"The definition of revisionist history is often as simple as someone wanting it to be true. "
-- Ergun Caner, October 9th, 2006 [link]
I think I've mislabeled this blog in light of Dr. Caner's recent comments about Calvinists, because apparently we're jihadists [link], waging some kind of Calvinist Crusade on Arminianism, though we get stuck with the invective labels.
Although these statements were made in context of the debate that never quite came about, I'd like to point out that he's been prone to making a number of revisionist statements himself.
"... most of the Reformers and Puritans that these guys love so much would want them (as Baptists) dead." [link]
He's apparently a professor of Church History [link] (note: Google cache), and as such, ought to have studied the subjects and be able to teach accurately. Yet he makes statements that are simply untrue, and these statements are colored by his bias against Calvinism.
From his Facebook profile: "Ergun is looking at the picture of Balthazar Hubmaier, who was killed by the Reformers in 1528, for being an Anabaptist."[link]
He was killed by the Reformers? Contrary to Caner's ahistorical assertion, his arrest and extradition to Vienna, Austria was by order of Ferdinand. What twist of facts would make one believe that Ferdinand, a Roman Catholic, future Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and principal figure of the Counter-Reformation, was himself a Reformer? What Caner asserts is opposite what historical evidence provides. [link 1] [link 2]
If these are the kinds of egregious errors he is submitting to either his class or the community abroad, how many more revisions of history is he making unchallenged? Having a debate *with cross-examination* to lay all the cards out on the table at once, and see on both sides which is representing history accurately, and which is editing the details, would have been an excellent way to challenge a group of Christians to consider their positions carefully and with full apprehension of all the facts before them. But in writing, one can churn out more mistakes than anyone has time to stop and refute.
"The definition of revisionist history is often as simple as someone wanting it to be true." I submit to any reader: Who wants to revise history itself, and who wants the facts to speak for themselves?
