The Pit Bull of Evangelicalism is at it Again

The self-proclaimed "Pitbull of Evanglicalism," "Dr." Ergun Caner is at it again, albeit it a bit more mildly, with his anti-Calvinistic "barking." Dr. Tom Ascol, of the Founders Ministry, has posted an article on his blog detailing the most recent comments by "Dr." Caner. I posted twice in response. Here is one of the responses:

From John Orlando:

pastor jim said: "While there will always be theological differences among us based on our hermeneutical variancies, we should still recognize ourselves primarily as people of the "Book”--the inerrant, infallible Book. That is the only bridge that is truly worth building."

I appreciate pastor jims comments. But if I may, I'd like to add to them a bit because I think it strikes to the heart of the issue, namely, what does the text say.

First, I think all sides do view themselves as people of the book. Lord knows Mr. Caner does; after all, he is a "biblicist!" :-) The problem, obviously, is that the conclusions reached in terms of what that infallible and inerrant Word actually says are so radically different. Hence, building a bridge where we are people of the book will only work when all parties (and I do mean all without excpetion :-)) are more concerned with "what sayeth the Lord" then they are with their own traditions and philosophical presuppositions through which they funnel the infallible and inerrant text through (which serves far too often as the hermeneutical method that is being employed).

As far as I have been able to discern, with a few exceptions, only one side has consistently been willing to open the text and interact with the other side in a respectful dialogue/debate concerning what the text actually teaches. Mr. Caner, when given the opportunity, backed out. Not only that, but James White even offered to go to Liberty with his Greek NT and discuss these things with the self-proclaimed "Pitbull" of Evangelicalism, yet, for all of his bark, the silence to that offer was deafening. To date, all Mr. Caner has in fact done is bark. When challenged, he "bites" with ad hominen attacks and provacative rhetoric instead of offering a reasoned response from the Sacred Text.

Anyway, this is why I believe, with all due respect to my non-Calvinistic brethren, that as others have said, the strength of Reformed theology is its exegesis and exposition of the text.

I am not trying to be dramatic or callous when I say that I have yet been able to find a non-Reformed response that deals sufficiently with all of the Scriptural data, and interacts sufficiently with Reformed exegesis of the texts in question (I recognize some might disagree with that assessment; people can see for themselves).

This is why when the offer goes out to build that bridge as people of the Word, where we seek to submit to its teachings regardless of how it sets with us, really at the end of the day that is almost impossible for one very simple reason: philosophical presuppositions, traditions, and human pride do not die easily.

So, when confronted with the *absolute* sovereignty of God and the radical depravity of man, the unconditional nature of God's choosing sinners to be saved, necessity and invincibility of God's sovereign grace, the perfection of an actual (not merely a potential) atonement, and then the preserving work of a gracious God who will (not might) complete that good work that He began us, man finds no room for his self-reliance. He finds no room for his self-glory. He finds no room for boasting within himself. He finds, in essence, his sovereigny and autonomy completely demolished, and, being the sinners that we are, we really hate that.

By His Grace and For His Glory,

John O