Romans 9, according to Ergun Caner

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marrow Man

Marrow Man

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



Not!
 
I must admit, how does one answer his question. Did God hate Esau because he was Esau? How does the Calvinist answer this?
 
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.
 
...or did God hate Esau because of what Esau did?
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

He must have skipped this verse.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

-----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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Whatever, Henchman (of the female kind). You secretly don't believe in holiness.
Click to expand...

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

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

Here is Dr. White discussing the sermon by Dr. Caner
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::spitlol::rofl::rofl::bouncy:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Scott
  • Locked
Ergun Caner comments
Replies
1
Views
2K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
bened
  • Locked
James White discussing Ergun Caner sermon on DL NOW (aomin.org)
Replies
11
Views
3K
MeanieCalvinist
MeanieCalvinist
buggy
  • Locked
Dispensationalism, Arminianism and Romans 9
Replies
6
Views
3K
Bern
Bern
Sonoftheday
  • Locked
Romans 9 (the parenthetical argument)
Replies
15
Views
5K
Spinningplates2
Spinningplates2
ChristopherPaul
  • Locked
Arminian Interpretation of Romans 9?
Replies
18
Views
14K
heartoflesh
heartoflesh
Back
Top