Monday, June 21, 2010

Theology Day 1

Walking into Ergun Caner's theology class, I was a bit skeptical of what the day had in store. Rumors were flying (they still are) and I didn't know what to believe (that has changed now).  I love theology, but most students at Liberty don't wait until their Junior year to take it. I did.

My day started off awful to say the least! My mom gave me news that a lady I had known my whole life had passed away and the rain was pouring down outside. I chose a seat in front of a girl who would turn out to be the cause of a four-day headache. For 15 minutes prior to the class starting I listened to this "whore" (sorry for the strong word) behind me talk about her many sexual escapades with her ex-boyfriends on the Liberty football team. If only Coach Rocco could have been here for this conversation...Anyways, my bitterness towards her was continuing to build so finally I turned around and asked her to stop talking about her sex life seeing that we were in a Christian school and in a theology class! After I was given the evil eye I turned back around only in time for her to run up and talk to the teacher as if she was a devout Christian seeking godly advice from Dr. Caner. Hypocrisy is disgusting!

Within the first 20 minutes of class Ergun is chatting about the accusations against him, but he made it clear that he isn't worrying about the issue or looking in to it...yet he gave my class an explanation, which I was extremely grateful for since for the next 4 days he would teach me a basis of theology that I would use throughout the rest of my academic life. If you're interested I have 7 minutes of his innocence recorded on my cell phone. *(I have recently been contacted about this media clip via blog comments, and let me make it clear that I will not be giving out any information).

Now, onto Theology. I can't exactly remember what stood out that first day, but I remember learning more than my brain could digest. The whole week was like Academic Bulimia: I took in a lot of information, but forgot it before it had time to digest...

Prolegomena. Ever heard of it? It's ok, I'll explain. Basically prolegomena sets the stage so that we are all discussing the same thing. In other words; we cannot have a discussion on if two people are in love if we don't come to a mutual agreement on the definition and nature of the word "love". How does this fit into Theology? I'm glad you asked...How you approach theology will define how you relate to God, your salvation and your church.

We also discussed the various approaches to apologetics. I do not agree with the presuppositional view. This approach is often known as the Limited Atonement approach. Believes that Christ only died for the elect, and that only the elect can understand the evidence. They must first agree on certain presuppositions before the Gospel can be effectively presented.

I would definitely agree more closely with the evidential view: which would be commonly defined as a General Atonement approach. Basically, the evidential view says that Christ died for the world (John 3:16, right) and that each living soul has a God-shaped hole that can only be filled by God. Therefore, each person is created in the image of God (imago Dei) and can be shown using evidence that a personal God loves them.

Overall, the first day was a success.

Grace, Peace, Love,

KJ

56 comments:

  1. Hi there,

    Good post.

    I would be interested in hearing the 7 minutes of Ergun's innocence. If you could contact me, that would be great.

    e-mail: contact@fakeexmuslims.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. I too would be interested in hearing the 7 minutes of Ergun's innocence. I am particularly curious as to why he explained things to his students but has refused to make any public statements to any news outlets like Christianity Today and Associated Press when they attempted to interview him for the stories they wrote about him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello faith_to_move. Came across your blog and must say I really like the design. I just wanted to mention a few brief things. I am attending a seminary on the west coast and, therefore, study apologetics and theology quite a bit :)

    The presuppositional view is not the best title but it's what we are stuck with apparently. It basically refers to the apologetic approach which holds that the existence of God must be presupposed in order to have any objective standard. For instance, morality, ethics, rules of logic, etc. are only justified by the belief in God. The most famous proponents of this approach are Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til. They use the so-called Transcendental argument which is what I just summarized. In essence, if you were to debate an atheist you would state, "Just by agreeing to debate you have assumed an objective standard and thereby violated your own world-view (which must hold to relativism since everything is an accident)."

    Evidential apologetics is summed up by the name. Basically, evidences (usually centered on the resurrection of Christ but also creation) should be the starting point when speaking with an atheist. Josh McDowell is among the most well-known evidentialists.

    Anyway, I thought I would share that since you mentioned the scope of Christ's atonement in relation to these. But these apologetic approaches do not relate to the atonement issue. They focus on the best way to present the Christian faith and worldview to unbelievers. The atonement debate, though, is an in-house debate among believers.

    And lastly, as one who holds to Definite (or limted) atonement, I would challenge the notion that only a "select few" will be saved. Actually, many Calvinists even hold that the greater majority of mankind will be saved in the end, far greater than the number lost.

    And maybe one question to consider is this--If Christ died for all the nations in the Old Testament whom he never sent prophets and, furthermore, ordered to be destroyed by slaying with the sword every man, woman, and child, did his universal atonement do them any good? In our modern day, those who die in remote parts of the world having never heard the gospel--did Christ die for their sins knowing they would never hear the gospel?

    These are things to think about. If we posit an equal, universal atonement, do the above examples not lead to the conclusion that God is a respecter of persons and arbitrary? It is one thing to espouse universal atonement as an American, but try telling that good news to a tribal people whose ancestors perished without even knowing of this truth.

    Sorry that this post has grown longer than I intended. I appreciate your blog and your disgust for nominal Christianity that you were exposed to in class. God's blessings as you continue on your journey at Liberty. Grace and Peace.

    Gary

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi faith_to_move,

    I'm curious and confused. Were you taught that presuppositionalism teaches limited atonement? And that the evidentialist approach teaches universal atonement?

    If so, these are category errors and I'm wondering how positions were explained.

    Thanks,

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark, yes I was taught as mentioned in my blog: presup=limited, and evidential=general

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, you need to demand your money back. Presuppositional apologetics is argument over whose ultimate authority can account for the world as it is. If you want the truth on presuppositional apologetics go to a primary source like Dr. Greg Bahnsen. You may not agree with his theology but at least disagree with a what the method actually is and not some mis-characterization of it.

    Part one of the lecture series is at the bottom.
    http://www.wts.edu/resources/media.html?paramType=audio&filterTopic=&filterSpeaker=78&filterYear=

    ReplyDelete
  7. You really should ask for your money back. You could get a better theological education from Wikipedia. Here is a snippet from their article on Presuppositional Apologetics:

    Apologists who follow Van Til earned the label "presuppositional" because of their central tenet that the Christian must at all times presuppose the supernatural revelation of the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error in order to know anything. Christians, they say, can assume nothing less because all human thought presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible.

    Does that sound like what Dr. Caner taught you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you really do have the "7 minutes of innocence" in audio form, please do make it available. Caner has been unwilling to speak out publicly on this issue and the resulting turmoil has been shameful. Did you know that the story was even picked up the Tehran Times? Do the global church a favor and post this audio.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "If you're interested I have 7 minutes of his innocence recorded on my cell phone. *(I have recently been contacted about this media clip via blog comments, and let me make it clear that I will not be giving out any information)."

    May I ask why you won't help establish the innocence of this man? Folks have been saying that he embellished his autobiography by claiming to have grown up in Turkey and/or other majority Muslim nations and trained in the "Islamic Youth Jihad," when (according to those accusing Dr. Caner) he seems to have lived a fairly normal suburban Ohio childhood, having moved to Ohio from Sweden not later than 1970 (when he himself was still only 3 and a half), when his youngest brother was born there.

    Apparently the person who had primary care over him for most of his childhood was his Swedish grandmother, who helped his mother (who had primary custody of him) raise him from around the mid-seventies onward.

    If you're not willing to share the recorded innocence, can you at least let us know whether the accusations against him were identified and how (in general) they were addressed?

    Or were his comments more just claims that he really was a Muslim when he was a child, and that his non-custodial father really disowned him at some point in the 80's, which all his critics seem to acknowledge?

    Any word on his claims to have debated Muslim leaders? Any names of any of the Muslim leaders he has debated?

    Any explanations from him about how a former devout Muslim could mistakenly think that Ramadan was 40 days long?

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is this what the faculty at Liberty is teaching as Presuppositional Apologetics? Wow!! Sounds to me like Liberty has a distinct anti-reformed agenda and are going to GREAT lengths to advance it! How utterly sad! I join the chorus is saying that what you were told is indeed NOT Presuppositional Apologetics!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I must commend our blogger for her discernment regarding her classmate's bragging about her escapades with the football team. Bravo for speaking for personal holiness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I must also echo what has been stated.

    You were taught a gross category error. It makes me uneasy that someone would be allowed to teach such an obviously errant idea. Just think how many students have been given this obviously wrong understanding of apologetic approaches by Dr. Caner?

    You are in no way to blame, but Dr. Caner and Liberty have a serious burden here in just how wrong what you were taught is.

    What you were taught demonstrates Dr. Caner's anti-Reformed bias.

    Nevertheless, it is a category error.

    There are people who follow evidential approach to apologetics who are believe in Limited Atonement and there are people who follow the pressuppositional approach who reject Limited Atonement.

    What you believe about the atonement has nothing to do with the definition of those apologetic approaches.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Michael, nor was the definition of Evidentialism even close to accurate. Sadly she would flunk any test in any other school if she answered with this information. Is it possible that she just misunderstood Caner that badly? Or has Caner just gone so far off of the beam that he is putting apples and oranges in his theological blender and pouring cups of this garbage for his students to drink?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. First of all, beautiful blog! Did you design it yourself? If so, well done!

    Next, I am concerned that the criticisms of your definitions of presuppositional and evidential apologetics will get buried amid other things and you'll miss something critical for your foundational studies in theology.

    While it may be true that people holding to certain doctrine prefer one method over the other- a point I am not conceding but offering as a possible explanation for the erroneous information, to define either system by their users isn't wise.

    Classical or evidential apologetics uses evidence for Christianity to make a case for Christ. Presuppositional apologetics exposes the biases of a person- showing how those biases will skew how the person will view the evidence they are given. So, as you can see, presuppositionalists use evidential apologetics too, they just try to clear the way for the evidence to be seen without bias. Either method can be used in an argument.

    If you were taught differently, could it be because your professor was exposing his biases? I only ask because the point of an education is to be able to discern right from wrong and as a student it's good to know when you're being taught definitions or your professor's position.

    Lastly, I am always happy to see women embark on a study of theology. I hope you will keep at it! It's worth the effort!

    ReplyDelete
  17. A friend of mine linked here today and I just have one thing to say:

    LOVE the little swimming fishies. :o)
    Have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really like the background on the blog. Hope things are going well for you at Liberty. I grew up in Lynchburg and just recently moved away to go to seminary.

    For a quick introduction to presuppositional apologetics you can go here - http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=166

    For a quick introduction to Calvinism and the position on the atonement that you were talking about you can go here - http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

    It is good to take a look at both perspectives as described by those who hold them.

    I think the people who are telling you to get your money back are over doing it a bit. There are plenty of good professors and students at Liberty and you will get out of your education what you put into it. It is true that Dr. Caner did mix up his topics a bit, but he was probably just doing a quick introduction to the class at that point. Additionally, there *are* links between Calvinism (the view of the atonement Dr. Caner mentioned) and presuppositionalism. Dr. Caner has that much right.

    Ergun Caner recently put together a book with Ed Hindson on apologetics in which the presuppositional method of apologetics is explained from what I assume is Caner's position on the topic. The article was written by someone else though and I do not recall the name. It is generally a positive article, but it does get a few things wrong. For example, Van Til did not deny that unbelievers can have knowledge. Unbelievers can have knowledge, but not when they are thinking consistently as unbelievers in terms of their own view of the world (as uncreated, random, etc.)

    Anyway, hope this helps.

    Grace,
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow. The whole "sexual escapades" thing in a theology class? Faith, you're definitely encouraged to discourage such 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 behavior among the student body. Yikes.

    Also, I have to agree with some of the commenters on the presuppositional thing.

    Relating presuppositional apologetics to a limited atonement is like suggesting that loving cheddar cheese is related to being a communist.

    Not entirely accurate...

    I'd encourage you to ask Dr. Caner to explain exactly HOW limited atonement and presuppositionalism are related?

    God bless as you learn about him at liberty!

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's kind of cool that you have this secret recording that so many people want. Just think of your life as a spy movie now. Get yourself a safety deposit box and a few wigs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with you. Hypocrisy is disgusting. And that is why you should release the 7 minutes of innocence - if he truly is innocent, then it would be hypocritical of you to withhold it seeing as how we are as Christians, obligated to bring the truth to light.

    ReplyDelete
  22. (I have recently been contacted about this media clip via blog comments, and let me make it clear that I will not be giving out any information).

    Wow - the apple didn't fall far from the tree in this case. Caner has been refusing to "give out any information" for months.

    A little leaven ... is everyone at Liberty U now suppressing the truth???

    ReplyDelete
  23. I would suggest that u actually watch the footage of Caner on youtube that brought about the questioning of his character. As much as he may try to spin things in your class, he cannot escape the fact that he said on numerous occasions (This is all documented footage by the way, not just rumors) that he came to America in 1979 when he was in his teens when in reality, he came to America in 1969 when he was 3 years old. Those aren't misstatements Miss Naive but something far worse. Don't be a sheep.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Regardless of what one's thoughts are regarding the validity of this blog's theological content, I think it's important the we understand that this course was taught as a week-long intensive. That being said, it is difficult for students to fully comprehend ALL of the subject matter within a week-long course (especially a Theology course). It is also possible that because of the time constraints related to the teaching of the subject matter, that Dr. Caner might have "blurred the lines" between some of the apologetic views within the subjects content. I am sure that if this were so, he did not do so intentionally.

    Also, in regards to Dr. Caner's innocence, it is HIS responsibility to address the matter at hand and if he shared any information with his students, I am sure that it was meant to be shared in confidence. (This does in no way grant those who were present to hear his address to exploit or reveal any of the information Dr. Caner released regarding the accusations against him.) I am sure Dr. Caner will address the public whenever the time comes; however, perhaps he thought it better to first address those who might be most directly affected by the accusations against him - his students. The University is conducting an internal investigation regarding the claims and accusations against Dr. Caner, and he is cooperating fully with all of the University's leadership. If anything should come of this investigation, it will be addressed during that time. Until then, please stop trying to sabotage Dr. Caner and the students of Liberty University! If something is revealed regarding the validity of the claims and accusations against Dr. Caner, we must remember that he too is human. (While I am not by any means trying to justify sin, I do think we should all reconsider the words of Christ in Matthew 7:3-5.)

    Lastly, I agree...GREAT BLOG design! :D

    Soli Deo Gloria!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I wonder if Dr. Caner has even taken the time actually read any major works by Van Til, Bahnsen or other well known presuppositional apologists! Judging by his description of it, I assume he hasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I wonder if Dr. Caner has even taken the time actually read any major works by Van Til, Bahnsen or other well known presuppositional apologists! Judging by his description of it, I assume he hasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  28. carawayboy4ever, I am a LU grad so I personally have every right to way in on the situation. Am I not directly affected by what is going on? I am currently an intern at a church and am considering seminary at LU. My pastor, who is aware of the situation, told me to reconsider if nothing comes of the investigation because it could hurt my credibility down the road for having attended there. The evidence is overwhelming that Caner was dishonest in some ways and if LU overlooks this evidence then I will have to look elsewhere. I don't want Caner to be fired, I just want him to own up to false statements and not because I want to see him humbled but because I don't want to see hypocrisy in the highest position at the greatest Christian University's seminary. I hope u can understand my frustration being that I love LU just as much as u do.

    ReplyDelete
  29. sjstulic,
    I strongly believe there is a greater need for accountability within the school (but also the Church, as well). Dr. Caner should take responsibility for his actions and address the issues at hand. Everyone is affected by this is some shape or form, like you said your pastor has good reason for concern regarding your reputation and credibility (along with every other student) because of this whole scenario. However, the influence of this situation will not only damage the reputation of the university and it's students, but also the Church.

    I completely understand your frustration and empathize with you. No one wants this kind of publicity; however, "scandals" of this caliber demand timely response and resolution. Dr. Caner needs to be held accountable for any discrepancies regarding his testimony, etc. and I am sure that the University will execute this according to the Biblical method outlined in Matthew 18:15-20. Thank you for your concern and your response.

    To everyone else:
    I do not believe faith_to_move intended for this to be a confirmation of her beliefs, instead an overview of her thoughts regarding the subject matter and happenings in Dr. Caner's Theology intensive. (*Note the "disclaimer" following the blog title.) The contents of Dr. Caner's teachings (along with anyone else's teachings) should be viewed and analyzed through the lenses of Scripture. After all, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). Sola Scriptura!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Were those definitions of presuppositionalist and evidentialist apologetics supported with any documentation? They are totally inaccurate. Presuppositional apologists do tend to be Reformed (though not always, and not all Reformed apologists are presuppositional), but the scope of the atonement and one's approach to apologetics are totally different topics.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jason Lisle's "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" is a good, easy-to-read, intro to presuppositional apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dear Faith

    It is probably also of interest that that noted Calvinist R.C. Sproul is big on evidentialism. While many presuppositionalists maintain that it is more consistent with Reformed theology, one's apologetic method is not wholly linked with one's view of the atonement -as witness my Van Til books that I bought from an Amyraldian!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Also 'twas that awful man Augustine (I speak with my tongue in cheek) who said those great words, "Lord, Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in thee."

    ReplyDelete
  34. To be clear: presup and evid have NOTHING to do with Christianity or religion. Ergo, they have NOTHING to do with "limited" or "general" atonement.

    When a liberal atheist goes to history and ASSUMES that miracles are not real, he or she is taking a naturalistic presupposition. He or she IS a presuppositionalist. If this same athiest were to look at the evidence for miracles by looking at the Gospels, Works of Josephus, and other works TO SEE if miracles are real, this person would be an evidentialist.

    The same could be said for evolution. Taking the presupposition that there is no god, then evolution looks pretty tasty.

    Even gossip is based on this concept. If someone talks about something someone else said about them and you believe it, you are a presuppositionalist *at that point*. If you are a mature adult who looks at the evidence, then you are an evidentialist *at that point*.

    In Christianity, when you are a presup, one of the many things you are saying is "I'm not an infinite being, so it's absolutely insane of me to think that I, a finite being, can prove or disprove an infinite being". Now, when you come to REFORMED THEOLOGY presup, you also add "Given that the Bible teaches that man is radically corrupt (see Gen 6:5-- you can lucky dip for any number of other verses), it's absolutely insane to think that man in his radically corrupt state can made a morally good decision for the Gospel."

    Caner has no idea what's going on.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Continued:

    Caner has no idea what's going on... but that may be why Caner got it confused. He's confusing the definition with it's usage in one particular area.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi there!

    Just want to encourage you (sister) to not promote what you've learned about the difference between pressup and evidential apologetics. You have been informed in error. Major error. I'm sure that you are passionate about truth. Your definitions are completely inaccurate. I'm not attempting to insult you. Just a loving correction.

    Bless you,

    Jeff Durbin

    *read "Always Ready" by Greg Bahnsen to receive an accurate reading on pressup. :]

    ReplyDelete
  37. An atonement which only potentially saves entails that there are such things as brute facts. This is wholly inconsistent with presuppositional apologetics. So yes, the topics do have something to do with one another, though I doubt Dr. Caner had this link in mind.

    With all due respect, qm doesn't understand what he's writing about.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you all for your input. Some of you spoke wise words that were both enlightening and edifying, yet some of you proved yourselves to be the perfect picture of the fool marked out in Proverbs 14:9. (Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favor. Proverbs 14:9)

    In regards to the possible theological error: I am by no means a Theologian or an Apologist, but I am a student both academically and primarily spiritually. I have taken heed of the possible flawed definitions taught to me in my theology intensive class at Liberty, but I think it is pathetic how many of you have a one-minded defensive track, willing to minimize anyone or anything. I am almost certain that most of you would not have commented on my blog had I not mentioned Ergun Caner's name, which tells me how childish grown men and women can truly be.

    In my Theology class, I may have received a one-sided view of the definitions and meanings surrounding the "presuppostional and evidential view," but it has now been made clear to me what the supposed or assumed truth of these words is.

    As a final word, I just want to say how disappointed I have been today. To me, blogging is sharing thoughts and views (whether right or flawed) that are inherently your own, but I was not even true to my own view of blogging today. I took someone else's words and was called out for them. I was also disappointed within the sphere of people who call themselves believers in Christ, yet make arguments like they were bigger and better than myself. Let me remind those people of Jesus’ teaching that the greatest should become the least.

    I want to end with an encouragement to you all: let us not get hung up over each other's "sins" and "flawed theology" rather, maybe we should be asking one another "did you present the Gospel to a lost person today?" or "did you live like a true follower of Christ and follow His example?"

    Questions like those should keep us up at night. Not whether Ergun Caner is in the wrong, that's Satan distracting us.

    May we all stay focused on Christ and live fully for Him.

    Grace, Peace, and Love to you all.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am sure you are right about one thing: if you had not mentioned Dr. Caner, most of the folks who visited and commented would not have done so.

    For good or ill, Caner is news. I wish that the news were that there was indeed a demonstration of his innocence, as you seem to have suggested in your post. And I am very sad that demonstration of his innocence will have to wait for another day.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am afraid it is NOT the mention of Ergun Caner's name that caused all your new visitors (including me). There are lot of student blogs that mention Ergun Caner and this is the first one I have seen that has been visited with comments.

    It is this statement:

    If you're interested I have 7 minutes of his innocence recorded on my cell phone.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Just out of curiosity, how did you all find or stumble across this blog?! It's just kind of surprising to see the volume of blog comments on this particular post in comparison to all the other posts (which each hold their own unique merit and validity.) Just a thought...

    ReplyDelete
  42. I want you to know that I blogged about you today because reading your blog has been an encouragement to me. Not the comments from others but your words. You have reminded me of the joy in my salvation and just how amazing grace really is. And you're right, I probably wouldn't have had the chance to read your blog had it not been brought to my attention, but I am hoping you won't mind if I am a more frequent visitor. If you care to see what I wrote, here's the link : http://tiny.cc/x225o

    ReplyDelete
  43. "We also discussed the various approaches to apologetics. I do not agree with the presuppositional view. This approach is often known as the Limited Atonement approach. Believes that Christ only died for the elect, and that only the elect can understand the evidence. They must first agree on certain presuppositions before the Gospel can be effectively presented.

    I would definitely agree more closely with the evidential view: which would be commonly defined as a General Atonement approach. Basically, the evidential view says that Christ died for the world (John 3:16, right) and that each living soul has a God-shaped hole that can only be filled by God. Therefore, each person is created in the image of God (imago Dei) and can be shown using evidence that a personal God loves them."

    I don't know how else to say it, but this is an incredibly distorted view of apologetic method and presuppositional apologetics.

    If you do have time, please read my book, The Portable Presuppositionalist (buy on Amazon.com)

    God bless your academic adventures, and may you seek to draw conclusions very thoughtfully and cautiously,

    Jamin H
    realapologetics.org

    ReplyDelete
  44. If you're interested I have 7 minutes of his innocence recorded on my cell phone. *(I have recently been contacted about this media clip via blog comments, and let me make it clear that I will not be giving out any information).

    Well then why'd you say it? What's the point? There are untold hours of video/audio out there where he incriminates himself... so..?

    ReplyDelete
  45. faith_to_move said:
    "let us not get hung up over each other's "sins" and "flawed theology" rather, maybe we should be asking one another "did you present the Gospel to a lost person today?"

    "How am I to present the Gospel to a lost person if I can't even articulate it properly?
    If "flawed theology" is merely a minuscule matter.....then what is it that I am sharing? Theology matters, it really does. If it doesn't then how is my evangel of any greater value than the Mormon or Jehovah's Witness?

    Having personally been working in Christian Apologetics for more than 20 years it disturbs me greatly that you, our next generation of theologians, are not being taught properly. We all decry it when we see some liberal professor turn a classroom into their own little soapbox all the while ignoring the subject that they are supposed to be teaching. How is it any different that by your own words Ergun Caner can take important subjects and twist them into verbal devices that have nothing to do with their actual meanings. This should not be.

    So if you want to know why I am here. I followed a link and found evidence of something that has bothered me for a very long time. Your education actually means something to me and I have never met you. I want you and the rest of America's youth learning the truth, not one man's propaganda trip.

    Blessings

    ReplyDelete
  46. I ran across this very well-written blog concerning another blogger's views concerning the accusations against Dr. Ergun Caner. Very inspiring and convicting, I daresay. Here's the link...
    http://rambling-rosemarie.blogspot.com/2010/05/gnats-camels-foresttrees-praying-for.html

    Thank you for sharing rosemarie!

    ReplyDelete
  47. I was initially willing to give Dr. Caner the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps the blogger misunderstood what he was saying regarding presuppositional apologetics. Unfortunately, I see another student in the class has defined the term in exactly the same way:

    http://klo22.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/summer-intensive/

    Caner's definition is as accurate as someone arguing that 2+2 = 3. Given the level of his error, he has absolutely no business teaching this false information at Liberty (or any other institution).

    ReplyDelete
  48. Blogger, how very self-righteous of you. I'd like to remind you, blogger, that some of us (I would say many of us from what I'm reading) are very trained in theology, especially Turretinfan.

    I'd highly recommend that you (and that C.L. Bolt person) learn some humility and respect when it comes to the truth and allow yourself (yourselves) to be corrected on demand.

    Again, you don't need to know much or anything about apologetics to know that when you look at the words "evidentialism" and "presuppositionalism", you can see that the words "evidence" and "presupposition" are either in there are pretty close ("eviden"). It's hard to image that anyone needs to be told that presuppositionalism relates to one or more presuppositions and that evidentialism relates to evidence.

    Furthermore, I'd recommend to you that you take the Caner scandal more seriously. It should deeply concern you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. qm:

    Thanks for the kind words. Just so you know, I don't make any claims about my background (who I am, where or how long I studied, etc.). I'm just a believer with a Bible and a blog, and if I can edify by God's grace, praise be to the Lord!

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  50. KJ --

    Good luck with the summer modular; I took several of these when I was at Liberty (I once spent an entire week of 8-hour days cooped up in a room with Dr Beck and lived to tell the tale) but I have to admit that in retrospect they added more to my status sheet than they did to my education. I think I took the Theology series in modulars, and twenty years on I couldn't tell you who the professor was, much less anything he said.

    Are they still using Theissen's Lectures in Systematic Theology?

    http://www.amazon.com/Lectures-Systematic-Theology-Clarence-Thiessen/dp/0802835295/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

    ReplyDelete
  51. qm,

    You wrote, "I'd highly recommend that you (and that C.L. Bolt person) learn some humility..."

    While this is an excellent recommendation I would request that you quote specifically what it is that I have written that you find to be prideful or arrogant.

    "...and respect when it comes to the truth..."

    Again, I need for you to quote exactly what it is I have written that leads you to believe that I have not been respectful.

    "...and allow yourself (yourselves) to be corrected on demand."

    I am certainly not above correction, but I am not sure what you are referring to. Again, I need for you to be very specific. What, specifically, do you "demand" that I be corrected on?

    What you have written concerning apologetics is incorrect. That is why I wrote, "With all due respect, qm doesn't understand what he's writing about."

    Please - when making such serious charges concerning a lack of humility and respect be very specific as to what you are referring to.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'll chime in here, too; mostly for the author's benefit, and secondarily for the benefit of *some* of the commenters here.

    First, commenters: y'all are guests here. Please remember that. Second, be nice. Seriously. Third, recall that we are to a) Speak the truth b) With love. (Eph 4:15) With gentleness toward men and reverence toward God. (1 Pe 3:15)

    faith_to_move: While I agree that Dr. Caner's understanding of theological topics leaves much to be desired, I also appreciate the annoyance of having a comment storm while a burgeoning student of such - and being "caught in the crossfire", as it were. We can tend to be a bit over-zealous at times, and fail to remember the love that accompanies "speaking the truth." (I'm looking at you, cage-stagers...)

    My prayer that you learn the true purpose of theology, as you move through your studies - the knowledge of God which teaches you more clearly who it is you love and why it is you should be abundantly pleased to serve Him gratefully, faithfully, and unswervingly in the work He prepared for you from the beginning. (Eph 2:8-10)

    I'm glad for your willingness to learn about your God and Savior, and pray that God will show you "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him".
    ~RK

    ReplyDelete
  53. "If you're interested I have 7 minutes of his innocence recorded on my cell phone."

    Sounds like you were offering to share it. I'd like to hear it.

    I am just wondering if you have the same opinion after his removal as dean today.

    ReplyDelete
  54. faith_to_move:

    After reading the entire comments section twice, I think it shows a severe lack of discernment on your part to snap at people like you did. You yourself were the only one who seemed to go on the defensive.

    You said this:

    "I have taken heed of the possible flawed definitions taught to me in my theology intensive class at Liberty, but I think it is pathetic how many of you have a one-minded defensive track, willing to minimize anyone or anything."

    I honestly do not know what this one-minded defensive track your are referring to is. But for the offense you feel was given, you are the only one I have seen refer to a chunk of the people who commented as "pathetic" and "fools."

    Besides a single reference to "Miss Naive" which I didn't understand, no one attacked you. And yes, you yourself seemed to indicate you felt like you were under attack for sharing your thoughts, or something like that.

    The 7 minute audio may have attracted most people to read your blog, but a vast majority rightfully took a bigger issue with the definition you learned about what the evidential and presuppositional view is. And rightfully so, the definitions you learned were horrifically wrong, but not by any fault of your own (something which other commenters also said). The chorus of correction to this error may have been long and firm from the commenters, but nowhere did I see anyone attack you or act disrespectful. This is why I was rather shocked to notice the only one personally attacking others was yourself. You called people who were gently trying to help you "pathetic" and "fools."

    If I am in error, could you provide a couple of examples of this type of behavior from the commentors?

    -MechaDice

    ReplyDelete
  55. " How does this fit into Theology? I'm glad you asked...How you approach theology will define how you relate to God, your salvation and your church. "

    "I want to end with an encouragement to you all: let us not get hung up over each other's "sins" and "flawed theology" rather, maybe we should be asking one another "did you present the Gospel to a lost person today?" or "did you live like a true follower of Christ and follow His example?"

    It is mind blowing to me that the same person made both statements quoted above. The first statements exhorts us to be concerned with our theology because it affects how we live our lives and relate to God. The second statement minimizes theology and tells us to just go witness for Jesus, whether our theology is right or wrong.

    Faith to Move,

    I am glad you have a heart for the Lord and want to sincerely learn theology, but if this is really what Caner has taught you, you should demand a refund for that class. It is wrong, and yes, it really does matter if your theology is right or wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Be kind or I may rewind...