair it was for a bunch of Calvinistic ministers to strongly reject the overtures of the Arminian Remonstrants. The deck was stacked! The jury was all Calvinistic, and the Arminians had no vote! “This well known historical fact is for some reason totally absent from most books extolling the virtues of Calvinism which emanate from the Synod of Dort!” [p.18]

Cry me a river. If I go to Philadelphia to watch a game between the Eagles and my Cowboys, and I not only wear my colors but shout incessantly that all Eagles fans should convert to the true faith and become Dallas fans, it is really dumb of me to then lament the fact that I got my butt handed to me by a bunch of drunks in Jaworski jerseys.

So, you demand to be heard in a court of Calvinists and then complain when they hold to their Calvinism. Oh, the injustice!! How devilish that man-made system must be! What a kangaroo court it was! For shame, for shame.

Lastly, Page feels the need to deal with the fact that the greatest Baptist preacher ever, CH Spurgeon, was a Calvinist, and a tremendously successful evangelist to boot. He does this by pointing out that Spurgeon despised the Hyper-Calvinists. Which is true, but I’m left wondering what effect this is supposed to have on anything. Calvinists routinely label Hyper-Calvinism as grave error at best, and heresy at worst. I think Page wants to make it look like Spurgeon wasn’t really a Calvinist, because he preached the Gospel to large crowds and urged people to repent and trust in Christ.

It’s the old canard that Calvinism is opposed to evangelism and the universal proclamation of the Gospel, and it’s as wrong here as it is everywhere else.

Page 20, and I’m already wondering how low this can go.

Your Turn to Sound the Alarm

Just a quick request for your opinions here.



I don't have the Martin Luther quote in front of me, but he once taught that it's possible for a pastor to be faithful in every area, but then utterly fail as a representative of Christ's kingdom, because of his unwillingness to address the central issue that the forces of Hell seem to be pressing on the church. Imagine a castle under seige, and the aggressors finding a weak spot in the wall and concentrating their forces at that point. The faithful minister will go to that very place and do what he can to shore it up at that point. It would be faithless to "stand your ground" on the opposite side of the castle, where the attack is not happening.



Y'know, so for instance, if the doctrine of Christ's Incarnation is being heavily assaulted, it's faithless to press on with your 19 week sermon series on baptism, even if everything you have to say about baptism is perfectly true.



So, my question is, to all of you Mafia readers who preach or teach in some capacity, if you had to narrow it down to one or two options, where is that break in the wall happening right now? If you could sound the trumpet and rally your brethren to a point, where would it be? (This is open to our non-Calvinistic readers as well.)

The Marks of a False Teacher: A look at 1 Timothy 6:3-5

Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

How can you tell if someone is a false teacher?

1. They teach a different doctrine.
2. They do not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. They do not agree with the teaching that accords with godliness.

Here the apostle Paul admonishes timothy to teach the truth, and recognixe those who teach otherwise as false teachers. He begins by admonishing Timothy to teach these things. What things, the things he has previously written to him in his letter. And then he says, if anyone teaches anything otherwise and does not agree with this, they are a false teacher. In fact, this is what he says about those people.

They are:
1. Arrogant~they are puffed up
2. Ignorant~they understand nothing

Likely what Paul was warning timothy about was gnosticism, which was definitely rooted in pride, because they believed they had an upper hand on knowledge than the orthodox Christians. However, the gnostics rejected the gospel to invent their own religion. The irony of this is that these prideful folks who thought they had gained secret knowledge, actually understood nothing. You could say they were dumber than a brick.

Here are some other characteristics of these folks:

1. They have an unhealthy craving for controversy.
2. They have an unhealthy craving for quarrels about words....Interesting...sounds like someone I know....any guesses?

But notice, that these unhealthy cravings don't help anything. They actually fuel sinful ways in the minds of lost people. It produces envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among those who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth.


Another thing is that false teachers like money. They use religion to gain material wealth. "Godliness is a means of gain." We know it is talking about monetary gain from the context....Sounds like a lot of tv preachers.

I write this post so that you as you listen to preachers and read books, you will be discerning as you do it, looking for the marks of a false teacher. I am in no way saying these marks are exhaustive, or that a false teacher must exhibit everyone of these. But these are some things that the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, sought to warn young Timothy about, and we too should take heed lest we fall.