Dissing Dr. Ergun Caner: The Monotonous Mission of Tom Ascol and James White

\ Ergun Caner presently is President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and serves also as Professor of Theology and Church History and Apologetics, having been at Liberty since 2003 (//link).  Earlier he taught at The Criswell College as well as served as pastor.  Caner holds three master’s degrees (MA, The Criswell College, MDiv & MTh from Southeastern Baptists Theological Seminary) and a doctor of theology from University of South Africa

I also mention Dr. Caner’s special interests lie in apologetics with a special love for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims since Dr. Caner’s upbringing was Muslim.  Born in Sweden, raised as a Turk, and hence, faithfully adhering to Islam as he’d been taught by his father, it was not until he was a teenager he came to trust Christ as his Savior.  Dr. Caner has written several books on Islamic faith and is widely recognized as an evangelical authority on the subject (//link). Well, I should say, recognized as an authority by many leaders in Christian circles and even by some in the mainstream media. But, of course, not by all, which is the exact reason for this post.

Particularly, two influential blogging Calvinists appear to have made it a life-mission to smear Ergun Caner’s life and ministry in the mud-hole of deception:  Tom Ascol,  Southern Baptist pastor and Executive Director of Founders Ministries, and James White, Primitive Baptist preacher and Reformed Baptist apologist from Phoenix, Az.

Background

In order to understand some of Ascol and White’s obsession with Caner, we must go back to 2006.  It was then that a debate was planned at Liberty University between James White and Tom Ascol on one side and Ergun Caner and his brother Dr. Emir Caner, then Dean of Southwestern College of the BIble (a school of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) on the other.  Since, Dr. Emir Caner has moved to Georgia as President of Truett-McConnell College (//link). 

An intense exchange between them took place on Ascol’s blog, an exchange which did not fare well for the proposed debate.  In fact, Ascol’s blog thread—along with White’s questionable insistence that all correspondence between the Caners and himself be publicly posted on his blog—probably remain key components in the debate not coming to fruition. Ascol and White eventually backed out but insisted it was because the Caners ruthlessly sabotaged the process (at least that’s how I see it). 

From 2006 until now, there has been non-stop badgering of Ergun Caner, not so much on Ascol’s behalf—at least directly—but definitively by White against Caner, specifically charging Caner with cowardice for not debating him.  I challenge the reader to do a google on White’s site if you’d care to see just how often White dissed Dr. Caner for not debating him.  As a matter of fact, you’ll also experience White’s perpetual dissing of countless others for not “standing up” in “open debate” and “cross-examination.”   

Personally, I get the sense that if James White were alive during the days of James Arminius, that Arminianism would not exist today because James White would have so annihilated Arminius in open debate, that Arminius would have embarrassingly bowed out of his proposed reform.  At least that’s the sense I get when I read White boast of his many rhetorical victories and the cowards who will not face him in open exchange (more on White later).

Tom Ascol's Troubling Indictment of Ergun Caner

Let’s consider Ascol’s troubling words concerning Ergun Caner just last week. I was made aware of Ascol's horrible words by Pastor Tim Rogers (//link).  Southern Baptists are thankful for Tim's courage to post this information.  Founders Ministries has, since 1982, attempted to overlay, upon the Southern Baptist Convention, a strict, non-negotiable five-point Calvinism.  Tom Ascol has led the charge.

Admittedly, Ascol has attempted to cool the exchanges about his strict Calvinism being imposed church by church on the Southern Baptist Convention.  Nonetheless, he recorded one of the most despicable statements I have read on the internet about another brother.  And let me tell, you:  I’ve read some nasty stuff.  Ascol’s may be the most personally damaging I’ve read.

  Below is from Tom Ascol’s Facebook (via Twitter). 

Note what Dr. Ascol, who wants to work toward peace and “building bridges” in our convention, has written about Ergun Caner:

Tom Ascol reading exposes on "fake former Muslims;" fascinating...and sad

Thu at 9:05am via Tweeter

And, in response to some friends wanting to know about whom Ascol was reading, one of whom inquired about a book which exposed a “fake former Muslim turned sarcastic seminary presidents apologists,” Ascol responded:

“Here is an article I read, with lots of links: http://mmmirele.blogspot.com/2009/07/ergun-mehmet-caner-ba-ma-mdiv-thm-dmin.html And here is James White's response to some baseless charges, that expose a "former Muslim" as well: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3765”

So let me get this straight: Tom Ascol is promoting the reading of an Islamic Attack site as proof Ergun Caner is a “fake Muslim”?  With no other inquiry whatsoever, with no attempt to gather any reasonable data, and with the life, integrity, and career of this young theological dean in the balance, Ascol cites the attack website as a “fascinating...and sad” expose that Ergun Caner’s life and ministry is a fraud?  Has Ascol never read where our Lord said to pray even for one’s enemies, not pound them into the dirt?

James White's Non-Stop Badgering of Dr. Ergun Caner

The other link Ascol gives is his good buddy, James White.  And, what evidence does the famed, self-described fearless apologist offer as clear, objective proof Dr. Caner is a "fake Muslim? Why, he gives the same type of evidence Ascol gave—the Muslim attack sites.

This may be one of the lowest, most outrageous incidents yet illustrating the viciousness of some strict Calvinists toward non-Calvinist brothers.

Let’s consider:

James White and His Critics 

Suppose someone wanted to criticize James White on a particular point.  For example, let’s say someone wanted to question the authenticity of James White’s so-called “academic” doctoral” degree (And, understand:  it perhaps needs to be questioned if White is going to insist on gloating about all his academic accomplishments).  So, if one wanted to question his doctoral degree’s worth, perhaps we could link to this , this ,  this, and this. I mean, why not?  White seems to have no reservation in citing Muslim hate sites as evidence to tarnish Caner, sites known to hate him.  And, surely none of the sites above could be considered that bad, could they?

Also, we could tap sites that have the same value in posting other people’s emails, a practice White regularly employs.  Indeed we easily found a site which likes to post White’s emails, some emails of which he failed to post on his own site.  Perhaps he got spanked a little too hard to post all the rebuttals his critics offered.  Whatever the case, from my reading, James White may be the whiniest kid on the block in many of the exchanges. The reader can be the judge (//link). 

Gosh, we could even get pictures of his seminary where he got his “academic” doctoral degree (hardly the kind of seminary most of the readers attended, however)—a tiny office the size of a dorm room.  Note on this same set of pictures posted by another critic of James White, White complains that the critic used Mormons as sources for the picture evidence (//link)  The irony is hilarious!  White does not appreciate using attack sources against him anymore than Caner appreciated White using attack sources.  Fair is fair, DR White! 

In attempting to put a critic in his place for not consulting him before posting some challenges to his “academic” doctoral degree, White had the audacity to whine: “Generally, most folks take the time to make sure of their facts before attacking someone's work, that's all. Again, possibly I follow a code of behavior that is old and passe? I mean, my e-mail address was well known to you. It would have been fairly easy, if, of course, you wanted the "whole story" (//link).

Hence, James White (and Tom Ascol)  may trample Caner in the mud by allegedly “exposing” him as a “fake Muslim” using an Islamic hate/attack site, but when a Mormon educator challenges the authenticity of White’s “academic” doctoral degree, White whines about breaking a “code of behavior.”     

Also, we could link to evidence which suggests James White was listed  in the handbook of the seminary from which he graduated (CES) as faculty holding an academic doctorate before he actually got the “academic” doctorate! (//link).  Could such a listing, if true, be viewed as fraud?  I don’t know.  I’d have to think about that before I made the accusation. One thing is for sure:  James White is pretty touchy about calling him “Dr.” White (//link).

In fact, White routinely puts people in their respectful place who question him. Usually it's down at least a few notches lower than he is.  Contrasting the notorious Tex Marrs as being under the spiritual authority of no one, White reminds his readers:

"He [Tex Marrs] is a loner, not under the authority of a local church or elders, unaccountable to God-ordained authority. As for me (and the question is honestly asked, in light of what I just said), I am a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, under the authority of the eldership of that local assembly" (//link)

Interesting Elder White should bring that up. Surf over to White's church's eldership and one finds just what "under the authority of the eldership" means to James White.  The eldership appears to be a board of two:  James White and the pastor (//link).  With an arrangement like that, I can see how James White is definitively placed "under authority" of the "God-ordained" eldership of "that local assembly" alright. What do you think?

In addition, this whole idea of receiving a master of theology degree for writing a book is fascinating (//link).  I have written a book.  Could I get a degree for my writing it? 

Even more, supposedly White’s doctoral dissertation was also another book—The Forgotten Trinity. Dr. Caner surely took the wrong route.  He’s written I think close to twenty books, which apparently equals, in White’s educational tract, a whopping 20 “academic” degrees!

Not only so, apparently White’s “academic” doctorate is far superior to standard academic doctoral degrees.  At least that’s what I hear him arguing. Though it is a bit confusing attempting to wade through all the verbiage, the way I understand it is, James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy, was not written as a popularized version of his master of theology thesis—a common phenomenon in academic circles—rather The King James Only Controversy was his master of theology thesis. In other words, for writing the book, White received his master of theology degree which, of course, is highly uncommon in academic circles. 

But to hear White explain it, the uncommon practice of receiving a degree based on writing a book is far superior to the way virtually the entire academic world views it now. 

His reasoning? 

Since common academic practice only allows for perhaps “a half dozen” people to critically evaluate one's thesis, White contrasts such a woefully inadequate method by writing, “My Th.M. thesis has been read by multiplied thousands…” (//link).  Really?  The King James Only Controversy has been read by multiplied thousands?

I know I’m a fish out of water except down home on the country farm, but that sounds pretty amazing to me—multiplied thousands.  Multiplied thousands have read James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy (his master of theology thesis)?

Grab and pencil and do some scribbling: 

Even though White said multiplied thousands (plural), I want to be conservative.  So let’s do some figuring:  1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000. Has White’s The KJO Controversy sold a mil? I don't know. The first copyright was 1995. That's 15 years ago. So, 1,000,000 / 15 = 66,666 (ouch!) copies on average per year. Or, 66,666 / 365 = 182.6 copies sold per day, every day since 1995.  I’d say White’s theory, if true, is superior!

But wait!

White did not mean multiplied thousands had bought his thesis but explicitly stated multiplied thousands had read his thesis. O.K. Fine. How does White know multiplied thousands (at least one million people) have read his thesis since 1995?  Unless I am mistaken, there appears a wee bit of boastful stretching taking place here concerning the popularity of White’s thesis.  Is James White, therefore, a fraud?  I don’t know.  I’d have to think long and hard before I made an accusation like that. 

And, unfortunately for James White, we could read the absolute tail-paddling he received when he attempted to defend his “academic” degree (//link).  One has to laugh when he or she reads the fearless, unflinching warrior from Geneva getting the intellectual fool beat out of him by a Mormon educator (//link).  White, in fact, tucked his tail, and ran for cover, citing his well worn mantra in the apologetic world, that if, after reading all his books (or in some cases, his master and doctoral theses), listening to all his dozens of debates, and engaging his scholarly, original contributions to Christianity, “you wish to engage in ‘genuine dialogue,’ please let me know” (//link, link, link).

Enough on White’s problems concerning his “academic” doctoral degree. Let’s briefly (promise!) consider something else.

Since James White insists on calling Ergun Caner coward for not debating him, what does that make White when he refuses to debate somebody?  Apparently, after agreeing to debate a Muslim critic, James White backed out.  We know this is so because the Muslim says so himself on his website!

You see, according to White’s “code of behavior,” there’s no reason to suspect Muslim attack sites’ objectivity, and therefore “evidence” cannot be disregarded on that basis.  At least, that was his reasoning when he “exposed” Dr. Caner as a “fake Muslim” using a source which carries demonstrable hate for Dr. Caner. Hence, the reader should read carefully how “Dr.” White backed out of a debate with a Muslim apologist:

“Oh! So what is this? Now... I’m invited to call in the show? But James White, this is not what you conveyed to me. You made is crystal clear to your viewers who requested that you debate me that you will NOT debate me. So when your own viewers (not me) call you a coward and a phoney, what else are they suppose to think?… I then suggested some kind of informal debate, and James White made it clear, NO. I then suggested a casual discussion, with just a few ground rules, and then James White decided that I needed to be put in my place” (//link).

“Dr.” White insists Dr. Ergun Caner is a coward because he refuses to debate him.  What does that make White for refusing to debate this sincere Muslim apologist? 

Even more, read carefully how the Muslim apologist felt treated by “Dr.” White—surely less than a human being.  According to the authoritative report from this Muslim website, James White’s words are shocking and, if I may add, horribly sub-Christian:

‘You see Nadir, you are not up to par with me, for I am superior, Because you are not up to par with me, you are just like a regular Joe Shmoe caller who calls in AND THAT IS HOW YOU WILL BE TREATED. Joe Shmoes DO NOT get to establish any ground rules. NONE. Get it?  But no worries, I’ll be equitable with you….But Nadir, if you do decide to call, keep one thing in mind: “You are inviting yourself on my show”’ (//link)

One is silenced when reading the utter display of treating another human being with such carnal bloat.  Assuming, of course, White said the words to the Muslim apologist.  Nevertheless, why would anyone doubt the Muslim apologist’s words?

Finally, everyone knows James White will not debate Bob Ross (//link).  Does that make White a coward?  Well, as we’ve seen above, it may make others cowards but not James White.  He gets around it easily enough with Mr. Ross.  In fact, White dismisses Mr. Ross as a “marked man.”  In other words, the reason for no debate is Ross’s alleged personal issue rather than White’s cowardice. As we say in West Georgia, how marvelously peachy!

In conclusion, I’m quite sure James White stands with loaded guns, ready to pop off his six-shooter toward the sources I gave, arguing much of it cannot be trusted. Yet we must, in White and Ascol’s world, recall the sources above stand as fully objective sources to employ.  Hence, as we say on the old farm, that pig won’t slop. 

If the sources I offered do not demonstrate White either/both a coward and/or lacking a “real” doctoral degree, then why would Ascol and White's attempt to demonstrate Ergun Caner a fraud from sources hardly considered objectively conclusive count for anything?

Conclusion

Here’s what I think ought to happen:

A) Tom Ascol owes Dr. Caner, without qualification, a public apology for his despicable insinuation, as well as a full public retraction of his damaging words.  There is simply no excuse for carelessly sewing unguarded personal indictments against a brother in Christ—especially when those indictments come from a less than reputable source. If Ascol does want to live peaceably with all Southern Baptists, he needs to start by loving his neighbor as himself.  In this case, Dr. Ergun Caner is his neighbor. Will Dr. Ascol both apologize and retract?  Sadly, I do not think he will.  I hope with all my hoping I am wrong.

B) James White simply needs to get over himself and his apparent disdain for all things Ergun Caner.  In fact, the Caners, I think, have been wise to shun association with White and his ministry.  Why?  Simple. If James White’s blog is any indication of his apologetics, no Christian could remain spiritually healthy in such a horribly divisive environment.  One does not read long before it’s a “Quit lying about me! I’m not the one lying, you are!” type of “apologetic” exchange (and yes, unfortunately I have those links too). 

No thanks, “Dr” White.  You and your community are much too cantankerous for me. 

In fact, I’d bet a week’s worth of starbucks I speak the view of most grassroots Southern Baptists. 

Therefore, Drs. Caners--beware. James White's community is not for you.  Stand your ground.  Stay away.

Indeed all Christians beware...stand your ground...stay away. There's more to gospelizing than pretending one's preaching when one is only debating.

With that, I am…

Peter

UPDATE: This was an interesting thread.  For the most part, about all that was established from those defending the Ascol/White demolition team against all things Ergun Carner was, the relentless defenders accused me of hypocrisy.  Of course, James White was not viewed as being hypocritical when he employed Muslim hate-site “evidence” against Dr. Caner. Indeed White argued one cannot dispute the “evidence” just because it originates from hate-sites.  And, I suppose strictly speaking, he may have a point.  On the other hand, when a White critic used “evidence” he had picked up from a site hardly friendly toward White, White accosted his critic for using “evidence” picked up from an unfriendly source. Why was I hypocrising but White not hypocrising? 

For the record, the reader must read carefully what I stated and did not state concerning the links in the original post.  In point of fact, I never once validated or defended using the links I used.  Nor would I.  I simply placed the scenario in the form of a supposition, demonstrating how it’s hardly acceptable to employ, as definitive research, the use of unfriendly and/or ‘hate-sites.”  Neither Caner nor White nor anybody else desires the use of ‘hate-sites’ as definitive for either their beliefs or behavior.  White’s defenders should think long and hard about that before they parade around accusing others of hypocrisy.

Finally, an interesting post went up at a James White defender’s site that may or may not be worth your time.  The boy accused me of purposely deleting his comment.  James White is the first one to log on and commend him, while dissing me as so constantly “twisting” and distorting” other people’s words, that he wondered how I could look in the mirror (note White’s response about me. Is this all these guys know?  A you-sir-are-a-liar approach?) Those who frequent this blog know my record.  I will leave it there for you to decide. 

Actually, I logged onto his site and gave a detailed explanation about his “devastating” comment he alleges I deleted. I did not delete it.  It was flagged by a filter in typepad for a word he used and therefore pitched it in spam.  What is ridiculously funny, my own blog  pitched my comment on the same thread into the spam bucket for using the very same word!  Instead of having a good laugh about it, his response (like his mentor above) was, you-sir-are-a-liar. 

Well there you have it. There is simply no getting along with some of these guys star-gazed by James White.  He has taught them well, I suppose.

I did satirically toy around with the dude a bit, I admit.  However, what’s a person to do on a site which reveals as its purpose, “AOMinions is a satire site, and all content should be taken in that vein”?

It’s fairly funny if you care to look--"Just in Case It's Deleted" by RazorKiss. Warning:  it gets pretty ridiculous...

Comments

[peter]

All,

I am shutting this thread down. Within perhaps 5 minutes of logging a fresh post--a post I specifically and clearly communicated we would have no comment thread over which to bicker about a man's confession--a brother boldly jumped my fence, went around back, peeped through my screen door, and yelled out his complaint anyway.

I do not know what that's called anywhere else, but we call that trespassing in West Georgia and it could get your big-baggy behinny a full pound of buckshot.

Please, brothers. Please. Squeeze just a bit more respect out when you surf blogdom.

With that, I am...
Peter

UPDATE:  This was an interesting thread.  For the most part, about all that was established from those defending the Ascol/White demolition team against all things Ergun Carner was, the relentless defenders accused me of hypocrisy.  Of course, James White was not viewed as being hypocritical when he employed Muslim hate-site “evidence” against Dr. Caner. Indeed White argued one cannot dispute the “evidence” just because it originates from hate-sites.  And, I suppose strictly speaking, he may have a point.  On the other hand, when a White critic used “evidence” he had picked up from a site hardly friendly toward White, White accosted his critic for using “evidence” picked up from an unfriendly source. Why was I hypocrising but White not hypocrising? 

For the record, the reader must read carefully what I stated and did not state concerning the links in the original post.  In point of fact, I never once validated or defended using the links I used.  Nor would I.  I simply placed the scenario in the form of a supposition, demonstrating how it’s hardly acceptable to employ, as definitive research, the use of unfriendly and/or ‘hate-sites.”  Neither Caner nor White nor anybody else desires the use of ‘hate-sites’ as definitive for either their beliefs or behavior.  White’s defenders shouls think long and hard about that before they parade around accusing others of hypocrisy.

Finally, an interesting post went up at a James White defender’s site that may or may not be worth your time.  The boy accused me of purposely deleting his comment.  James White is the first one to log on and commend him, while dissing me as so constantly “twisting” and distorting” other people’s words, that he wondered how I could look in the mirror (note White’s response about me. Is this all these guys know?  A you-sir-are-a-liar approach? Those who frequent this blog know my record.  I will leave it there for you to decide.  Actually, I logged onto his site and gave a detailed explanation about his “devastating” comment.  His response (like his mentor above) was, you-sir-are-a-liar.  Well there you have it.  I did satirically toy around with the dude a bit, I admit.  However, what’s a person to do on a site which reveals as its purpose, “AOMinions is a satire site, and all content should be taken in that vein”?

It’s fairly funny if you care to look-- “Just in Case It’s Deleted” by RazorKiss

With that, I am…

Peter             

[peter]

Tom,

This is my house and this was my decision. I made the call. I pay the nickel. That's that.

I tried to be as clear as I knew how. And, whether you agree or not, you lack all honor to log on this thread and yell your complaint through the back door.

Please, sir. Never come back here. You had guest privileges. Now you don't.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tom Parker]

You guys blow my mind when you say it will be the final comment on anything. You and others shut down the comments like the debate will end. It will continue. This tactic will not work. As hard as you and others holler others will holler right back.

[peter]

Brother Ross,

Thank you for the contribution. I honestly did not give you as much credit as deserved for your many enlightening essays into the theological world of James White. You have powdered his puff more than once I assure, not to mention handed his protegees a handkerchief for tears.

A convictional, "creedal," biblical Calvinist you be, I happily and without qualification recommend your writings to all. And may I say, not one of the so-called 'young, restless, and Reformed' who so often fling the mighty Spurgeon's name around, match your knowledgeable depth of him.

Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Matt,

I have mentioned, more than once I think, that a more that adequate number of references to my alleged "hypocrisy" had been logged to make sure it was sufficiently publicized. I then asked (or perhaps announced is better) that those particular charges be by-passed, instead offering an actual contribution to the thread if anyone had a mind. People were obviously free to continue the 'hypocrite' charge but they needed to do so on their on nickel, not mine. Commenters are guests, you know. Logging on to a site is a privilege, not a right.

Yet you show back up after you explicitly stated "I am done commenting here" and offer but another charge of "hypocrisy." Such dense disrespect I've come to expect from a few others. But so far as I know, I have never given you one reason to become so decidedly juvenile here.

To my knowledge I don't think I've ever shown up on somebody's blog and repeatedly charged them with blatant moral failure, and especially have I not done so after I have been asked (or told) not to do such. Certainly I've never shown up at SBCV or your personal site continually flinging the charge "hypocrisy" around.

Even so, Matt I wish you the best in ministry, in service to the one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Nonetheless, know when I put a post up in the future, I think it'd be better for your own edification to read--if you so choose--but then move along. Not saying you can't log on; just saying I think it best not to log on--at least until you've gained enough confidence not to IN-YOUR-FACE the bloghost.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

David Hewitt,

Thanks.

David

[Bob L. Ross]

Peter,

I don't know if James is a coward, but I do know he tries to be pragmatic. He does the best he can with what he has been blessed to work with.

For instance, James misrepresented Peter Ruckman's view about the King James Bible in his "KJVO Controversy" book, and James probably would not want that aired in a public debate, I would think.

James foolishly categorized Ruckman as believing the KJV was "RE-INSPIRED" by God in 1611 (The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6).

It is no marvel that Ruckman literally laughed-off James as a "fool" when Ruckman reviewed James' book! This is the furtherest thing to what Ruckman actually believes.

Ruckman, in his most "famous" booklet entitled, Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God, plainly states:

"I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE WAS INSPIRED" (page 6, edition of 1988; page 7, undated reprinted edition I obtained from Ruckman in 2005).

You would think that an self-proclaimed "scholar" like James, with his Doctorate, would have acquainted himself with Ruckman's view before he published a book which misrepresented Ruckman. He later announced he was going to revise his book, which I hope he has done.

But, James seems to have a blind spot on some things and apparently relies on hearsay or perhaps on his own imagination in some cases. James once accused me of misrepresenting John MacArthur on the Sonship of Christ, but later JMac changed his view to the same creedal view I hold on Eternal Sonship, and JMac acknowledged that he had been wrong in the past. That did not do much to embellish James' reputation as a theologian. But James hurriedly tried to redeem himself by saying he never agreed with MacArthur!

Will wonders ever cease?

[David Hewitt]

David:

I believe that since Dr. White teaches as an adjunct professor, he is not required to be a Southern Baptist or have an accredited degree.

I may be wrong, but from what I have read elsewhere, this seems to be the case.

In Christ,
David B. Hewitt

[volfan007]

Matt,

Can you answer my questions in the comment just above your last comment? There's 2 of them.

And, about the length, and my guess, it appears as though I was right....does it not? Over at SBC Today, Tim Rogers made a similar post, and boy, watch out....So, I guess I was right.

DAvid

[Matt Svoboda]

Yeah volfan, this comment thread is long just because of "rabid calvinists." lol

Not because the content of the post, its hypocrisy, or the fact that there are 2 passionate sides.

[volfan007]

Peter,

I have a couple of questions for you.

1)How is James White teaching in a Southern Baptist Seminary with the academic credentials that he has? Why would they allow him to teach if his credentials are that bad?

2)How is James White teaching in a Southern Baptist Seminary when he does not belong to a Southern Baptist Church? Is that not right? Is the Church he belongs to Southern Baptist? I was told that it was not; that it was Reformed Baptist. Why would a SB seminary have anyone teaching in our seminaries who's not even a SB?

David

[Mark]

Peter,

I see...I think...where you're finding some sort of connection. I suppose the lack of clarity for me is that it was White, as shown in my previous quote from you, who was taken to task for using the "fake Muslim" approach. Yet, what our little chat here seems to have bore out is that it was not in fact White who did so.

Thanks for helping me clear up that I was not misunderstanding the lack of connection on this point. I really was confused a bit.

Your GA neighbor,

Mark

P.s. One more thing please. Have you ever thought that by Ascol using quotes around "fake former Muslims" that he wasn't buying the fake claim?

[peter]

Mark,

As I pointed out to Shamgar (?) or another above, Ascol's words make clear the 'fake' Muslim connection.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mark]

Peter, thanks for answering. I was really confused because I listened again today to the video in question and did not hear it. I could have missed it though since it was playing in the background.

The reason I asked is because in light of my question and your answer I'm not sure what to make of the following paragraph.

The other link Ascol gives is his good buddy, James White. And, what evidence does the famed, self-described fearless apologist offer as clear, objective proof Dr. Caner is a "fake Muslim? Why, he gives the same type of evidence Ascol gave—the Muslim attack sites.

This paragraph seems to implicate White as referencing the "fake Muslim" site as well as noting that Caner was a fake Muslim. This paragraph also seems to be the main point of how White is linked to using the fake Muslim site in question.

How am I misunderstanding? (If I am.)

Thanks again,

Mark

[peter]

Unless I am mistaken, White did not connect the dots as you've stated it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mark]

Peter or anyone else,

Do you recall at which point in White's video (the one Ascol linked) addressing Caner's "Jerry Springer Show" comment that White claims Ergun Caner to be a "fake Muslim"?

Thanks,

Mark

[peter]

Jacob,

I assure you there is no "Ignoring the faults in the situation that all men bring to the table" and hence, there is no "romanticizing the past." I gave a brief summary in the first part of this post concerning the history of this difficult situation.

Even so, no amount of pleading that these men "bury the hatchet" so to speak can hardly be seriously heeded when two of the men--Ascol & White--by name, publicly portray Ergun Caner as a "fake former Muslim" and "liar," which is, in fact what they did. Period.

Furthermore, the words Caner used about "myopic Reformed guys" refereed to neither Ascol nor White by name. Rather it was a 'generic' criticism.

But being 'generic' doesn't matter--at least not in White's world nor for White's followers. White personally took it as intended toward him. That's not Caner's problem; that's White's. And, taking it toward him, openly publicly, called him "liar," while his bud Ascol tagged his video as dealing with 'former' 'fake' Muslims and coupled it with a Muslim attack site. To turn one's head and ignore this would be sin on my part.

Therefore, your exhortation, while sincere, is hardly applicable. Sorry.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jacob Hall]

I think all men share burden of fault in this, some more than others. In keeping with Christian hospitality and an obligation to the Gospel, I think all parties involved need to drop the name calling and ridiculous statements made about each other.

Ignoring the faults in the situation that all men bring to the table is romanticizing the past and ultimately not helpful for reconciliation, which should be the goal of all Christians who read this. Despite my personal views that are in disagreement with Dr. Caner, I would prefer to see he and Dr. Ascol and Dr. White be able to "bury the hatchet" as Brothers in Christ who see the furtherance of the Gospel being more important than personal vendettas.

[Dr. James Galyon]

Mark Turner - Amen, brother!

[fasb rating system]

I know this? Why did I think this? Because I know how rabid some Founders type Calvinists are, and how they love to argue and debate; and how they love to attack anyone who doesnt agree with them.

[peter]

Chris,

Of course. Linking to Muslim attack sites and James White's rebuttal of Ergun Caner and describing it as 'fake' and 'former muslim' is surely nothing more than an "emotional response." I'm really glad that's all cleared up now...

Jamin,

Tanks for the compliment! And, if you honestly believe there's no difference in the academic requirements rehearsed above, I think you are entitled to your opinion. Just keep right on believing it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Dear Grand Verbalizer,

No thanks. I'm afraid James White and his supporters have their hands full as it is. Nonetheless, I removed your comment from view.

Also, logging on as "R.C.Sproul, Jr." does not fare well, in my view, toward making a case for being honest and forthright in one's criticisms of another. You need to think about that before you log elsewhere.

Know Jesus Christ is the Way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him and Him alone. And, regardless of the criticisms of either Ergun Caner or James White, both men stand honorably for the exclusivity of our one and only, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and redemption alone through His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and soon coming again.

Marnathana. Come Lord.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jamin Hubner]

This is a poor post.
From an outsider's perspective, White and Ergun are on about equal standing as far as basic academic credentials are concerned (though, this substantially changes when one works moderated debates into the equation), which is irrelevant. What matters is this: who is making an effort to pursue the truth and seek clarity? Caner calls names. White challenges Caner to public debates on his own campus. Caner calls more names. That's the basic pattern before us.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

The vitriol can be deafening, hence my previous comment. You have been patient and very fair.

The issue is not Calvinism/Reformed views, those are all well and good to bring to the table to discuss and debate (even with passion). What has always bothered me, and we see it clearly in this current dust up, is the lengths to which some are willing to go in the name of Calvinism. We can see a movement that is selective in it's view of Baptist history, which seems to me, to be a bit disingenuous. We also have people seeking to harass and destroy someone because he is not a Calvinist. The J316 conference was yet another of example of such.

When can men of conscience and biblical conviction stand and debate this without fear of unwarranted personal attacks? And if one points this out, then be prepared to also be thrown under the bus. This diversionary tactic is loud and sadly at times effective. Too often it has pushed the discussion on the merits of the actual belief system out of the picture.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Chris Poe]

After finally contacting Dr. Ascol to seek clarification (which I should have done at the outset) I am now convinced that I jumped to unwarranted conclusions about his tweet. He was simply noting what he was reading and the emotional response it provoked. If anyone "broke the Ninth Commandment" it was me.

Unfortunately, many of my earlier comments here and especially elsewhere likely generated far more heat than light. Hopefully I’ll think twice before hitting “send” the next time.

There is much more that could be stated, but for now I’m content to leave the discussion here.

[Jeremiah Davies]

Peter,
I have yet to comment on this post because I choose neither side. However, I did log on yesterday and read what Mohammad had wrote. I logged on a bit later and his post was removed. If it was a legitimate post why was it removed. You did say "First, no one is deleted..." if the rules are followed and he seemed to be following the rules. If however it was illegitimate I understand.

Je D

BTW you could send me an email to see if i am who i say i am ;D. But you will find i am.

[peter]

CB,

I hear you. My fingers not only move more slowly but I've so become dependent on 'spellcheck' I never bother to attempt to memorize a spelling anymore....

Thanks for the encouragement brother. We'll do coffee again one of these days and do what old men do--gripe about our aches and pains... ;^0

Grace

With that, I am...
Peter

[cb scott]

Peter,

I have got to stop walking and typing with one hand.

That should be:

"....you "may" choose "to" be as Bob Newman...."

I want it to be your choice Peter. Never would I desire to "hypocritically" force you into something by "hounding" you obsessively for years. :-)

[cb scott]

Peter,

I do not think you to be a hypocrite at all.

But I do think as Jane Woodall discovered "Gorillas in the Mist" you have stumbled upon "Hypocrites in the Mist"

Or better yet, you choose be as Bob Newman who wrote "GUERRILLAS IN THE MIST: A BATTLEFIELD GUIDE TO CLANDESTINE WARFARE" and write a book yourself entitled: HYPOCRITES IN THE MIST: A BATTLEFIELD GUIDE TO CLANDESTINE WARFARE.

Nonetheless, my friend; "walk circumspectly" for you are navigating a minefield. And quite well, I might add.

[Mark Turner]

I have been monitoring the comments on this post with some interest. While I have a Biblical position on the 'theological' debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, it appears that the blogosphere has devolved into mere name-calling (or name-defending).

I think Christians would do well to discuss the ideas involved. Leave conjecture and innuendo aside. If someone prefers 'ad hominem' attacks there is no need to defend oneself or anyone else.

"Why not rather be wronged?"

The only reputation I find worth defending is the reputation of Jesus.

[volfan007]

Wow, while I was waiting on this blog to come up on the screen, I said to myself that this post might be up near 100 by this morning. I wasnt far wrong...there was 96 before I began to write. lol.

How did I know this? Why did I think this? Because I know how rabid some Founders type Calvinists are, and how they love to argue and debate; and how they love to attack anyone who doesnt agree with them. I've been there...done that....many times in the past in dealing with aggressive, obsessed 5 point Calvinists, who are out to win the Christians to Calvinism.

God bless all of you.

David

[peter]

The test above was logged because I got an email saying several attempts were made to log on without success.

I am unsure what's wrong. If you've attempted to log on without success, please drop me an email.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Testing

[peter]

Eric,

Thanks. I like your balancing out the implication pertaining to Arminius. I see your point and agree. Mostly, I had in mind, thinking from White's perspective--'If no one can beat me in debate, and James Arminius is a one, then he cannot beat me in debate.'

Grace, my brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Good morning

First, I realize this has been a difficult post for some to read. Hence, I was prepared for becoming the target. I'm glad I was prepared. The opening comment demonstrates it. I'm just a hypocrite. No concern that maybe, just maybe two brothers were out of control in attempting to ruin another brother's life & ministry. Nope. That is not possible. Instead, the one raising questions is hypocritical. And that's that.

Second, since the 'opposing' community has already publicly and thoroughly made known their belief that the bloghost is a hypocrite, no more comments will be allowed about my alleged hypocrisy. Hence, if you're still itching to say it, go right ahead. You'll just have to do it on your own nickel, not mine.

Third, anyone confused about who can and cannot comment here, read my guidelines. I have not changed them since I first started blogging in 2006. Given that, there's no reason whatsoever to waste time placing "I think so & so was deleted unfairly". First, no one is deleted. Second, read the guidelines. It's that simple. If you think I'm unfair, that's your privilege. Go tell somebody on your own dime.

Fourth, no one AND I MEAN NO ONE is going to hijack one of my threads. That's precisely what happened at SBC Today on Tim Rogers' post. He simply could not keep up. And, when he explicitly stated he was going out to do ministry--on a Sunday afternoon, no less--he was mocked for it. He did the right thing. He shut the thread down. I commend him for doing so.

If anyone else has a contribution to make, be my guest.

Grace today.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Wes Widner]

"..no Christian could remain spiritually healthy in such a horribly divisive environment."

Truer words have seldom been spoken. Peter I think you've hit the nail on the head and have also managed to accurately point out why most of James White's minions are just as repulsive and whiny as he is (as I see you have already found out).

I too think it is very telling that White's followers (and White himself) prefer to "shoot the messenger" rather than deal with the topics at hand (be they Calvinism or White's credentials.

BTW: To the White minions; You might want to consider Peter's words above to White about getting over yourselves as well. Your repeated rabid defense of White smacks wholly of what Paul wrote against in 1 Corinthians 3

[peter]

All,

This is what I am going to do. I'm dead dog tired, so I think I'm going to bed. But since I don't want my "Attack-site" to gain entrance via stealth, I'm going to shut the comment thread down for this evening.

Those of you who think you have something worthy to contribute (worthy means something other than proclaiming me a hypocrite, since White's choir boys have already sung that tune to death, were one to ask me), hold on to it until tomorrow. I promise bright & early I'll open the thread back up.

With that, I am...
Peter

[RazorsKiss]

Dr. White addresses that himself on his website, if you've cared to read it.

So, since we want to play "tit for tat" - where has Dr. Caner addressed this on his?

But, as we both know, there was nothing of the sort even hinted at by Dr. White. We are also both well aware of the actual nature of the criticisms mentioned by Dr. White. They concern things documented in Dr. Caner's own words - which I have yet to see anyone address in any substantive way, whatsoever.

I personally think there is nothing to the allegations concerning Dr. Caner's degrees. However, his frequent seeming problems with expressions of basic muslim terms, his frequent seeming problems with recalling who he has debated, and his dearth of substantive response concerning these issues, worried me far before I'd ever seen any of these videos, or heard anything from muslims.

Take that as you will.

[Chris Poe]

Peter,

Do you have any thoughts regarding the discrepancies about Dr. Caner's degrees?

[peter]

Oops!

C). I think it's very telling that absolutely no one wants to tackle whether or not the sources are valid pertaining to "Dr" White's "academic" degree.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Resequiter,

A) No suppression here. I think anyone who wants to ought to be able to blog to their heart's content. But not necessarily on my nickel
B) Why of course I'm hypocritical. You and your buds' criticism has in one accord made that very clear. So, thank you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Resequitur]

Its amazing to see what folks will do to suppress the truth. Guess poor ole Pete couldn't bear to look at Mohammad's comments while at the same time being utterly hypocritical. Its amazingly clear to anyone with intellectual honesty, and hunger for the truth whats going on here.

[peter]

Squirrel,

See my comment to Razorkiss.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Squirrel]

Peter,

Why did you delete Mohammad's comment? I thought he was a lot more polite and respectful than many of the comments I've read here today.

~Squirrel

[peter]

RK,

Thankz!

With that, I am...
Peter

[RazorsKiss]

I'm amazed, frankly, that you deleted Mohammad's comment. Especially since you're talking about him here.

[Steve G]

G'day Pete,
You guys need to learn to play a different type of football than Grid Iron.
I admire you Pete for runnng with the ball and taking the tackles!
Its a shame that when the White/Ascol team threw the ball which you intercepted, that they didn't have the good grace just to admit their fault rather than pile on.
Still , you can tell the guy who has endured has the muscle to be admired!
Well done Pete!
Steve

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter:
I was asking the question of all in general, not to you specifically, but thank you for consenting to respond to me once. Glad you do not endorse the implications. Hope you're not implying I've taken Dr. Caner out of context (e.g., "the way you've framed the words"). Please recall it was Dr. Caner's statements in the Calvary Chapel interview which provoked the response of James White on his blog (to which you and Tim have responded). Sorry if I've gone off topic, but for some reason it seems relevant to the questions raised here, not to mention many of the statements which have been made.

[peter]

Micah,

Yes siree. I have to admit. You really got me where you want me...

James,

I'll respond once. That's all. No, I do not endorse the implications, at least the way you've framed the words.

Now back to the questions raised here...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Just curious, would you consider Ergun Caner's words of Jan. 22 (when he appeared on Calvary Chapel's "The Pastor's Perspective") inflammatory (when he insinuated, at best, that Calvinism is "from the devil"? Or when he said something to the effect that Reformed apologists turn debates into the "Jerry Springer Show" with "passive/aggressive garbage"? Or would this be a "hyper-anti-Calvinist practicing the fine art of shooting the messengers" (to borrow from Ron's verbiage)?

Perhaps "both sides" should step back, simmer down, pray, and proceed with cautious and gracious concern.

[Micah]

"I didn't mention any debates--except the many "Dr" White boasts...."

Ah yes... you're ignoring the facts for your own bias. Thanks for the admission.

[The Seeking Disciple]

Wow Peter you really did your homework on this one. I agree with you though I wish that the rift between "Dr." White and Dr. Caner would end in a debate. I think that Dr. Michael Brown showed that Dr. White can be answered by non-Calvinists and I think that Dr. Caner would hold his own against James White.

I enjoy your site! Keep up the good work brother.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

Thanks for the post and bringing this out. I read Tim's post too and all I can say is: amazing. With both you and Tim, it appears that the hyper-calvinists among us practice the fine art of shooting the messengers. How dare you offer critical analysis of such boorish behavior of their Sainted Dortian Warriors.

This is nothing more than an attempt to make the argument about the person rather than substance. This also seems to me that "Dr." White is equally, if not more guilty of the same tactics. By making Dr. Caner the issue, he can avoid the real issue. Clever.

Great job by both you and Tim.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Eric L.]

Did Peter accuse anybody of anything? I thought Peter presented us source material without accusing anybody of anything substantial—and nothing substantial seems to have been Peter's point. Very clever, Peter. Notwithstanding, Peter, against your role-playing assertion that Arminius was a pushover, know that after Arminius was installed as a pastor in Amsterdam and eventually got around to preaching on Romans 7, wherein his preaching stirred up a rats nest of all kinds of suspicions, for his part, Arminius defended himself against allegations to the degree the presiding court changed their position and approved of Arminius' teaching. Skipping over his call to be installed as Professor of Theology at Leyden University, eventually Arminius preached on Romans 9 and that stirred up a hornets nest. As Kaspar Brandt sums it in The Life of James Arminius, Arminius was accused of

1. ...when expounding the ninth chapter of the Romans, had taught, "that no one is condemned except on account of sin"—thereby excluding all infants from condemnation.

2. He had also declared "that too much could not be ascribed to good works, nor could the be sufficiently commended, providing no merit [was] attributed to them."

3. He had affirmed that Angels are not immortal (pp. 64-65).

Notice that there is nothing about predestination in the charges against his person. The reason why is that the Reformed Church of Holland hadn't framed itself in what we view as Calvinistic terms at the time. At any-rate, in a formal state-run court Arminius defended himself so convincingly that the entire court took him to a local tavern afterward. Has White done the same?

[Tom Parker]

Peter:

It looks like my earlier prediction has come true.

[Kevin Jackson]

Awesome post. Thanks for your work here Peter and for the courage of calling out Ascol and White on their behavior.

[peter]

Well, at least you now know what's in my cup, shamgar ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Shamgar]

Ok, well, at least I understand how you got to point A from point B then. I guess I just expected more than a conspiracy theory.

[peter]

Shamgar,

And I submit to you, you are quite wrong. Ascol & White are buds. Ascol knew what he was doing when he tagged White's video dealing with a 'fake' muslim.

Now, if you don't agree with my answer, I suggest you
go write a post about it and tell the world what a big old hypocrite I am by employing your own mentor's methods.

Have a great evening, shamgar.

With that, I am...
Peter

[WretchSavedByGrace]

"It looks to me like Peter is defending someone, who was attacked, and has been attacked for a long time by certain people."

Why doesnt he defend himself? Whatever happened to Dr.Caner's " Ill debate anyone, anywhere"?

Ill remind everyone. We still havent received any proof of these many debates Dr.Caner claims to have done.

[peter]

Matt,

Well, thank you very much. Your contributions are extremely timely and helpful.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Shamgar]

This question means a lot to me because it seems to me to be the thrust of your entire post. I suppose it's possible I could be as ignorant as you suggest -- but I would hope you'd be willing to at least put a little effort towards demonstrating that.

I don't see this as a technicality, but let me spell out what I'm thinking, lest you continue to think I'm somehow trying to angle for a technicality.

Your post addresses two separate and distinct issues. One (1) Tom Ascol linked to a site that you allege to be of questionable veracity due to biased nature of its operator. (I say alleged, because I have not investigated the site at all myself. I have no idea how truthful it is, and as such I won't attempt to defend it or by extension Tom Ascol linking to it)

The second issue is a claim that Dr White has likewise questioned Dr Caner's muslim credentials using the same source material as Tom Ascol, and you linked to a specific post that presumably supports this assertion.

Then you go into a bit of a rant, trying to illustrate your problems with this reasoning through some rather uncharitable language and claims in a hypothetical argument that would supposedly parallel the reasoning you claim he is using.

The problem I have is, I followed the link to what Dr White said, and I read it, and reread it. I watched the video. I neither see, nor hear any claims as to the veracity of Dr Caner's claims regarding his muslim heritage and I definitely don't see any links or references to the site Tom Ascol links to whether as evidence or otherwise.

What I see are claims that Dr Caner has made in interviews or on video tape regarding his experience and what he believes transpires in formal debates, and Dr White demonstrating evidence to the contrary from direct first-hand sources.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Tom Ascol's link. So I again ask you, please tell me where I can go to see what you were referring to when you said:

The other link Ascol gives is his good buddy, James White. And, what evidence does the famed, self-described fearless apologist offer as clear, objective proof Dr. Caner is a "fake Muslim? Why, he gives the same type of evidence Ascol gave—the Muslim attack sites.

I submit that you completely and utterly failed to actually read what Dr White wrote in its own context, separate from what Tom Ascol had to say and link to.

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

Don't be a fool. While Caner might not of said something in this one particular instance he is as much at fault in this childish feud these men have going on as anyone else is.

So, as I have already stated- YES, White and Ascol were in the wrong as they have been before. They were also in the wrong as Caner has been many times before.

All of these men need to get off each other's back. You, my friend, are not helping this feud with your highly hypocritical post.

God Bless, as I am done commenting here.

Matt

[peter]

Shamgar,

If you do not take time enough to read the post and the evidences I offered before making the claim about making no sense, I can't help you much. I am not going to spoon-feed it to you. Sorry.

On second thought: just read Ascol's twitter and follow the yellow-brick road (for Matt's benefit, that was sarcasm).

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. BTW, if you think you're going to negate the post's thrust on a mere "technicality," which is why I personally think this question means so much to you, shamgar, think again. Swatting gnats but swallowing camels is no option, I assure...

[Shamgar]

Why shamgar, I'm surprised. Is Tom Ascol now not a reliable source either?

That doesn't even make any sense. I have said nothing about the Ascol situation. I don't know anything about the site in question so I have opted not to comment.

You claimed, as I quoted, that Dr White was in some way claiming that Dr Caner was a false muslim, and that he was using this site as a reference. You linked to a specific page. On that page (and indeed in any current posts) I cannot find anywhere that he has referenced that site, or claimed that Dr Caner is not a muslim.

So...I again ask you, where did Dr White do what you claim he did?

[volfan007]

It looks to me like Peter is defending someone, who was attacked, and has been attacked for a long time by certain people.

Yall can call it what you want to, but it sure does look like Peter is just simply defending Dr. Caner against the attacks leveled against him.

David

[sermonfire]

also "appreciate" the dig you make that I'm of Paul or of Apollos.

makes me "feel good" when people wrongly accuse me.

catching the sarcasm there?

you know they are human, you know they do sin.

assuming all these accusations are true.

all of them sin.

even that guy who debacled the debate. (and he did, history is not up for debate, no pun intended) even the guy who has a degree from an "unacredited" seminary. even the guy who posted links from muslim sites against ergun.

all of them.

the point is that Christ's blood should get rid of all the bad blood instead of blogging about the guy "who started it" or those "who antagonized it".

that's the point.

and i'm out.

[sermonfire]

i do appreciate the say, you are generous in allowing comments.

the book of nehemiah never made more sense than it did right now, so thanks for that.

[peter]

Matt,

Look. If all you want is to continue making me the issue, I suggest you pack a picnic lunch and go for a nice little outing (that's sarcasm).

Now why don't you make it plain for us to know: Was or was not Ascol & White loving their neighbor as themselves when they cited a Muslim hate-site? Was or was not Ascol right in offering to his FB readers a hate site which allegedly exposed Caner as a fake?

And, please not of this post-modern gobbledy-gook that all 4 men are at fault. Caner was minding his own business. So, man up and tell us, Matt(not-sarcasm).

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

sermonfire,

You've had your say now. I've been quite generous in allowing guests to heap upon me the wonderful title of hypocrite.

As for hurting ministries, I'm hurting no one. Dr. Ergun Caner has been unrighteously butchered by two men in the post. Hence, I suggest you have mercy on a brother and call your wayward heroes to account.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

sermonfire,

I dont understand either... All of the men are at fault at some level and then Peter decides to jump in and make himself a part of the sinful, hypocritical mess.

Not a good decision.

[sermonfire]

I just don't get the point.

let's say tom, james, and ergun are all equally culpable of hypocritical posts.

so he adds to their lies by...

being a hypocrite himself?

I don't get how this is not sinful.

i wont waste anymore of my time here, especially with your mocking response to my deadly serious comment.

peter maybe you think I'm just joking around or I'm someone who exaggerates to the point of hilarity. no, I assure you that I stand by what I said and I assure you I'm not screwing around.

you are hurting ministries.

all of them.

and your's.

[peter]

Matt,

I do not answer all of my critics/anyone who disagrees with me with mockery and sarcasm. Like right now, for example. However, I'm old enough to know that sarcasm is sometimes all someone will hear.

Have a great afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Billy,

Always great to have you stop by.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Dale,

It's been a while, my brother. And, I completely understand about your teaching duties. Thanks for the warm words about my book (I'm searching for a school who'll trade me a master of theology for it. Do you have any suggestions? :^)

More seriously, it is sad. White & Ascol's actions are simply indefensible. And, perhaps even more indefensible is stooping to defend their godless tearing down of another brother being logged by some here. Where is shame?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

Sometimes we have gotten along, other times we haven't.

My only suggestion to you is to not answer all of your critics/anyone who disagrees with you with mockery and sarcasm. It is unhelpful and unproductive.

[peter]

Why shamgar, I'm surprised. Is Tom Ascol now not a reliable source either?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

sermonfire,

As I said before, I do think all the men involved are at some fault...

With that being said, I agree with you that this post does seem quite hypocritical.

[travstar]

Al Gore should never have invented the Internet.

[peter]

Dear Sermonfire,

Why no!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Chris Poe,

I echo your thoughts... It seems that to some people their "leader" can just do no wrong."

In my mind, all 4 of the men mentioned here, Caners, White, Ascol, could have handled themselves better throughout this at least at some point.

My suggestions- call each other- repent- shut up- or all of the above.

[Dr. James Galyon]

I agree with Chris - many seem to reflect an "I am of Paul / I am of Apollos" mentality. I blogged on this today. I don't think any Reformed folks should throw Dr. Caner under the bus. I don't think non-Calvinists should circle the wagons and protect him at all costs, either.

[peter]

Chris,

It's nice to know we've both chosen the right side!!!
:^)

David,
Thanks, brother.

And to Wes, I appreciate your support.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

To all,

I know this post is going to unpopular, but it seems to me that all 4 of the men involved have acted childish towards one another. The only person I really like of the four is Ascol... Im not a big fan of the Caners or White, but Ascol I do appreciate. With that being said, it seems to me that all 4 of the men have acted like me and my 2 brothers when we were 11,13,15, immature, overly-competitive, and had no love and grace towards one another.

"It wasn't me mom... He threw the first stone!"

P.S. I havent kept up with this feuding extremely closely, but it seems that while all 4 men are at some fault, I do not think White or Ascol was represented correctly in this particular blog post.

[Shamgar]

Actually, not only did I ask that, I asked where Dr White even claimed he was a fake muslim. That still doesn't seem to be Dr White's point at all.

[Shamgar]

Peter, you said:

The other link Ascol gives is his good buddy, James White. And, what evidence does the famed, self-described fearless apologist offer as clear, objective proof Dr. Caner is a "fake Muslim? Why, he gives the same type of evidence Ascol gave—the Muslim attack sites.

I asked you to demonstrate where (particularly in the link you referenced, though if it's somewhere else I'd be interested in seeing that too) Dr White used "Muslim attack sites" as evidence?

In response, you said:
Well, now here here shamgar. Read carefully what I have stated and what I have not stated.

So...I've read AND quoted what you have stated, can you answer my question?

[J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.]

Peter:

Excellent article! Absolutely necessary! Unbelievably sad.

Hope you are well -- it's been a while since I've spoken with you, but I did want to tell you that I appreciated your book -- very good case! I will also note that I have been quite busy with my teaching, so I have paid less attention to the likes of White and his ilk.

Saddest about this episode you "expose" here is not White -- I have long expected this uncharitable, unChristian nonsense from he and his kind -- but from Tom Ascol's promotion of such garbage! Having exchanged emails with Ascol on a couple of occasions, I found him to be a bit more reasonable than this. Reading his posts at times left me doubting that -- but this positively destroys my former impressions of him.

I suppose the bottom line remains that, if a "theological movement" or a "historical/religious system" has to resort to such unreliable sources, dishonest means and unbiblical tactics to achieve their goals and "win" their debates, just how "Christian" can they be?

Blessings,

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

[sermonfire]

I've read many watchblogger's blogs.

I've even participated in some horrible blog posts of my own that were full of hypocritical hatred, my spiritual life has (at times) been a roller coaster.

but this is one of the most hateful and hypocritical blog post I've ever read. you broke the top 10 for sure.

you think about that for a second.

is that really what you want to accomplish on your blog?

really?

this?

I might be back I might not be.

[Squirrel]

-"P.S. The first one who accuses me of censorship will also be disinvited."-

Ok, that's just too funny!

~Squirrel

[Chris Poe]

Peter,

I'm not looking to straddle the fence. I basically try to call 'em like I see 'em. No doubt that will lead to some saying "Who's side are you on, buddy?"

[peter]

BTW, Chris, straddling the fence works sometimes. Sometimes not. Supposing it to work here, at least from my side of the swamp, makes no sense.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Chris,

I told TurrentinFan to cool it. I meant it. Hence, Smarty mouth is gone for now. If he emails me and assures me he is now calmed down enough to continue, I will invite him back to the party. Pretty simple.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. The first one who accuses me of censorship will also be disinvited.

[Scott Slayton]

Chris,
Well said. Many of the posts and comments concerning the Caner brothers and James White have a real "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" feel to them.

[Chris Poe]

In response to Douglas' comment, (which has disappeared?) I'll paste a tweet I made earlier:

"Given the actions of some Xtian bloggers, it seems their mission is 2 defend their fav. leader from all enemies foreign & domestic."

This applies to both sides, who too rarely can countenance any criticism of their favorites whatsoever.

For some, it seems Dr. Caner etc. can do no wrong. For others, every action of Drs. White, Ascol, etc. is unimpeachable.

[William Birch]

TurretinFan,

You have yet to inform us as to whether you have called for Ascol's and White's public repentance. I'm curious.

[Chris Poe]

Mr anon. (That's be "Turretin")

I rather tend to doubt that Dr. Ascol's reference to "sad" was aimed at the Muslims, do you?

[travstar]

Leave Britney alone!

[TurretinFan]

Sorry for the duplicate post.

[TurretinFan]

Lumpkins:

I didn't ask you any personal questions, and I didn't mock your sources.

Birch:

No, they don't.

Poe:

I can't very well defend Ascol when no clear accusation against him has been made. Is the claim that he said something untrue? Or that he said something true that should have been kept secret? Or what?

- TurretinFan

[peter]

Chris,

Thanks. In fairness to Tim, he may have been simply overwhelmed with the volume of that thread. One has to make a judgment call at times: allowing a thread to be literally hijacked by a dominate commenter or lopping it off.

I can tell you this: if I have a thread that I judge gets "out of control" so to speak, I won't blink, hesitate, or stutter--I'll shut it down in a west Georgia minute. Why? Because every person who logs on is a guest. Period.

Sometimes the wedding gets crashed. That's life.

And, if I look like a coward running for the hills, well...I can think of worse things to appear like... :^)

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter