Why The Caner Double Standard

[Peggy]

Ok, I am really late to this debate but I think I have something to add. I am investigating whether or not to go to LU for a Master's degreee. I saw the webvideo done by Dr. Caner, and he was all warm and fuzzy.

Then I started watching the DVD's for a class taught by Dr. Caner. What a pompous blowhard! His was the only, ultimate opinion and everyone else was wrong. He even said that Baptist churches that have elder boards are "not Baptist". I kid you not. I guess he believes that the pastor should be accountable to no one but God. I disagree - I think that opens up a church to abuse of power by the pastor.

Anyhoo - I was struck by the contrast between the warm, fuzzy Dr. Caner of the "come to Liberty!" video and the pompous jerk of the DVD.

If Dr. Caner has lied about his past, he owes it to Liberty U, his students, and his congregation (if he is still a pastor) to come clean and repent. If that means he loses his position, so be it. He got it under false pretenses.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why should I ally myself with a lying professor from a university not my Alma Mater? Just curious.

 

[Havensdad]

Ok, I am really late to this debate but I think I have something to add. I am investigating whether or not to go to LU for a Master's degreee. I saw the webvideo done by Dr. Caner, and he was all warm and fuzzy.

Then I started watching the DVD's for a class taught by Dr. Caner. What a pompous blowhard! His was the only, ultimate opinion and everyone else was wrong. He even said that Baptist churches that have elder boards are "not Baptist". I kid you not. I guess he believes that the pastor should be accountable to no one but God. I disagree - I think that opens up a church to abuse of power by the pastor.

Anyhoo - I was struck by the contrast between the warm, fuzzy Dr. Caner of the "come to Liberty!" video and the pompous jerk of the DVD.

If Dr. Caner has lied about his past, he owes it to Liberty U, his students, and his congregation (if he is still a pastor) to come clean and repent. If that means he loses his position, so be it. He got it under false pretenses.

Are you talking about his Baptist History lectures? I love those! (Even though I do not agree with him).

And as far as elder boards, he is right. Historically, that is not Baptist, but Presbyterian. Baptists have historically believed that the pastor's oversight comes from the congregation, not from some special board of people. The Baptist faith is built upon the idea of the priesthood/equality of all believers. The "Pastor" is just a member of the congregation; the idea of a "elder board" might sound good, but it is ultimately a step back to Rome...elevating one group of people over the others.

 

[Havensdad]

Why should I ally myself with a lying professor from a university not my Alma Mater? Just curious.

. The loudest critics are the large, decidedly non-Calvinistic group of Liberty students, who are tired of Dr. Caner dragging their university into the mud with his dishonest antics.

As a Liberty Student, I have a right to complain. I wouldn't put up with my Pastor lying, and I should not have to put up with the head of our Seminary lying, either!

 

[gb93433]

I guess he believes that the pastor should be accountable to no one but God. I disagree - I think that opens up a church to abuse of power by the pastor.

Isn't he living out his beliefs?

 

[gb93433]

The "Pastor" is just a member of the congregation; the idea of a "elder board" might sound good, but it is ultimately a step back to Rome...elevating one group of people over the others.

If a church is ruled by majority vote then that is a democracy and it can be misled just as easily. Not all believers are living for Christ. I believe a balance of both is best.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why should you keep interjecting Calvin into this debate? He has NOTHING to do with this. The loudest critics are the large, decidedly non-Calvinistic group of Liberty students, who are tired of Dr. Caner dragging their university into the mud with his dishonest antics.

As a Liberty Student, I have a right to complain. I wouldn't put up with my Pastor lying, and I should not have to put up with the head of our Seminary lying, either!

This is the very first time I entered into this particular debate. And as for Calvin I didn't bring him up. As a matter of this is from the OP

It is time for Christians, Calvinist or not, to stand up and demand honesty and accountability from all Christians (mainly in positions of leadership).

I found this line humorous. And so I commented on it. Because the way it was writen leaves one to believe that only Calvinist are "true" christians but all those who take the name of Christ should participate is how I read it. So I thought I would be funny and list two attributes of Calvin that aren't so flattering to him. One that he was a blow hard as the person just before my post mentioned about the professor in question. So I made a humorous comparison. Then I mentioned Calvin murdering his friend in Geneva also humorously questioning the man's application of his beliefs. And yes I had a chuckle to myself. By the way I'm not decidedly non-calvinistic as not everything calvin had to say was wrong or bad. There are aspects I disagree with and since he's not God its ok to disagree except in Geneva.

I personally could care less about Liberty as its not my Alma Mater and disagree with certain aspects of what Jerry Falwell said and taught. Now that doesn't mean I reject everything he said but enough that I realize he's not God either. And I wonder if Liberty acknowledges it doesn't hold to everything reformed theology taught. And if Caner is a bad proff. Get rid of him. I don't support him either.

Mostly my post was a humorous retort to the OP.

 

[Martin]

Anyhoo - I was struck by the contrast between the warm, fuzzy Dr. Caner of the "come to Liberty!" video and the pompous jerk of the DVD.

==I took his Baptist History course through Liberty University and while I did not agree with every point he made, I never agree with everyone on everything, I did not see him as being a "pompous jerk". He taught the class the way he believed it should be taught and as a college professor he has every right to do that. You are not required to agree with him on every point.

 

[Martin]

Why should I ally myself with that Friend murdering Blowhard John Calvin...Just curious.

==That comment about Calvin is 100% unhistorical. But that never bothers most of the anti-John Calvin folks.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

==That comment about Calvin is 100% unhistorical. But that never bothers most of the anti-John Calvin folks.

Question:
1) Were Michael Servetus and John Calvin Friends engaged through a common friend to both Jean Frellon of Lyons?
2)Did not Michael Servetus corrispond with John Calvin and Calvin sent him (Servetus) as signed copy of his Institutes (Calvin)?
3) Didn't Servetus go to Geneva hidding from the Inquisitor General in France?
4) Didn't John Calvin have Servetus arrested during one of his sermons (Calvin)?
5)Didn't John Calvin asked to have him beheaded instead of burnt?

In which case how is it historically inaccurate?

 

[TomVols]

Speaking of non-historical quotes

And as far as elder boards, he is right. Historically, that is not Baptist, but Presbyterian. Baptists have historically believed that the pastor's oversight comes from the congregation, not from some special board of people. The Baptist faith is built upon the idea of the priesthood/equality of all believers. The "Pastor" is just a member of the congregation; the idea of a "elder board" might sound good, but it is ultimately a step back to Rome...elevating one group of people over the others.

The idea that Baptists have never had a plurality of elders is just wrong. Baptist church documents dating back to the 17th century notes the plural elder system. Spurgeon's church had them. The churches of the first presidents of the SBC had them. It is a theological misnomer to equate, prima facie, Baptist elders and Presby elders. Most Baptist churches are Presby anyway given how their deacon "board" works.

I know it's off topic, but since Calvin was being dragged through the mud, I had to correct this as well. No offense, Havensdad.

 

[Martin]

As I wrote the OP, I will comment on this statement.

I said:
"It is time for Christians, Calvinist or not, to stand up and demand honesty and accountability from all Christians (mainly in positions of leadership)."

And now the amazing reply from Thinkingstuff

As a matter of this is from the OP I found this line humorous. And so I commented on it. Because the way it was writen leaves one to believe that only Calvinist are "true" christians but all those who take the name of Christ should participate is how I read it.

==How you got that out of what I wrote I will never understand! The statement clearly talks about "Christians, Calvinist and not...". There is nothing in that statement that draws into question the salvation or Christianity of those who are not Calvinists.

So I thought I would be funny and list two attributes of Calvin that aren't so flattering to him.

==Well, sorry if I don't see how your statements are funny. First, there is nothing funny about sin. Second, there is nothing funny about making historically inaccurate statements.

One that he was a blow hard as the person just before my post mentioned about the professor in question. So I made a humorous comparison.

==Actually, John Calvin was an academic man who enjoyed writing. He was hardly a "blowhard". Maybe a nerd? Maybe a "theology wonk"? But not a "blowhard".

Then I mentioned Calvin murdering his friend in Geneva also humorously questioning the man's application of his beliefs.

==If you are referring to the Servetus affair, you are way off historically. First, Calvin and Servetus were not friends. Second, Calvin did not murder Servetus. Servetus was executed by the council in Geneva. Calvin was not on the council at that time and, most likely, did not have the power to stop the execution even if he had wanted to (and I know of no evidence showing he wanted to stop it). At that time, executing heretics was not unusual at all. While I believe that such executions were not right, and while I believe Calvin should have stayed clear of the whole mess, it was a state execution. Not a murder.

I wonder if Liberty acknowledges it doesn't hold to everything reformed theology taught.

==You are aware of the fact that Liberty University, and Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, is a non-Calvinistic, Baptist University. While there are Calvinist faculty, staff, and students, the school's official position is against Calvinism.

Mostly my post was a humorous retort to the OP.

==Too bad your "retort" was inaccurate on many levels.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As I wrote the OP, I will comment on this statement.

I said:
"It is time for Christians, Calvinist or not, to stand up and demand honesty and accountability from all Christians (mainly in positions of leadership)."

And now the amazing reply from Thinkingstuff



==How you got that out of what I wrote I will never understand! The statement clearly talks about "Christians, Calvinist and not...". There is nothing in that statement that draws into question the salvation or Christianity of those who are not Calvinists.



==Well, sorry if I don't see how your statements are funny. First, there is nothing funny about sin. Second, there is nothing funny about making historically inaccurate statements.




==Actually, John Calvin was an academic man who enjoyed writing. He was hardly a "blowhard". Maybe a nerd? Maybe a "theology wonk"? But not a "blowhard".



==If you are referring to the Servetus affair, you are way off historically. First, Calvin and Servetus were not friends. Second, Calvin did not murder Servetus. Servetus was executed by the council in Geneva. Calvin was not on the council at that time and, most likely, did not have the power to stop the execution even if he had wanted to (and I know of no evidence showing he wanted to stop it). At that time, executing heretics was not unusual at all. While I believe that such executions were not right, and while I believe Calvin should have stayed clear of the whole mess, it was a state execution. Not a murder.



==You are aware of the fact that Liberty University, and Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, is a non-Calvinistic, Baptist University. While there are Calvinist faculty, staff, and students, the school's official position is against Calvinism.




==Too bad your "retort" was inaccurate on many levels.

Ok how do you read this phrase which you showed in your above statement?

Christians, Calvinist or not

How are you to read that. Calvinist pre-eminant christians? It looked that way to me.

And if you read my questons just previously you would see it is not historically inaccurate. Now friend may be overstated but they certainly engaged aquantances who corrisponded regularily. Calvin did asked to have him beheaded rather than burnt showing his complicity in the death of this man. Primarily because he considerred him (like the rest of Europe) to be a heretic. Nothing inaccurate there. I understand to make Calvin look like a St. but he's not. And yes Academics often are Blow hards look at his time spent in Geneva and the problems succored there.

 

[Martin]

1) Were Michael Servetus and John Calvin Friends engaged through a common friend to both Jean Frellon of Lyons?

==That the two men held a correspondence is not in question. That the correspondence means they were friends is highly questionable.

3) Didn't Servetus go to Geneva hidding from the Inquisitor General in France?

==Why exactly Servetus thought it was a good idea to go to Geneva is beyond me. He certainly should have known better.

4) Didn't John Calvin have Servetus arrested during one of his sermons (Calvin)?

==I don't know that John Calvin had Servetus arrested. If you can provide a source for your knowledge there it would be helpful. However, regardless of who had Servetus arrested, he was charged with heresy, found guilty, and executed. Calvin was the chief prosecution witness against Servetus (preparing some 38 accusations against him). Once Servetus was found guilty, the council determined to have him executed via burning. Calvin did not oppose the execution of such a heretic, but he did oppose the method of burning. That Servetus was burned, despite Calvin's protest, shows that Calvin had limited power in determining the fate of Servetus. Thus, even if Calvin had wanted to spare Servetus the death penalty, it is unlikely he could have.

5)Didn't John Calvin asked to have him beheaded instead of burnt?

==Dealt with above. However I'm not sure how you think this helps your charge of "murder" against Calvin.

 

[Martin]

Now friend may be overstated but they certainly engaged aquantances who corrisponded regularily.

==Correspondence does not equal friendship.

Calvin did asked to have him beheaded rather than burnt showing his complicity in the death of this man.

==Calvin supported the death penalty for heresy (generally and specifically). It is certain that Calvin held to some very poor theology on this point and that he should never have involved himself with Servetus from the start. However none of that makes him a murderer. He did his part in making sure a heretic was charged and tried to have him beheaded instead of burned. He had no power over the fate of Servetus. The council was going to do what they were going to do regardless of how John Calvin felt about it.

I understand to make Calvin look like a St. but he's not. And yes Academics often are Blow hards look at his time spent in Geneva and the problems succored there.

==I'm not trying to make John Calvin look like a saint. My point is that calling him a "murderer" is historically problematic (at best).

 

[Peggy]

Yes, I am talking about the Baptist History lectures. I think he does come across as a pompous jerk. I think he is offensive by his little mannerisms when he mocks people who disagree with him. His lecture persona is completely different from his "come to Liberty!" persona. His lecture persona is probably more indictitive of the person that he is, and it makes me more inclined to believe that this is the kind of man who would lie (or exaggerate!) his resume and upbringing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm not trying to make John Calvin look like a saint. My point is that calling him a "murderer" is historically problematic (at best).

He is a murder in the same sense that the Roman clergy at civil trials were murderers for the inquisition. I'm not defending the Roman clergy in this but to use the same argument in favor of Catholic Clergy who did not kill the heretics themselves but accused them and approved them for death by the civil authorities is no greater an offence than Calvin doing the same thing. Though you do suggest and I agree he was wrong for complicity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, I am talking about the Baptist History lectures. I think he does come across as a pompous jerk. I think he is offensive by his little mannerisms when he mocks people who disagree with him. His lecture persona is completely different from his "come to Liberty!" persona. His lecture persona is probably more indictitive of the person that he is, and it makes me more inclinded to believe that this is the kind of man who would lie (or exaggerate!) his resume and upbringing.

Did he serve in Vietnam? Just curious?

 

[Jerome]

Havensdad is exactly right about this "plurality of elders" fad.


Yes, the 1689 London Confession did use the phrase "bishops or elders".
No, those early Baptists were not referring to anything akin to the "plurality of elders" scheme being pushed recently by Reformed Baptists, Founders Ministries, 9Marks, etc. That scheme is derived more from Presbyterian polity than from Baptist historical biblical practice.


A sample of historic Baptist understanding of Scripture:

Benjamin Keach (prominent signer of the 1689 Confession), Glory of a True Church:

Query, Are there no ruling Elders besides the Pastor?
Answ. There might be such in the Primitive Apostolical Church, but we see no ground to believe it an abiding Office to continue in the Church, but was only temporary.
1. Because we have none of the Qualifications of such Elders mention’d, or how to be chosen.
2. Because we read not particularly what their Work and Business is, or how distinct from preaching Elders; tho we see not but the Church may (if she sees meet) choose some able and discreet Brethren to be Helps in Government. We have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons directly laid down, and how to be chosen, and their Work declared, but of no other Office or Officers in the Church, but these only.

Benjamin Keach, Gospel Mysteries Unveil'd:

others think there were men ordained Elders, that were not gifted to preach, but to be helpful in Discipline, or in the Governement of the Church : but we reading neither of their Qualifications, or how to be chosen (nor of their peculiar Work, distinct from Pastors, nor any such elders chosen in any particular. church in the Apostles days) can see no ground for any such an Office, or Officers in the Church

John Gill, A Body of Practical Divinity:

there may have been, where churches were large, more bishops or pastors in one church, Phil. i.1.

an unpreaching pastor, bishop, or elder, is a contradiction in terms

give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word; do not preach a sermon only now and then, but preach the word constantly

Andrew Fuller, “On Church Government and Discipline”:

for a small church to have more pastors than one is as unnecessary as to have seven deacons. Such a rule must favor idleness, and confine useful ministers from extending their labours. To place two or three in a post whch might be filled with one, must leave many other places unoccupied. Such a system is more adapted for show than for promoting the kingdom of Christ.

If. . .a plurality of [elders] be required, why is not a plurality of them supported? The office of elder in those churches which are partial to the system is little more than nominal: for while an elder is employed like other men in the necessary cares of life, he cannot ordinarily fulfil the duties of his office.

From the Shaftsbury Baptist Association(New England), 1804 Circular Letter:

It appears to us that Bishops, or teaching Elders and Deacons, are the only standing officers to be ordained in the Church. These are both called Elders, 1 Timothy 5:17. . . .By these Elders, we understand Bishops and Deacons; and we have not learned from the scriptures, but that these two are the only officers to be ordained in the Christian Church.

And straight from the Founders website:

Most churches agreed with Georgia’s Powelton Baptist Church, whose members concluded in 1811 that lay elders were "unnecessary and not sufficiently warranted in scripture." Many of these held that the pastor and deacons jointly constituted the eldership. South Carolina’s Tyger River Baptist Association, for example, judged in 1835 that "the eldership of the church" consisted of "the ministers and deacons.

Southern Baptist Founder W. B. Johnson, The Gospel Developed Through the Government and Order of the Churches of Jesus Christ:

The government, then, of the first churches was democratical, purely so, as far as the application of the laws of Christ is considered, in the exercise of a popular vote by the members. . . .The form of the government then, appointed for the churches, is the democratical, independent form, on the principle stated above.

As for Spurgeon, he said [emphasis added]:

a modified form of Episcopalian Presbyterian Independency is the Scriptural method of Church government. At any rate, no other form of government would have worked in so large a Church as this

Mr. Spurgeon said that . . . . they had some peculiarities which he supposed were not to be found in any other Church, at least in England. The first of these was that for some time they had maintained the eldership in their midst.

The Baptist form of Church government is the worst there is. It suits me. My deacons take all committees, all trouble off my hands—they manage all finance—they pass all resolutions ' with the sanction of the pastor.' If I don't approve I draw my pen through them. But that doesn't suit little men in little places, it becomes tyranny. Mine is a benevolent autocracy resting on absolute democracy. It had taken no little tact and trouble to keep a democracy straight 38 years.

Spurgeon recognized, as his predecessor Gill had, that large churches needed more than a single pastor/bishop/elder. There was none of today's mandatory-"plurality-of-elders"-even-in-the-smallest-Reformed-Baptist-church nonsense.

Henry C. Vedder, Baptist History:

The Scotch Baptist churches [a tiny, and now long defunct, Baptist "reform" group of the late 1700s] were much influenced by the early Sandemanian connections of these leaders, adopting from that source some notions regarding organization and practice that have been peculiar to them among Baptists, such as insisting on a plurality of elders in every church, and the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper.

I could go on:laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

Speaking of non-historical quotesThe idea that Baptists have never had a plurality of elders is just wrong. Baptist church documents dating back to the 17th century notes the plural elder system. Spurgeon's church had them. The churches of the first presidents of the SBC had them. It is a theological misnomer to equate, prima facie, Baptist elders and Presby elders. Most Baptist churches are Presby anyway given how their deacon "board" works.

I know it's off topic, but since Calvin was being dragged through the mud, I had to correct this as well. No offense, Havensdad.

Tom,

I disagree. Although some Baptist Churches in the later part of the 17th century did have what one might call an "elder led" church government, this was something that came from the Presbyterians. The earliest Baptist confessions (Such as the True confession of 1596, which equates Pastors, elders, and deacons without any distinction, The Amsterdam Declaration of Helwys, which, while equating elders and Pastors, affirms the authority of every church member, or the First London Confession which affirms the authority of every member in the church without respect to office {Article XLII & XLIII in particular) were congregation led. It is the congregation that held sway, which exercised oversight over the Pastor.

Only later, as a result of the unified front which Presbyterians, Baptists, and other congregationalists tried to erect in answer to English persecution of Protestants, did some Baptist Churches begin to sway in the direction of an elder led Church. The Second London Confession did much to influence this, being in most places, a word for word rendition of the Westminster Confession.

So again; an elder led Church is not a Baptist idea, at least in terms of its original origins. Some early Baptist Churches may have held to it, but it was primarily due to Presbyterian influence.