Has Islam's view of Allah biased Dr. Caner's Christian view of God?
May I say that my intention in writing this post is not to provoke Dr. Caner nor his advocates to anger. This post is not to offend or defend Dr. Caner. It is simply an observation that I have considered after viewing Dr. Caner's posts at the Founders blog and reading his book, "Unveiling Islam".
Comments, discussion, diverse ideas, differing views are allowed but anything overtly outrageous or antagonistic will not be allowed. The final and sole authority for all of us is the Word of God, even in the blogosphere.
Dr. Ergun Caner has gone on record via preaching, articles in the Liberty Journal, and engaging in public blogging that he disdains the idea of unconditional election and the sovereignty of God in the salvation of a chosen people.
I have read Dr. Caner's book, "Unveiling Islam" and found the following statement about Allah on page 31 and 32:
"Fatalism, the Heart of Islamic Insecurity 'We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. So Allah leads astray those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases and He is Exalted in power, full of wisdom. (surah 14:4)'
Allah is exalted and pleased as he sends people to hell: this is the fatalistic claim of Islam. Fatalism is a belief that events are fixed in advance for all time in such a manner that human beings are powerless to change them. In this case, Allah will send to heaven whomever he pleases, and send to hell whomever he pleases.
No wonder there is no security in Islam. One can be the most faithful of all believers in Allah and still rightly be sent to hell. Paradoxically, someone can be the worst person in the world and hypothetically still go to Paradise..."
Dr. Caner disdains this Islamic fatalism and debates Islamic scholars on the merits and demerits of Islam vs. Christianity. My question however is this, has Dr. Caner's past heritage in Islam affected his Christian view of God?
For example, the Christian (and Baptist) view of the doctrine of election can be found in various confessions but the Abstract of Principles will suffice here. Article 5 "Election" reads, "Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life -- not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ -- in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified."
Dr. Caner has made statements (apparently jokingly) such as, "Elected because I selected" and so on. It appears as an outside observer that Dr. Caner views the biblical teaching of unconditional election as errent and possibly (I presume) because of the Islamic idea of fatalism.
Lest we forget the authority of scripture, consider Exodus 33:18-19. "And he (Moses) said, 'Please, show me Your glory.' So the Lord said to Moses, 'I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'"
I know there is more to be said but my main point is this: The biblical revelation of God's sovereignty and His divine choice of some persons to save from their rightful place in judgment is in no way the same as the Islamic belief in fatalism as espoused in Dr. Caner's book. The differences are myriad but I wonder if Dr. Caner has rejected the doctrine of unconditional election based on his prior heritage in Islam.
Comments, discussion, diverse ideas, differing views are allowed but anything overtly outrageous or antagonistic will not be allowed. The final and sole authority for all of us is the Word of God, even in the blogosphere.
Dr. Ergun Caner has gone on record via preaching, articles in the Liberty Journal, and engaging in public blogging that he disdains the idea of unconditional election and the sovereignty of God in the salvation of a chosen people.
I have read Dr. Caner's book, "Unveiling Islam" and found the following statement about Allah on page 31 and 32:
"Fatalism, the Heart of Islamic Insecurity 'We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. So Allah leads astray those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases and He is Exalted in power, full of wisdom. (surah 14:4)'
Allah is exalted and pleased as he sends people to hell: this is the fatalistic claim of Islam. Fatalism is a belief that events are fixed in advance for all time in such a manner that human beings are powerless to change them. In this case, Allah will send to heaven whomever he pleases, and send to hell whomever he pleases.
No wonder there is no security in Islam. One can be the most faithful of all believers in Allah and still rightly be sent to hell. Paradoxically, someone can be the worst person in the world and hypothetically still go to Paradise..."
Dr. Caner disdains this Islamic fatalism and debates Islamic scholars on the merits and demerits of Islam vs. Christianity. My question however is this, has Dr. Caner's past heritage in Islam affected his Christian view of God?
For example, the Christian (and Baptist) view of the doctrine of election can be found in various confessions but the Abstract of Principles will suffice here. Article 5 "Election" reads, "Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life -- not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ -- in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified."
Dr. Caner has made statements (apparently jokingly) such as, "Elected because I selected" and so on. It appears as an outside observer that Dr. Caner views the biblical teaching of unconditional election as errent and possibly (I presume) because of the Islamic idea of fatalism.
Lest we forget the authority of scripture, consider Exodus 33:18-19. "And he (Moses) said, 'Please, show me Your glory.' So the Lord said to Moses, 'I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'"
I know there is more to be said but my main point is this: The biblical revelation of God's sovereignty and His divine choice of some persons to save from their rightful place in judgment is in no way the same as the Islamic belief in fatalism as espoused in Dr. Caner's book. The differences are myriad but I wonder if Dr. Caner has rejected the doctrine of unconditional election based on his prior heritage in Islam.
posted by Christopher Redman at 11:24 AM
6 Comments:
CHRIS,
Excellent post and I see your GRACE.
A Brother in CHRIST
Chris, I have said from the beginning this same thing. He calls Calvinists "Christian fatalists." Read through his interactions on the Founders blog and with Dr. White again. Those are his exact words. I think you are right on track.
Chris:
I believe you are on the right track. I have also read "Unveiling Islam" and can definitely see your point. I believe Dr. Caner to be biased by Islam and the Traditions of men. He has yet to email me back on my last email to him. If he wholeheartedly rejects a fatalistic view of Allah, then he will see election as the same thing, even though it is not even in the same ball partk. Thanks CR and keep up the good work.
Michael
Excellent point. However Ergun should know better. I been in muslim evangelism for more than 30 years and it a poor comparison. Faralim has no point and is arbitrary. Providence is not to be confused with predestination. God has a purposein all that he does. Caner needs to move beyond pure emotionalism and find the god of eh bible.
Clai said... "This was a very intersting post. Although I do not agree with you when it comes to your preception of Dr. Canor I can see where his blogs and his discourse on the founders blog could lead someone to believe that he is a mad man."
Are you suggesting that I think Dr. Caner is a "mad man"? (Kidding)
How come I'm not surprised to see you stepping up to Dr. Caner's defense?
BTW, I hope you noticed my expressed kindness toward Dr. Caner. If not kindnesss, at least, gentleness. Which is a great deal more than what he has offered to all who disagree with his assertions.
Also, "emotionally disturbed" is a thousand times kinder than Dr. Caner has blatantly stated of "us". Therefore, if anyone is making us look bad, it is Dr. Caner.
CR
Clai,
I'm glad you are blogging. I think we will have fun together. When can we get together for lunch or dinner with the family?
CR
Post a Comment
<< Home