« Hussein Wario on James White by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Whosoever Will: Non-Calvinism Gaining Traction in the Marketplace by Peter Lumpkins »

May 22, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20133ee47a8cc970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dr. Norman Geisler On Ergun Caner by Peter Lumpkins:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lucas DeFalco

Peter,

With all due respect to Dr. Geisler's acomplishments of years past, I fear this is another of a group of recent statements showing how out of touch he is with present reality. What have we come to in the evangelical community when fabrications, exaggerations and lies are dismissed and those who expose such things are called "libelous"?

I'm sorry, but relying solely on the assessments of men like Elmer Towns and Norm Geisler in a postmodern, digital age is not altogether sound. It would be safe to say that these men spend little or no time on the internet, much less reading blogs, web sites, twitter feeds, etc. The abundance of information today can be overwhelming for those of previous generations. This is not to say that the present environment is better, just VERY different.

Moreover, Dr. Geisler is not a completely unbiased source in this matter. Caner is a regular speaker at apologetics conferences held at Southern Evangelical Seminary, founded by Geisler. Futhermore, how is it possible that he able to render summary judgement on this matter by only talking to "Dr. Caner and other principal parties at Liberty"? How can one make a final judgement on a matter by only talking to one side of the matter? What if we applied this same standard in our legal system? What if judges rendered judgement on a case after only speaking with the defendent? This seems grossly biased to me.

Lastly, I agree we all should "pray for and encourage our brother". We should PRAY that DR. Caner will repent of his fabrications and falsehoods. We should ENCOURAGE Dr. Caner to start telling his TRUE testimony: that of a child from a broken him divided between Islamic and secularistic values whom God miraculously and graciously brought to salvation.

Drpenn

Spreading the word!!

Barry D. Bishop

Lucas DeFalco,
to continue your analogy of the courtroom, why should we even try Ergun Caner when you and others are ready to hang him?

Also, it sounds like you are saying that Geisler is out of touch because he is old and not constantly reading blogs, twitter feeds, etc. Yes, information comes at blinding speed these days, but so does gossip. Much of what passes as news, or info, is merely opinion.

Brennon

So now, no longer is Lucas, and others who will use the same line of argumentation when faced with this defense of Caner, defaming Dr. Caner, but also Dr Geisler. Claiming he is "out of touch he is with present reality." This claim also implicitly libels Dr. Geisler as a liar, since they are saying he is speaking forcefully out of ignorance. It also implies more dishonesty in that Dr. Geisler is alowing personal bias to sway his judgment. These are serious charges.

Do you, Lucas, have proof of these allegations against Dr. Geisler, or are they unfounded assertions you are making because of your personal bias?

Craig Daliessio

Peter,
Thank you for posting this. I am amazed that some would grip their hatred and jealousy towards Dr. Caner so tightly that even a man of Dr. Geisler's stature cannot convince them to at very LEAST shut the heck up until the matter has been investigated and NOT with cut and pasted snippets that smack of the Zapruder films. Caner has a spotlight and these folks lust after it. In my mind it's really all about THAT. Shame on the and a pox on their houses.

Chris Roberts

It is all well and good to say, "The charges are false!" but such a response cannot hold up. The evidence is weighty and if I am to be convinced that the accusations are false I need to know why the evidence does not mean what I think it means.

I have yet to see anyone respond to the mass of evidence presented. So far all I've seen is massive bluster that says, "I'm so-and-so big-name and you should just believe me when I say there is nothing to this story! Those extremist Calvinists are just being their usual extremist selves!"

Don't just tell me the accusations are nonsense. Tell me *why* they are nonsense. Perhaps Liberty's investigative panel will provide some of those answers. We will see.

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

Great article. Dr. Geisler is one that has never been questioned concerning his integrity. Of course that certainly does not keep some from saying Dr. Geisler is "out of touch with present day reality".

Blessings,
Tim

peter

Lucas,

Thanks.  I must say your quick response to three pieces I put up was much too hurried, Lucas.  Anyway, allow me.

You wrote, you “fear this is another of a group of recent statements showing how out of touch he [Geisler] is with present reality.” Absolutely.  Norm Geisler wouldn’t know reality if it knocked him in the head now would he?

In rhetorical form, you queried: “What have we come to in the evangelical community when fabrications, exaggerations and lies are dismissed and those who expose such things are called "libelous"?  A bit of begging the question, I’d say.

In addition, I think it’s revealing precisely what basket you place your eggs:  “I'm sorry, but relying solely on the assessments of men like Elmer Towns and Norm Geisler in a postmodern, digital age is not altogether sound. It would be safe to say that these men spend little or no time on the internet, much less reading blogs, web sites, twitter feeds, etc.” 

Leaving aside exactly what you meant by “men like Elmer Towns and Norm Geisler” (sounds suspiciously like a ‘put-down’ to me), what living in a “post-modern age” has to do with judgments of respectable, accomplished men I haven’t the first clue.  Nor is it sober in the least to assume, as you apparently do, that spending “little or no time on the internet” counts against one’s ability to make reasonable assessments. 

Similar to Barry, I’m wondering:  have you ever considered that perhaps they were better able to make sound judgment because they were not exposed to innumerable twitters, blogs, and rantings of people who did not speak intimately and personally to the parties involved?  Hence, even granting neither Towns nor Geisler do blogs or twitter—which I do not do--to assume their judgment is skewed on that basis is patently absurd, Lucas.

You also state Dr. Geisler is not a completely unbiased source in this matter, since Caner is a regular speaker at apologetics conferences held at Southern Evangelical Seminary.  Care to state reasons why this is necessarily so?

You also curiously wonder how it is possible that Dr. Geisler was able to render summary judgement [sic] on this matter by only talking to "Dr. Caner and other principal parties at Liberty": “How can one make a final judgement [sic] on a matter by only talking to one side of the matter?” And just which one of the bloggers had first hand information other than the alleged digital evidence?  Whom do you think he should have called, James White?  Debbie Kaufman? Wade Burleson? or MoKhan?--none of whom have intimate knowledge of the situation.

Interestingly, you also wonder what would happen if we applied this same standard in our legal system.  One thing is sure:  Ergun Caner would not have been tried, convicted, and hung by the neck until he was dead without first of all having a fair and judicial hearing.  As Geisler states, he would be innocent until proven guilty, hardly a “biased” situation as you attempt to make it.

Finally, “We should PRAY that DR. Caner will repent of his fabrications and falsehoods…to start telling his TRUE testimony…” 

So, let me get this perfectly straight, Lucas:  a man of stature like Dr. Geisler may look intimately at the situation and reason he sees no moral breach but we should encourage LU in its full investigation and that makes him “biased,” not to mention void of “reality,” but you, White, and others may confidently insist Caner fabricated, lied, etc, and you do so apparently objectively, fairly, and judiciously.

Sure, Lucas.  Sure.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter

Chris,

If the plea of innocence--"The charges are false!"--from your perspective "cannot hold up" there is nothing else left to pursue. Your mind is made up. Hence to then come back and suggest, "if I am to be convinced that the accusations are false," unless I've missed your meaning, Chris, makes entirely no sense whatsoever. None.

Also, you log on here and shout, "So far all I've seen is massive bluster that says, "I'm so-and-so big-name and you should just believe me when I say there is nothing to this story! Those extremist Calvinists are just being their usual extremist selves!" This is utter nonsense. And, if you can't produce something I've written to substantiate it, then I'd suggest you drop it.

You also demand we not "just tell [you] the accusations are nonsense" but to tell you *why* they are nonsense. It is not just accusations. It is attributing guilt. Caner's critics have already hung the defendant.

Finally, unless I've completely missed your meaning, whatever LU finds--given your above statements--cannot overturn your perception of the "evidence."

With that, I am...
Peter

michael

Well, there are two glaring entries by Dr.Geisler that I would note now.

One is the bias of Dr. Geisler that Dr. Caner is being libeled! Hmmmmm?

Two, is the tacit admission by Dr. Geisler that Dr. Caner is wounded! Hmmmmm?

Dr. Geisler simply has "ready" "shot" and oops, "aimed", has he not?

I just recently finished a criminal court trial where the defendant was being charged with several crimes. One of the charges was "circumstantial". The other two charges, if we found the defendant guilty of that first charge could then proceed to determine if he was guilty of these other charges. We had to find him guilty of the first charge first or we could not proceed to the next charge and then if we found him guilty of that charge we could then go onto the third charge to deliberate guilt or innocence of that charge. We had to find him guilty of a circumstantial charge first.

Based on the evidence to be argued 'at first', the Judge, the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney told us, by law, we had to keep an open mind about the "evidence" that would come into play. Only the Judge could determine what evidence would be allowed in and what inferred evidence was not evidence as so ruled by the Judge.

We were selected to serve as Jurists by a unanimous vote of confidence by the "three" judges, the Judge, the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney for the defendant, of our truthfulness in answering the preliminary questionaire and then answering the questions we were asked under oath in open court to answer.

Based on being selected a Jurist and then sworn to uphold the "law" in this matter pending the hearing began and ended with the Judge giving us the Law in the case and the "legal" evidence in the case. We then retired to the jury room to deliberate the case submitted to us for our findings and verdicts.

What amazed me most in this instance is the Defense attorney for the accused put on "no" argument of defense for his defendant leaving the law and the legal evidence the Judge ruled on intact for us in our deliberations. His tactic was to by this tactic hopefully raise sufficient "reaonable doubt" so that at least one Jurist would not vote his client guilty.

We found the defendant guilty of all charges brought against him by the People primarily because the Defense only raised the reasonable doubt by calling no witnesses only by his opening statements and closing.

My question then is, is not Dr. Geisler doing the same here by this email and are you not equally complicit in this tactic, Peter, raising a reasonable doubt that there is just a mild misunderstanding by Dr. Caner's misrepresentations and discrepancies, that both, insiders within the Church and outsiders, one Mohamed Khan and other Muslims charge Dr. Caner with?

I agree that Dr. Caner is wounded.

I also agree that Dr. Geisler is biased in this matter clearly visible by his email exchange with you; and according to one of the comments above, maybe Dr. Geisler should recuse himself from any commenting because of his personal involvement with Dr. Caner, seeing he is the founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary?

Charges have been leveled against Dr. Caner. Evidence has been presented that reflect guilt. It isn't odd that outsiders or even insiders within the Church like Dr. White and others are doing this. What is odd though and out of character in my opinion is the quick biased opinions being expressed in defense of innocence ahead of any determination of the commitee appointed by Liberty University to investigate and publish findings of guilt or innocence based on findings of evidence and facts.

The Authorities at Liberty are to be commended for this act of due process presuming Dr. Caner innocent until the facts prove otherwise.

David R. Brumbelow

Peter,
Thanks for this information. Dr. Geisler is a well respected authority; one I’m very interested to hear concerning Dr. Ergun Caner.

Innocent unless proven guilty - what a novel concept.
David R. Brumbelow

Mary

The first to present his case seems right, til another comes forward and questions him. Proverbs 18:17

Of course when you have evidence like the Caners bought a house in 19?? You know it means that no one ever in the history of mankind has owned property yet spent significant amounts of time away from their property. How could there possibly be any questions about such damning evidence?

Joe Blackmon

Debbie Kaufman? Wade Burleson?

Well, considering they have no integrity, class, or Christian ethics whatsoever, they would probably be the last person any reasonable, intelligent human being should call. Again, the ONLY reason Cough-man and Don Quixote have taken up this "cause" is that Ergun Caner is the enemy. Period.

He's a complimentarian. He's anti-Calvinist (and I'm a Calvinist pointing this out). He's dispensational. He's associated with the CR.

If they were concerned about Biblical truth, they would not celebrate the pile of tripe known as The Shack to the point of having the author come and speak at their church. Anyone who has read that knows it is nothing but heresy. Where was their righteous indignation when Wm Paul said in at least one radio interview that the lake of fire in Revelation is NOT for punishment but for purification? If they are SO concerned about the gospel being maligned, where was their anger about that?

Mr. Kahn is a muslim and as such is lost, dying and going to hell. Now, when they contacted him for info, did they share the gospel with him? No. Will they now proclaim to him the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ and that he will go to hell unless he repents and trusts Christ? No. So, they have the opportunity to share the gospel with this man and they'd rather "get Ergun, by gawd". Seriously, THAT is a higher priority?

Having said all that, I have no problems with the questions being asked and I personally am interested to hear the explanations. However, Don Quixote and his little trained minions have NO RIGHT to be asking those questions.

peter

Michael,

Much of your point I admit I'm not getting. On the other hand, I did get this:

"What is odd though and out of character in my opinion is the quick biased opinions being expressed in defense of innocence ahead of any determination of the commitee appointed by Liberty University to investigate and publish findings of guilt or innocence based on findings of evidence and facts"

Michael, this is absurd, both legally and morally. Of course, there is "bias"; it is dead up to the prosecution in a criminal case to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Hence, legal "bias" is on the side of the accused. He or she need not prove his or her innocence, but the prosecutor must prove his or her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, morally a person may need to justify their actions. The problem in this particular instance is, it remains impossible to justify one's actions to people who've already made up their mind about the matter. In other words, it is not bias that remains the present difficulty for Caner's critics; rather it is foregone conclusion.

In the end, absolutely nothing--not one thin statement, zilch, zero--Caner could say would change White, MoKahn or Burleson & Company's mind. They have already hung the accused by the neck until he is dead.

Indeed will LU's investigation make a difference to their conclusions? Nope. Not a bit. We've already hints of their "boycotting" LU if Caner gets exonerated.

With that, I am...
Peter

Mike

I think Chris said it best above...

"Don't just tell me the accusations are nonsense. Tell me *why* they are nonsense."

Peter Lumpkins, Tim Guthrie, etc., only defense is "attack, attack, attack!" Sure, it's understandable. But be honest and refute each of the points Dr. Caner has been accused of. Don't just say, "Those Calvinists are liars and we aren't even going to address their lies!"

Tell us how they are lies! Tell us how those Calvinists are distorting the truth! Specifically and point by point. Stop playing on emotions and deal with the accusations in a straight-forward manner.

robert

Dear Dr. Lumpkins

"As Geisler states, he would be innocent until proven guilty, hardly a “biased” situation as you attempt to make it."

The truth is if Dr. Caner was just a volunteer or lay person he would have been gone in a nano second and it would not matter if he was innocent guilty or the man in the moon. If you are a non professional Christian which is the lowest form of life in the church. If you upset the Apple cart or just get in the way you are gone, cut off, tossed, booted etc. No one even misses you. Now I understand it, sort of like evolution and survival of the fittest, actually evolution shows more mercy. I am glad you have friends Dr. Caner who are willing to stick up for you, be grateful the vast majority of the lay folks in the Christian faith do not, never have and never will. We are canon fodder.

peter

Mike,

You write on this log implying my argument has been, "Those Calvinists are liars and we aren't even going to address their lies!"

I challenged Chris to either put up or drop it. The same goes for you. Until you can be specific about what I've written, substantiating your assertion I've called Calvinists liars, drop it. You may post such anywhere else as you or others please. But not here you won't.

With that, I am...
Peter

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

Am I to understand that you have allowed a "legal eagle" to log on here and give us a lesson on guilty until proven innocent? Now only has he placed himself as a "legal authority", but he has signed on here anonymous. Do you know this anonymous legal expert? Also, you have pointed out his absurdity and I am not sure you have seen a court room from the inside.

Blessings,
Tim

Mike

Peter, again you are deflecting from the point. We are discussing the accusations against Dr. Caner, not the accusations against you. You have implied that accusations against Caner are lies. How so?

Why is not one, including Dr. Caner, willing to simply answer the unanswered questions?

Doug

Peter,

Who are these "other extremists" mentioned by Dr. Geisler?

Doug

michael

Peter,

again I am grateful for your kindness and your demeanor with me. It stands in stark contrast with some who charge you differently than how you treat me? I can't explain that?

My main point in responding to this email exchange between you and Dr. Geisler is, it shouldn't have happened.

Why?

Because Liberty is now investigating whether there is any truth to the charges being made from within and without against Dr. Caner.

I have read numerous comments on comment sections following articles published in Chritianity Today and the AP and Huffington. There have been both current students of LU, alumni and former co-workers of Dr. Caner who have expressed no surprise or disbelief about the events and evidence being unfolded against Dr. Caner by the outsiders and the Christians. That is estounding in my view, isn't it yours too? It is one thing for a nominal Muslim or a Christian of a clearly diverse expression of Christian doctrine to do that. But to have current and alumni students and staff, seems a bit peculiar?

Dr. Geisler, in my view, has responded foolishly to allow his private view of this matter expressed to you to come into the public far and wide.

I would not hold any suspicions against Dr. Geisler, his bias or you and yours for that matter to have found out by some leakeage that private conversations were going on between you two as to the foolishness you feel is going on against Dr. Caner, if disclosed and provided that neither of you disclosed them, someone else brought out into the public. The charges being set forth, these contradictory evidences and discrepancies that are now out there exist and your belief that they are false is fine, mainly because they are your private views and no one should betray your confidence by leaking them to the public. Those are your private views and bias and should be held in confidence now, but if they are then unfairly being expressed publicly against your will by those holding a bias against you, as you point out, that would be outrageous.

Where there is a lack of Wisdom, though, is to make them public now by such a one as Dr. Geisler and you when LU is now doing a fairly decent investigation declining any public comment until after the findings and a verdict are made public.

That you would charge Dr. White this way seems unfair and foolish. There is nothing untoward to raise reasonable issues about misrepresentations and discrepancies by anyone, including Dr. White. For you then to couple him with Kaufman and the other person as to what they would do after Liberty releases their findings in this matter is questionable and problematic. I think that was foolish of you and reflects poorly on your judgment in this matter.

I don't fault you for sticking up for your friend and colleague, Dr. Caner, whichever the relationship is between you two? Maybe he was your Professor at LU? That's not what concerns me.

It is the prejudice that you now reflect in bringing this Dr. Geisler email out and going far and wide with it that bother's me. It is inflammatory. It is not rhetoric.

I am on Dr. White's side here, let's make that clear. But I would take serious exception to the fact if Liberty addressed every point Dr. White put over for them to consider against Dr. Caner, every issue the "outsiders" have raised about the Caners devoutness and by Grace in God's Wisdom found every one of these points and issues "baseless" and then showed us why they are and then Dr. White after this, went the way of error you suggest:::>

"...In the end, absolutely nothing--not one thin statement, zilch, zero--Caner could say would change White, MoKahn or Burleson & Company's mind. They have already hung the accused by the neck until he is dead.

Indeed will LU's investigation make a difference to their conclusions? Nope. Not a bit. We've already hints of their "boycotting" LU if Caner gets exonerated.".

I am with you on this one, then! It would be the best for Dr. Caner to be utterly, innocently and truthfully exonerated. Praise God if that is the outcome.

Then the shoe of the Gospel of Peace will be firmly placed on Dr. White's foot. He will then have to humble himself and seek out Dr. Caner privately first to seek reconciliation and forgiveness and then seek out the rest of us for his temerity and reckless charges hastily gathered and put out so publicly against Dr. Caner and ask for our forgiveness. Then it is on us to rejoice with Dr. Caner and forgive Dr. White.

But, the question now rests with this, what if LU comes out and finds all charges and evidences add up against Dr. Caner and prescribe remedial restoration?

Then what? What are you prepared to do in here publicly after all that has now been expressed?

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

David B. Hewitt

(one of the lowly nothings pokes his head up and raises his hand to ask a question)

That would be me. :)

With regard to the whole situation, one thing that I cannot understand is the silence from Dr. Caner regarding answering the accusations that have been leveled against him. Much evidence has been produced, and it doesn't look good for Dr. Caner, but is that the end of the story? Of course not. Is there some sort of explanation that he can offer that would explain many a thing that he has said in the past?

Perhaps there is. I truly do hope that there is...but I do not think there is.

Caner didn't respond to Christianity Today's attempts to get more information from him about this situation. I cannot help but think that such an opportunity provided by CT would have been a wonderful chance for Caner to explain at least some of the inconsistencies that have been documented in this whole mess that has evolved. He didn't take that opportunity.

Does that mean he is guilty of everything that has been said by his critics? No, it does not. It makes it look like he didn't have an answer because he was guilty! Of course he couldn't have responded to everything in a CT interview, but it would have been a start.

I also do not understand the need to wait until June 30th to get a response from Liberty's inquiry into Dr. Caner's statements. It shouldn't take that long I wouldn't think -- it would probably take an afternoon or two at most to address specifically the questions that Dr. Caner's critics (both Christian and secular) have raised. Dr. Caner knows the truth, and as a Christian (and therefore one who must love truth) he would do well to come out with it. Even if he comes out and says, "I have lied about everything I am accused of lying about," then great! The issue would be over, healing can begin as repentance would be happening. If it is something other than that, and he were to come out with it, again, great! Healing would begin, repentance where needed (perhaps on both sides depending on who you are).

Anyway, that's all I have to say about it for now, unless I have been unclear. Should that be the case, please let me know, and I'll explain accordingly.

May the Name of Jesus be praised,
dbh

peter

All,

Some are logging comments which add nothing to this thread. It is rehash trying to be posted here. Links to MoKahn are humorous. Nothing will be posted like that. Nor will patience be extended to anonymous commenters. Forget it. If you can't log your name, don't bother posting (read my guidelines).

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Mike

You're incredibly funny. First you write, "Peter Lumpkins...only defense is "attack, attack, attack!" ... Don't just say, "Those Calvinists are liars and we aren't even going to address their lies!"

Then you have the audacity to squeal, "We are discussing the accusations against Dr. Caner, not the accusations against you." How belly-busting, hee-hawing classic, man.

Now, as for your re-assertion I've "implied that accusations against Caner are lies" I'll say this one last time: unless you are prepared to specifically demonstrate where I've either implicitly or explicitly continued to call Caner's critics "liars," don't bother posting again. It will not get through.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

David,

Thanks. I appreciate your conciliatory comment. And, as you indicated, whether or not you believe there are explanations does nothing to negate that there could exist viable, credible explanations for the plethora of ridiculous charges.

Nevertheless, a) Caner has already conceded some of the discrepancies and asked forgiveness b) the overt charge Caner is an ex fake Muslim and has fabricated his testimony *is* what is at stake here. Do I think Ergun Caner is guilty? I do not. But, all my believing, wishing or hoping cannot magically change Caner from a huckster to a holy man. I understand this perfectly.

And, I've never argued any other point but innocent until proven guilty, the very point Dr. Geisler made which has rattled the MoKhan-White-Burleson coalition, the coalition which has already pronounced Caner guilty and hung him by the neck until he was dead.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Ryan,

I'll be glad to post your comment if your write one which has to do with the thread. Accusing me of slander does not qualify. As to Mike, I'll suggest to you, be specific, and I may just respond.

With that, I am...
Peter

Chris Roberts

Peter,

Again and again and again avoiding anything relating to the actual issues in this matter. I mention Calvinism as just one of the ways Caner's defenders evade the accusations. Calvinism has been raised on several occasions to try and evade the issue. (Two quick points: I did not say people accuse Calvinists of lying, and I did not say you were one of those making this a Calvinist issue.) My point is that one way or another Caner's defenders make every excuse to avoid dealing with the issues.

I have read the evidence and I've read what little has been said in response. The response from Caner and others has yet to make me think the evidence is bogus. Inconsistency after inconsistency show not just one or two misstatements but a pattern of distortion. But we are told to ignore the evidence because Peter Lumpkins and others claim the evidence is garbage?

Here is a very simple question. Please do not try to evade it yet again. Why is the evidence garbage? Why should I ignore the mass of inconsistent statements made by Caner? Why should I believe those who say this is a non-issue, when my own eyes tell me it is an issue? We are not Catholics, we have no bishops or popes to tell us how we ought to think. We weigh the evidence for ourselves and decide accordingly.

I am more than willing to give Caner and his defenders a fair shake, but thus far nothing has actually been said in Caner's defense. Nothing has been raised to show why the evidence is bogus. I have yet to see a single statement that explains why the accusations are irresponsible or false. Tell me why this is not a big deal, and I would be more inclined to drop the issue. But as long as Caner's defense fails to deal with the actual evidence, I see no reason to ignore the evidence.

peter

Chris,

Look. I'm responding to *your* words. I did not write them. You did, Chris. And, in writing, you most certainly did implicate me. Your words, Chris:

"So far all I've seen is massive bluster that says, "I'm so-and-so big-name and you should just believe me when I say there is nothing to this story! Those extremist Calvinists are just being their usual extremist selves!" (emp. added)

a) I've never made this about celebrity. Who brought that up? No one from this side I know. I do know White and Burleson have played the "hero worship" card. And, now you, Chris

b)I've never made this just about "extreme Calvinists." I did follow the CT article which definitively linked "Reformed" and "Muslim" critics together. Hence even they saw a connection.

That's why I insisted on being specific, Chris. Now, if you're not interested in pursuing specific references where I've argued either of the above ways, I'll take that as a concession.

c)I am unconcerned about convincing you Chris. If you think Caner is guilty based on what you know, have at it. But just because you think it is so does not make it so. That's why when anyone--and I do mean *anyone*--has public questions raised pertaining to their character, we must insist on the greatest care. Yet Caner has been publicly beheaded before he has been actually tried.

I argue once again, until a man is proven guilty, he is publicly innocent. I am arguing for the same treatment for Caner I would argue for myself. And, truth be told, there's not one single Caner critic who would desire to be presumed guilty until proven innocent which is exactly what's happened to Ergun Caner.

Now, if you still think I'm dodging your questions, be my guest.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

All,

Going to bed. Log all you wish. But no more posted till A.M.

With that, I am...
Peter

Steve

You are a patient man Peter.
I am glad that Dr Geisler has reminded us of a salient fact, Innocence is to be presumed...
If innocence was presumed there would be NO gossip.
there would be silence on the issue rather than trying to stir the fire and promote attacks on the Caner's characters.
To not presume innocence and be silent until those appointed to weigh the facts have done their deliberations and rendered their account is to deceitfully deny the presumption of innocence.
\Steve

Mlynn

Peter -- you caught on to one of their strategies when you saw that James White had accused Norman Geisler of saying Ergun Caner was innocent. In fact, as you say, Norman Geisler stated that Ergun Caner is innocent until proven guilty.

This is a manipulation strategy I see used a LOT by the group that follows James White. It is used to try to destroy a person -- has happened a LOT in Paltalk.

I just wanted to make sure that you see the strategy behind this remark.

Doug -- you can find some of the "other extremists" in Paltalk in the reformed rooms who are followers of James White.

peter

Steve,

And my Brother, you are a kind man. I'll be glad when the heat dissipates. Grace, my friend...

Mlynn,

I think you are correct. And this stands as one of the fundamental differences between White-Khan-Burleson advocates on one side and Caner defenders on the other. Indeed they presume his guilt because in their mind Caner's innocence is obviously impossible and negatively chide and scoff at those who may believe Caner is innocent and surely hope he is innocent, but if proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, will deal with it as Christian brothers should.

Dr. Geisler is surely correct: "Christians have a bad habit of shooting their wounded."

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Once again...

If you're logging a comment and it's not posted, maybe it's because you have really nothing to contribute. Insulting Dr. Geisler or calling me a fool, an insane person, a liar, a pathetic excuse for a Christian may very well make you feel better, but it hardly adds significance to this thread.

Nor will I post comments from those who've kissed MoKhan's feet, honoring him with accolades of praise as being interested in truth and integrity. I suggest those who want their twisted sense of truth-seeking posted publicly crawl back to their blog-holes and spew it from there. Not on my nickel.

With that, I am...
Peter

David B. Hewitt

Hello again, Dr. Lumpkins. I appreciate your gracious response to my comment. I have a statement and a couple of questions.

You said:
"Nevertheless, a) Caner has already conceded some of the discrepancies and asked forgiveness"

This is true, but if memory serves correctly, much of what he said was very general. I cannot remember exactly what he said since I didn't copy it and the link to his statement from February no longer works, presumably because the page was removed (or perhaps moved elsewhere). I have also forgotten the link to the wayback web machine or whatever.

You continue:
"b) the overt charge Caner is an ex fake Muslim and has fabricated his testimony *is* what is at stake here."

Who are those who would say that Caner is an lying about being an ex-Muslim?

You further said:
"And, I've never argued any other point but innocent until proven guilty, the very point Dr. Geisler made which has rattled the MoKhan-White-Burleson coalition, the coalition which has already pronounced Caner guilty and hung him by the neck until he was dead."

You believe that Mohammed Khan, James White, and Wade Burleson are in a kind of coalition against Dr. Caner? Of what nature would this be? How are they allied in this? I guess I am hoping for more information about what you think than your belief that they are allied against Caner.

Thanks for your time, Dr. Lumpkins. I hope your Lord's Day worship has gone well and will continue to go well!

sdg,
dbh

Lucas DeFalco

Peter,

Regarding Drs. Geisler & Towns, please quote me in context: "I'm sorry, but relying solely on the assessments of men like Elmer Towns and Norm Geisler in a postmodern, digital age is not altogether sound. It would be safe to say that these men spend little or no time on the internet, much less reading blogs, web sites, twitter feeds, etc. The abundance of information today can be overwhelming for those of previous generations. This is not to say that the present environment is better, just VERY different."

No put-down here, just an observation. Neither of these men have bothered to interact in the slightest with the court documents and other evidence that has been revealed via the internet. I fear they may not even be aware of the existence or content of these documents. If either of these men HAVE reviewed the evidence I would be more than happy to read their thoughts. But neither they nor Drs. Caner have taken than opportunity yet.

You said (with context): "Interestingly, you also wonder what would happen if we applied this same standard in our legal system. One thing is sure: Ergun Caner would not have been tried, convicted, and hung by the neck until he was dead without first of all having a fair and judicial hearing. As Geisler states, he would be innocent until proven guilty, hardly a “biased” situation as you attempt to make it."

Besides being a complete straw man (I never advocated what you have said), it does not respond to what he said. By his own words, Dr. Geisler has said the he has spoken with Dr. Caner and others at Liberty and has concluded the accussations are libelous. Not just false but libelous. Geisler has not only rendered his final judgment, but he even taken an offensive posture but striking back at the accusers. Yet he makes no mention of the documentation. Either the documentation does not matter to Dr. Geisler or he is not aware of it. We are only left to speculate.

Dr. Geisler has a clear motive for bias here. Dr. Caner is a past speaker at the apologetics conferences at SES. Whenever someone presents evidence that Dr. Caner has fabricated portions of his past and testimony, it marrs the credibility of those who decide who gets to speak at these conferences. Some will inevitably think "why don't they check his background before allowing him to speak?" Dr. Geisler has a clear stake in maintaining Dr. Caner's credibility.

peter

Lucas,

To mention “context” as if I avoided it to make your statement into something you did not assert is just goofy.  Your entire first paragraph was about how incredibly “out of touch” Geisler is with reality, the latest statement of which was just “another” example.  You ended it rhetorically asking “what have we come to when”?  You, then, went on to suggest relying on “men like” Towns & Geisler is not “altogether sound.”  Why? Basically, because they lack internet resources (for whatever reason).  And yes, you’re correct; it was an “observation”; but not “just an observation.”  It was packed with plenty to communicate what I dubbed “put down,” Lucas.  So please spare me another violin song.

You also come back confidently spawning more assertions without the least regard for your lack of evidence.  You state:  “Neither of these men have bothered to interact in the slightest with the court documents and other evidence that has been revealed via the internet. I fear they may not even be aware of the existence or content of these documents.”  Do you know this to be?  Have you spoken with them personally to determine this to be? How then do you know?  The reality is, you do not.  The pattern many Caner critics possess is undeniably present in most of their assertions.  The pattern?  Assume.  Accuse.  State unequivocally something is so, and then pass it off as a demonstrable fact. You, know…kinda like they’ve done with Caner himself.

Even more, buried deeply in the background of statements like you’ve just publicly written, Lucas, is an undiluted arrogance.  Here’s how it works: 

“Towns and Geisler are just too dumb and stupid to know that Caner has given them the fast one.  Or, they’re too dumb and stupid to consider the evidence that *I* have considered. Hence, since they’re “out of touch” with reality, do not surf the internet, and either do not know or have not engaged the evidence "*I* have engaged, relying upon them is not “altogether sound.”

Yet, then you attempt to salvage your categorical denial that the men in question could possibly have outdone your exhaustive, investigatory conclusion on the matter with any elementary, buffoonery of their own by suggesting, “If either of these men HAVE reviewed the evidence I would be more than happy to read their thoughts.”  What makes you think, Lucas, they give two quarters of a gnat’s behind what you think about their thoughts?  They do not rise and fall upon your say so. Nor mine. And thank God they don’t.

Nor is it completely clear to what you refer as the entirely overused “straw man” (sometimes I think respondents throw in these really intelligent sounding dismissals when they haven’t a clue how to respond).  Well, Lucas, you brought up the “bias” factor when you rhetorically asked, “What if we applied this same standard in our legal system? What if judges rendered judgement [sic] on a case after only speaking with the defendent [sic] ?” concluding “This seems grossly biased to me.”  How it’s supposed to be a “straw-man” when I supply my own answer is baffling to say the least.  Nor was I responding to what Geisler said.  Why would you even mention such absurdity ?    

You appear concerned Geisler is accusing Caner critics of libel.  Even if it is so, I’m lost as to precisely why you appear so concerned.  You have little concern about labeling Caner a liar and fraud.  You think you have sufficient evidence to back up your claim.  Why can Geisler not believe he has sufficient evidence to back up his claim of libel? Nor is it hardly judicious for you to assert that Geisler has rendered his “final judgment” (BTW, he did not) when you yourself have also rendered your final judgment.  The duplicity is staggering.    

Again, you assert without proof “Dr. Geisler has a clear motive for bias here.”  Oh, you mention “proof”: “Caner is a past speaker at the apologetics conferences at SES…. Dr. Geisler has a clear stake in maintaining Dr. Caner's credibility.”

That’s fundamentally augmentative, Lucas. You’re assuming without the least evidence Geisler would succumb to such temptation were it presented. And, in doing so, you’re also assuming Geisler would sacrifice moral integrity just to save face.  Completely non sequitur.   Again, the unwarranted conclusions Caner critics employ knows no end.

Just for laughs, the same type of non sequitur is argued by a few White critics. James White is a raving-mad Calvinist.  Caner is non-Calvinist.  Hence, James White has sufficient motive to get rid of Caner.  Therefore…

I suspect if a White critic brought such a motive up, Lucas, you’d be rip-roaring ready to say, attributing motives to White is simply unfair. Really.  Then drop the nonsense that Geisler has a personal stake in this matter.  Hence, he’s attempting to exonerate Caner.

Now, you did avoid questions I mentioned in my first response.  Hence, unless you go back and pick those up, I’m uninterested in pursuing this with you any farther.

With that, I am…

Peter

Dwprewitt

All,
I have to admit that I am really behind the curve on this whole controversy with Dr. Caner (I have been wrapping up finals and finishing my degree at Liberty). I have skimmed the articles here and ones on the Alpha Omega ministry site. I am planning on reading everything in depth as I can find the time. My question is this: have those professing Christians that are making the accusations against Dr. Caner followed the principles laid out in Matthew 18? I have not seen evidence of this, but as I have stated I have only skimmed, so if Matthew 18 has been followed, can you point me to it with a link?

Secondly, having talked to Dr. Towns personally my opinion of him would be anything but out of touch, and with what I have read of Dr. Geisler I would hardly say that about him either. It appears from the inflammatory remarks that I have read by professing Christians, about professing Christians that if the Devil were to walk away, and leave the church alone she would still destroy herself without his help. I thank God for his Mercy and Grace, it is too bad that we seem unable to share the mercy and grace He has given us with each other.

David

Lucas DeFalco

Peter asked, "Norm Geisler wouldn’t know reality if it knocked him in the head now would he?"

This question assumes I said something that I never said or implied. I never said he is "out of touch". I said recent statement he has made illustrate that he is out of touch with present reality. The fast flow of information today requires that one be far more thorough in investigating charges than they may have been in years past. Moreover, saying that you have talked to the accused party and he did nothing wrong strongly hints of a "good ol boy" era response. With the availability of information in today's environment (good or bad as that may be) we simply cannot sweep such things under the rug.

Furthermore, if either Dr. Geisler or Dr. Towns HAVE thoroughly reviewed the documentation and have found them to be false, questionable or irrelevant, why don't they discuss these findings publicly? You seem to have a connection with Dr. Towns. Why not ask him for his response to the documentation and ask if you can publish it here?

Peter asked, "Care to state reasons why this is necessarily so?"

Why WHAT is necessarily so? The fact that Caner speaks at SES or the fact that this makes Geisler unbaised. I have answered this in my 2nd post above but I will recap. If Caner's credibility can be questioned it will inevitable make people who attend that conference at SES ask why the conference organizers and leaders at SES notice this before. Furthermore, Geisler has published material with Caner in the past. These two facts mean that Geisler's credibility is at least partially tied to Caner's credibility.

As for why SES has invited Caner to speak at their conferences you'll have to ask Alex McFarland or the conference organizers that question. I don't completely know, but I suspect his "testimony" as a jihadist youth who grew up on the border of Turkey and Iraq and attended a madrassa may have had something to do with it. His knowledge of Arabic and the Hadith has been shown to be at best shaky for someone who claims to have such a background IMHO.

Peter asked, "I’m wondering: have you ever considered that perhaps they were better able to make sound judgment because they were not exposed to innumerable twitters, blogs, and rantings of people who did not speak intimately and personally to the parties involved?"

I never said they should expose themselves to the twitters, blogs and rantings of anyone. Personally, I've only bothered to read two blogs on this matter (one blog - witness unto me - which gave only links to primary sources and one blog - James Whites's - with primary source links and conjecture based on first-hand knowledge of the parties involved). Some of the other blogs, as you said, "did not speak intimately and personally to the parties involved?" But the simple fact is that if they have not taken the time to view ANY of the blogs on this they would have no way of accessing the primary sources and documentation that these blogs have cited.

Peter asked, "And just which one of the bloggers had first hand information other than the alleged digital evidence?"

Other than James White, who actually HAS debated some of the people Dr. Caner claims to have debated, none of the other bloggers have first hand information. But even if you set aside the whole debates issue (which Dr. Caner did partially rescind his debate claims), and even if you completely ignored James White's site, there is still more that ample documentation to question the credibility of Dr. Caner's previous bio on Liberty's site and in many of his sermons.

Let me be clear, I am not interested in anything that Khan, Kauffman or Bureleson have to say about this (or anyone else without first hand knowledge). I am only marginally interested in what James White has to say with regards to the debates question and the Arabic/Hadith citations issue. I am EXTREMELY interested in what the Liberty inquiry may reveal, assuming that the inquiry is impartial and includes:

1. Input from first-hand sources who are outside of Lynchburg.

2. Input from sources who have not co-published books with Caner.

3. Input from sources who have do not have Caner as a regular speaker at a seminary they founded.

Wendy

Having spent many years at Liberty and TRBC I have seen every accusation thrown at Dr. Falwell, Jonathan, Ergun, etc., none of them have ever spoken out and pleaded their innocence. You know why? Because some people you cannot argue with. Some have made it their life ambition to scour the internet and judge others.

You cannot argue with these people, even if (pardon, I do not mean to be sacriligous)but if Christ came down and said Caner was innocent they would argue with him.

I find nothing incoherent about Dr. Geisler's post, I guess others just struggle with reading comprehension. In fact, I agree, wait until the final investigation is done before you anoint yourself to be God.

Lucas DeFalco

Peter said,

“Towns and Geisler are just too dumb and stupid to know that Caner has given them the fast one. Or, they’re too dumb and stupid to consider the evidence that *I* have considered. Hence, since they’re “out of touch” with reality, do not surf the internet, and either do not know or have not engaged the evidence "*I* have engaged, relying upon them is not “altogether sound.”

Your charicature of me here is both unwarranted and unfounded. Nowhere in this or any discussion of this matter have I ever placed myself in the role of examiner or judge. The evidence speaks for itself. I'm only trying to provide balance to some of the bluster and misinformation that is swirling around this controversy.

Since you clearly agree with Dr. Geisler that speaking only with the accused party is sufficient for rendering judgement on a matter, did you "spoken with" James White "personally" before rendering this judgement regarding the Zaatari debate:

"I do not understand how we’re to take this “debate” seriously. Hence, I do not understand why James White even bothered to list it as a real debate. Unless, of course, because his debate with Zaatari was a formal debate."

michael

Peter,

can you reconcile why you didn't post my response to your response to my first comment with these verses:::>

Psa 119:163 I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love your law.
Psa 119:164 Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules.
Psa 119:165 Great peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble.

I realize this is your nickel, but I was offensive or used scorn or foul language and I put both Dr. Caner and Dr. White on the same level of judgment.

One of them is grossly wrong? Neither of them if they are both wrong deserve a pass?

The issue isn't that charges have been raised that Dr. Caner has lied or embellished his personal profile for some untoward end?

So why decline posting my response to yours in light of Scripture?

peter

Lucas,

You begin with,

“Peter asked, "Norm Geisler wouldn’t know reality if it knocked him in the head now would he?" This question assumes I said something that I never said or implied. I never said he is "out of touch". I said recent statement he has made illustrate that he is out of touch with present reality.”

Here is the quote I offered: 

“You wrote, you “fear this is another of a group of recent statements showing how out of touch he [Geisler] is with present reality.” Absolutely.  Norm Geisler wouldn’t know reality if it knocked him in the head now would he?”

I quoted you accurately and asked a rhetorical--though admittedly facetious—question. But you completely ignore the accurate quote and attempt to make the rhetorical (facetious) question to “assume” something you “never said” or “implied.” What are you attempting to prove, Lucas?

Even more, you didn’t even quote yourself accurately.  You wrote “I said recent statement he has made illustrate that he is out of touch with present reality.”  Well, no you didn’t.  Here’s what you wrote:

“…I fear this is another of a group of recent statements showing how out of touch he is with present reality.”

The way I see it, you stated Geisler’s statement on Caner is “another” of an unidentified group of statements recently made which you think demonstrates how ‘out of touch’ Geisler is. From my side of the street, you’re implying a pattern exists here.

Yet, even leaving all of the above aside, Lucas, by suggesting my question assumes you said something that you never said or implied completely overlooks my fuller treatment in the response I offered when you suggested I was avoiding “context” for your statement.  Allow me to remind you here:

“To mention “context” as if I avoided it to make your statement into something you did not assert is just goofy.  Your entire first paragraph was about how incredibly “out of touch” Geisler is with reality, the latest statement of which was just “another” example.  You ended it rhetorically asking “what have we come to when”?  You, then, went on to suggest relying on “men like” Towns & Geisler is not “altogether sound.”  Why? Basically, because they lack internet resources (for whatever reason).  And yes, you’re correct; it was an “observation”; but not “just an observation.”  It was packed with plenty to communicate what I dubbed “put down,” Lucas.  So please spare me another violin song” (//link)

I trust that helps.

Again,  you write, “saying that you have talked to the accused party and he did nothing wrong strongly hints of a "good ol boy" era response.” Argumentative.  You have no proof of this.  Just another assertion attempting to be passed off as fact, Lucas. 

In addition, Geisler did not just say, “he talked to the accused party.”  Instead he said “I have looked into the matter” concluding to his knowledge Caner had done nothing malicious, and therefore, urging all to “consider him innocent unless proven guilty.” From my perspective, this is the judgment of a reasonable person.  On the other hand, you apparently think it is the judgment from a man bound to a “good ol boy” network, a man who is “out of touch” with reality…excuse me, present reality.  I’ll allow the readers to discern between the two.

You further state, “With the availability of information in today's environment (good or bad as that may be) we simply cannot sweep such things under the rug.”  What “today’s environment” has to do with “sweeping things under the rug” I cannot tell.  What is completely absurd is, apparently you’re implying Geisler et al wants to do just that. Again, you’re attributing motives without any reasonable evidence which demands them. 

Interestingly, you apparently think I have a connection with Dr. Towns. I’ve never met Dr. Towns.  Ever. I’ve never exchanged emails from him or talked to him on the phone.   I’ve read a couple of his books.  That’s my connection with Dr. Towns.

You also appear confused at a  question I asked: “Peter asked, "Care to state reasons why this is necessarily so?"  Well I thought my question was pretty clear:

“You also state Dr. Geisler is not a completely unbiased source in this matter, since Caner is a regular speaker at apologetics conferences held at Southern Evangelical Seminary.  Care to state reasons why this is necessarily so?”

And here is your reply:

“Why WHAT is necessarily so?  The fact that Caner speaks at SES or the fact that this makes Geisler unbaised [sic].”

Why you think this is an ambiguous question humors me.  What sense does it make to ask about what is necessarily so about Caner speaking at SES?  Duh, I be from West Gaogiea but me no dat make know cents.

Here’s the deal, Lucas:  If you want to continue to exchange with me, drop the side-ways attempt to make yourself look thorough, cautious, and pedantic. Any jack from Georgia knew precisely what the question is above: your conclusion—Geisler not unbiased—is stated first.  Your premise—since Caner speaks at SES—is stated last.  To make this into a disjunction is cheap sophistry. 

You want to “recap” what you’ve written about Geisler’s precarious position into which you’ve placed him as a tainted witness.  No need.  I fully answered your nonsense in the comment you continue to over look.  Why reiterate the same thing and avoid my response?

Unless you’re willing to consider Hussein Warior’s responses to some of the patently ridiculous charges like Caner’s alleged mispronouncing the Arabic, etc. I’m not going to address this with you.  I suggest you dialog with Hussein about it.  You may look for greener pastures in which to argue your case if you listen to what he has to say about some of the mundane charges brought against Caner.

You deny you said “they [Geisler and Towns] should expose themselves to the twitters, blogs and rantings of anyone.” You’re correct.  You did not say that.  But you did imply that (minus the term “ranting” which was my interpretative word for the overwhelming number of blogs/twitters about the issue).  If you did not imply it, Lucas, what is the implication of the following?

“…relying solely on the assessments of men like Elmer Towns and Norm Geisler in a postmodern, digital age is not altogether sound. It would be safe to say that these men spend little or no time on the internet, much less reading blogs, web sites, twitter feeds, etc. The abundance of information today can be overwhelming for those of previous generations. This is not to say that the present environment is better, just VERY different” (emphasis added)

If you’re not implying a positive role for digital age information, are you implying a negative role?  Or a neutral role? But if it is either negative or neutral and not positive, why would you cite such as reason to avoid relying solely on Geisler or Towns whom you feel safe to say neither spends any significant time on the internet, much less reading blog, twitters, etc? 

Nor does your ending statement bail out your confusing assertion, Lucas.  While denying the “present environment” to be any “better” than presumably the non-digital age, but only “VERY different,” you end contradicting the very point you were apparently trying to make about Geisler and Towns:  “It would be safe to say that these men spend little or no time on the internet…” What difference that’s supposed to make in relying on “men like” Geisler & Towns as not “altogether sound”—men who’ve little or no time on the internet…—escapes me completely.  If the digital age is “not better” only “VERY different” you’ve just soundly defeated your own point about not relying on “men like” Geisler and Towns.

You cite my words:  “Peter asked, "And just which one of the bloggers had first hand information other than the alleged digital evidence?" Other than James White… none of the other bloggers have first hand information.”  Thank you for the concession—albeit one qualification:  James White has no first-hand information to my knowledge other than the one debate you mentioned (if it can be called “first-hand”). And Caner addressed it, something our Caner critics continue to forget.

But, you nevertheless state “…there is still more that ample documentation to question the credibility of Dr. Caner's previous bio on Liberty's site and in many of his sermons.” While there may be unanswered discrepancies, nothing yet proves Caner intentionally, maliciously lied about his testimony, creating a fake identity which is what White & Khan charged. Discrepancies may raise questions.  However, discrepancies do not establish guilt which Caner’s critics—including you—have boldly and unequivocally attributed to Ergun Caner. 

Incidentally, the charge changed from “Caner is a fake ex Muslim” to “Caner is a fake ex devout Muslim.” For documentation, consider Wario’s responses to MoKhan and White (link above). Indeed Mokhan actually logged on this site that Caner being a fake ex Muslim is not the issue (//link see my response //link). Well. Well. Well.  What a revelation from a man whose site is www dot fakeexmuslim dot com.   

After a rousing exchange, you state: “Let me be clear, I am not interested in anything that Khan, Kauffman or Bureleson [sic] have to say about this (or anyone else without first hand knowledge).”  Well that also leaves you and me out, doesn’t it? One has to wonder why you continue to listen to yourself?

However, you state you are “EXTREMELY interested” in what the Liberty inquiry may reveal, assuming that the inquiry is impartial…” I’m wondering again, Lucas, who gets to decide if the inquiry is “impartial”?  You?  Me?  Internet haters of Caner?  Internet advocates of Caner?  Internet neutralists?  Bloggers?  Twitter feed?  Oh, yes indeedy.  We’ve got a really good shot at judging impartiality impartially, I’d say.

You do give us a hint of your idea of impartiality:  “1. Input from first-hand sources who are outside of Lynchburg. 2. Input from sources who have not co-published books with Caner. 3. Input from sources who have do not have Caner as a regular speaker at a seminary they founded.”

As for consistency with your position about “men like” Geisler and Towns being of any use whatsoever in the investigation, your criteria does quite well.  Number 1 voids out Towns and numbers 2 & 3 marks through any first-hand testimony Geisler may offer about the evidences he’s examined.  Congratulations.

On the other hand, as for impartiality, I think your criteria lacks, Lucas.  So far as I know, no one who’s pronounced Ergun Caner guilty as charged has any relevant first-hand info.  All we have are digital portrayals, the primary “evidence” of which come from his sworn enemy, MoKhan.  Nor do the legal documents pose insurmountable problems. In fact, the documents overturned MoKhan-White-Burleson’s theory that Caner was not raised Muslim. That’s when the grandiose switch took place:  Caner may be not be an ex fake Muslim.  But he is a fake ex devout Muslim.

Here is my prediction from Caner’s chief critics: No matter what LU states, unless the inquiry finds Caner guilty of every single question of the 20 questions James White posted, Caner will remain their target. That’s prediction.  Let’s see.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter

Lucas,

No. Since I'm not employing either in a special sense, there's no reason to define 'straw man' or "non sequitur."

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

Peter,

I agree with you. This crowd will accept nothing less than "guilty of all charges and should be hanged by the neck until dead" concerning Dr. Caner.

Also, their ridiculous attempts to debate tactics to just "win the arguement" is humorous. Childish, but humorous. Peter, I smile a lot while watching you shoot down all their childish, worldly, fleshly, debate tactics. It's completely humorous, as they attempt to look "smart and super intelligent, debate masters" who are out to put down the ignorant, non Calvinists of the world. lol.

Keep up the good work.

David

peter

Lucas

You state my alleged “charicature” [sic]  of you to be both “unwarranted and unfounded” because “Nowhere in this or any discussion of this matter have I ever placed myself in the role of examiner or judge. The evidence speaks for itself.”

On the other hand, the very first question you asked on this log negates your denial that anywhere here or “any discussion of this matter” have you ever placed yourself in the role of “examiner or judge.” Let’s see if the evidence speaks for itself:

“What have we come to in the evangelical community when fabrications, exaggerations and lies are dismissed and those who expose such things are called "libelous"?”

The fundamental assumption is, among other things, fabrications and lies are actually dismissed.  If you are not referring to Ergun Caner’s alleged mischief  here, please let me in on it. Hence, your statement assumes his guilt.  How do you know this?  The evidence you’ve examined demonstrates this to your satisfaction.  Caner has fabricated and lied, therefore, according to you.  You’ve nowhere in this or any discussion of this matter ever placed yourself in the role of examiner or judge?  I’d rethink that were I you.

Hence, to proceed as if all you want to do is “provide balance to some of the bluster and misinformation that is swirling around this controversy.”  You could have fooled me, Lucas.  What may be a more balanced approach, you’ve assessed as not “altogether sound.”  It came from “men like” Norm Geisler:

“I urge all to consider him innocent unless proven guilty.  He has welcomed an inquiry from the Liberty authorities.  Let’s await  their findings.”

More significant for you is, you could say the very same thing and not compromise how you read the supposed evidence against Caner.   While Geisler believes the evidence against Caner is not convincing you could have spoke something like this if you really were concerned about balance and your own concerns about the discrepancies:

“I’ve looked into the matter and examined what evidence is available.  And, to be honest, there are some discrepancies which need to be explained.  However, I urge all to consider him innocent unless proven guilty.  He has welcomed an inquiry from the Liberty authorities.  Let’s await  their findings.”

Instead, you assume lies and fabrications in your very first entry here. Balance? I don’t think so, Lucas, not from my side of the swamp.

And, you further write: “Since you clearly agree with Dr. Geisler that speaking only with the accused party is sufficient for rendering judgement [sic] on a matter…” I’ll give you a shiny new nickel if you can direct me to an explicit or implicit assertion I wrote that only the accused party is sufficient for rendering judgment on a matter.

No, I haven’t spoke with JW about the matter.  Nor will I email him.  You can—if you don’t mind the email plastered prime time. 

And as for the assertion you quoted, Lucas, it’s supposed to prove what, I disagree with White on what constitutes legitimate debate? Did I accuse White of lying?  Slander?  Exactly what am I accusing White of doing?  What moral issue which could destroy White’s ministry have I cited?  Disagreeing with me? And you want disagreement with internet posts to be a matter of contacting the other party before posting?  Interesting illustration. But I’m unsure what your meaning is.

With that, I am…

Peter 

peter

David,

I think you are essentially correct. And, it does get a bit humorous :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

dan thomas

Peter, I am amazed at the rhetoric posted in response to your post. Forget White. The evidence concerning Caner's gross misrepresentations is overwhelming. Why you and others
choose to ignore this is stupefying. In court, even OJ
couldn't get off with this much
documentation. Your head is in the sand. Address the documentation. Address the documentation. Address the documentation. Please.

peter

Dan,

I think you meant to say you're amazed at the rhetoric in response to the alleged evidence, the evidence I'm supposed to be ignoring.

Well, Dan, that's your opinion.

And, I am uninterested in speculating about the alleged evidence when I do not have sufficient information from the other side.

As for your analogous entry concerning O.J., to liken Caner to a criminal on the run is cheap, unhelpful, ridiculous, and very hurtful. There are families involved in this. Please please please don't log back on with this nonsense.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Michael,

As for your comment, just an oversight on my behalf. I beg pardon. There are rivers of comments I simply will not publish because of blatant insults toward Dr. Geisler, or silly mockery of me personally--i.e., "you, sir, are a liar" type of garbage. Yours was unfortunately pitched in the pile of wet wood.

Again, my apologies.

With that, I am...
Peter

michael

Peter, a prologue first:

Don't do that again or I will be forced to call down fire! Where did you say you lived? :)

Peter,

again I am grateful for your kindness and your demeanor with me. It stands in stark contrast with some who charge you differently than how you treat me? I can't explain that?

My main point in responding to this email exchange between you and Dr. Geisler is, it shouldn't have happened.

Why?

Because Liberty is now investigating whether there is any truth to the charges being made from within and without against Dr. Caner.

I have read numerous comments on comment sections following articles published in Christianity Today and the AP and Huffington. There have been both current students of LU, alumni and former co-workers of Dr. Caner who have expressed no surprise or disbelief about the events and evidence being unfolded against Dr. Caner by the outsiders and the Christians. That is estounding in my view, isn't it yours too? It is one thing for a nominal Muslim or a Christian of a clearly diverse expression of Christian doctrine to do that. But to have current and alumni students and staff, seems a bit peculiar?

Dr. Geisler, in my view, has responded foolishly to allow his private view of this matter expressed to you to come into the public far and wide.

I would not hold any suspicions against Dr. Geisler, his bias or you and yours for that matter to have found out by some leakeage that private conversations were going on between you two as to the foolishness you feel is going on against Dr. Caner, if disclosed and provided that neither of you disclosed them, someone else brought out into the public. The charges being set forth, these contradictory evidences and discrepancies that are now out there exist and your belief that they are false is fine, mainly because they are your private views and no one should betray your confidence by leaking them to the public. Those are your private views and bias and should be held in confidence now, but if they are then unfairly being expressed publicly against your will by those holding a bias against you, as you point out, that would be outrageous.

Where there is a lack of Wisdom, though, is to make them public now by such a one as Dr. Geisler and you when LU is now doing a fairly decent investigation declining any public comment until after the findings and a verdict are made public.

That you would charge Dr. White this way seems unfair and foolish. There is nothing untoward to raise reasonable issues about misrepresentations and discrepancies by anyone, including Dr. White. For you then to couple him with Kaufman and the other person as to what they would do after Liberty releases their findings in this matter is questionable and problematic. I think that was foolish of you and reflects poorly on your judgment in this matter.

I don't fault you for sticking up for your friend and colleague, Dr. Caner, whichever the relationship is between you two? Maybe he was your Professor at LU? That's not what concerns me.

It is the prejudice that you now reflect in bringing this Dr. Geisler email out and going far and wide with it that bother's me. It is inflammatory. It is not rhetoric.

I am on Dr. White's side here, let's make that clear. But I would take serious exception to the fact if Liberty addressed every point Dr. White put over for them to consider against Dr. Caner, every issue the "outsiders" have raised about the Caners devoutness and by Grace in God's Wisdom found every one of these points and issues "baseless" and then showed us why they are and then Dr. White after this, went the way of error you suggest:::>

"...In the end, absolutely nothing--not one thin statement, zilch, zero--Caner could say would change White, MoKahn or Burleson & Company's mind. They have already hung the accused by the neck until he is dead.

Indeed will LU's investigation make a difference to their conclusions? Nope. Not a bit. We've already hints of their "boycotting" LU if Caner gets exonerated.".

I am with you on this one, then! It would be the best for Dr. Caner to be utterly, innocently and truthfully exonerated. Praise God if that is the outcome.

Then the shoe of the Gospel of Peace will be firmly placed on Dr. White's foot. He will then have to humble himself and seek out Dr. Caner privately first to seek reconciliation and forgiveness and then seek out the rest of us for his temerity and reckless charges hastily gathered and put out so publicly against Dr. Caner and ask for our forgiveness. Then it is on us to rejoice with Dr. Caner and forgive Dr. White.

But, the question now rests with this, what if LU comes out and finds all charges and evidences add up against Dr. Caner and prescribe remedial restoration?

Then what? What are you prepared to do in here publicly after all that has now been expressed?

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

selahV

Michael, Please forgive my observation to your last offering, I find the operative words "if" and "transgression" and "who are spiritual", "spirit of gentleness". "watch on yourself". All these words have been sorely overlooked in most exchanges concerning this matter. All words that have found so little exposure. From the beginning (if one can even find a "beginning"), I've wondered why the "spirit of gentleness" and the desire to offer benefit of doubt to a Christian brother has not been extended in this situation. Is there a link to that? Some spirit of kindness? spirit of love? gentleness? peace? By the time this got "hot" on the streams, it appeared nothing could be said to satisfy desires to wax on against a brother in Christ in the ones I've frequented. Indeed, right here, Peter has repeatedly been called a liar, a hypocrite and other unseemly names. This verse you so appropriately offer here is one that needed to be heeded from the get-go. Unfortunately, it was not.
May God forgive us all for the stones we hold in hand, heart, and thought. May we all throw them down and "keep watch" over ourselves lest we be tempted further. selahV

David B. Hewitt

Michael:

Given your comment sir, I see no need to contribute further to this thread. :)

A good day to you, and to you, Dr. Lumpkins.

sdg,
dbh

David B. Hewitt

...except to say that the reason I see no further need is because Michael has done a splendid and gracious job in stating and responding to what should be.

dave

dan

Peter, "alledged" evidence? Interesting. Alledged
means possibly not true. Voluminous audio tape in
context is factual evidence. Heads out of the sand
here please. No spin necessary.

peter

Michael,

Thanks.  It’s refreshing to get feedback that I am not the jerk about which many accuse—at least sometimes ;^)

Now as for the main point you make, you believe my exchange with Geisler shouldn't have happened. Presumably you mean the publicity of Dr. Geisler’s statement shouldn’t have happened because of LU’s present investigation. Accordingly, Geisler’s decision to allow publication was a foolish response.

I think you have every right to believe as you do, Michael, that Dr. Geisler (and me) is foolish to post his thoughts and encouragement to the entire Christian community.  What you lack is, from my perspective, is any real rationale for such a judgment.  Candidly, I do not understand your reasoning.

A) Whatever may be astounding about the news reports, student testimonials, etc. I do not see the connection between the media frenzy and Geisler’s (and mine) foolishness in stating his own thoughts.  Indeed it could just as well be argued his voice constitutes a balancing out of the uncontrolled reactions the media generated (media includes blogs, twitter, etc).  Why should he remain silent with his view while what you dub the “astounding” views of others are public? Nor can it be pointed out that since LU has put in place an investigatory committee, all commentary is off limits.  While one may say such all he or she wants, reality is, the conversation continued. Should then those who have “looked into the matter” and conclude “to their knowledge” nothing has been maliciously committed be dubbed as foolish while the “astounding” media continues to repeat that Caner is guilty? I think not.

B) I am grateful you would not “hold any suspicions against Dr. Geisler, his bias” or “me and mine” if you’d been informed from a “leakage” about our “private conversations.”  Great.  I have to say, however, I can’t make devilled eggs about what you’re suggesting, Michael.  “Private conversations”?  Where did this come from?  And, “provided that neither of you disclosed them” but “someone else brought out into the public”?  Forgive me, Michael, but to me, this makes no sense.

C) You also mention the “charges being set forth, these contradictory evidences and discrepancies that are now out there exist and your belief that they are false is fine, mainly because they are your private views and no one should betray your confidence by leaking them to the public.”  Michael, sometimes when guys read into my views things I’ve neither written implicitly or explicitly, I often offer a shiny new nickel if they can point me toward a statement demonstrating their charge.  I’ll offer you a shiny new dime!  A shiny new dime if you can point me to a statement I wrote which implicitly or explicitly suggests alleged contradictory evidences and discrepancies do not exist. 

Even more, the wild concession that my alleged “belief that they are false” is fine!  Are you kidding me?  Is this what you think I’m suggesting?  That believing no discrepancies exist and that it is really O.K. if they don’t because they are my private thoughts?  Though you did not intend to I’m hopeful, what you are suggesting is nothing short of a bit of dementia.  So much for your conciliatory commenting, Michael.

D) In addition, there seems to be differences between us on a legitimate use of a term you employ more than once—bias. You write:  “Those are your private views and bias and should be held in confidence now, but if they are then unfairly being expressed publicly against your will by those holding a bias against you, as you point out, that would be outrageous.” Laying aside the latter part of the statement about which I have not a clue to what you refer, you make much of “private views and bias.” I would be the first to admit my bias.  I have it; bias it a part of me. On the other hand, to suggest bias in such a way that it is exclusively bias on my part while others are hardly as infected as I is entirely arguable. Now, unless you’re prepared to argue my bias is much more pronounced than others, please leave this one alone.

E)  Again, you state there is a lack of wisdom in making public Geisler’s view, Michael, but you offer not one thin line in justification for it.  You simply assert it without proving it.  Sorry, I do not buy that kind of rationale.

F) You write also, “That you would charge Dr. White this way seems unfair and foolish.”  I’m afraid you’re going to have to be specific.  I don’t know what you’re referencing.

G)  You may think poorly of me as you wish.  I made a prediction based on patterns of action thus far.  By the way, in my prediction, I said “chief critics” which admittedly I would include White. 

F) Nor is this about “sticking up” for a friend, Michael.  That is really a backdoor insult, similar to Lucas’ insistence Geisler had a “special interest” in exonerating Caner—reputation for his conferences and books.  What you’re implying is, I’m selling out principle to protect a friend.  I resent that to the core of my being. Don’t bring this up to me again.

H)  Nor is the email Dr. Geisler graciously allowed me to publish “inflammatory.”  Again, he neither calls out anyone nor points in any person’s direction (with the exception of “Muslim”).  Hence, to conclude it as “prejudice” is entirely unfair.

I) “I am on Dr. White's side here, let's make that clear. But I would take serious exception to the fact if Liberty addressed every point Dr. White put over for them to consider against Dr. Caner…” My point is, Michael, it really doesn’t matter what LU does.  If it falls short of the stated agenda (the 20 Qs if you will)—and it will—Caner’s critics will continue.  That’s my prediction, whether or not you think it judicious.

Further, “Then the shoe of the Gospel of Peace will be firmly placed on Dr. White's foot. He will then have to humble himself and seek out Dr. Caner privately first to seek reconciliation and forgiveness and then seek out the rest of us for his temerity and reckless charges hastily gathered and put out so publicly against Dr. Caner and ask for our forgiveness. Then it is on us to rejoice with Dr. Caner and forgive Dr. White.” 

Michael, this is completely upside down.  There never should have been “reckless charges hastily gathered and put out so publicly against Dr. Caner .” Ask forgiveness?  “Let’s just all be friends again.  Even though you destroyed my ministry and family in the process, let’s just forget it happened.”  If a man is charged publicly with such atrocities, there can be no discrepancies which exist. It wasn’t just questions raised against Caner. Rather it was and is guilt attributed to Caner.  Let’s stop the nonsensical denial here.

Contrary to your query, the question about LU’s conclusion holds no paradox for me, Michael: “Then what? What are you prepared to do in here publicly after all that has now been expressed?” I have argued absolutely nothing I must retract. It could be said no better than Dr. Geisler said in his email, the email which you think so foolish:

to my knowledge Ergun Caner has done nothing unorthodox or malicious.  I urge all to consider him innocent unless proven guilty.

That’s the crux of everything I’ve written. And, if others find where I’ve not, as always, I’ll hand them a shiny new nickel.

With that, I am…

Peter

P.S.  Now, Michael, I’ve responded.  Please don’t expect a similar response if you write a long comment back.  You and Lucas have taken way too much of my time…

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

I really do not think those vehemently proclaiming the guilt of Dr. Caner understand where some of us are coming from. Principle has not been thrown out, rather it has been where we will not compromise. I will not shoot a brother in the back and demand he answer to "me".

The courtroom analogy above is interesting, but here is how it appears to many.

Accuser: Caner critics
Policeman: Caner critics
Negative Media coverage: Caner critics
Grand Jury: Caner critics
Prosecutor: Caner critics
Jury: Caner critics
Judge: Caner critics
Appeals Court: Caner critics
Supreme Court: Caner critics
Hangman: Caner critics

See a pattern here?

All any of us have been asking, is for the critics to step back and get off their "high horse". It is time to let those without an axe to grind look into this. NONE of the Caner critics is qualified to judge him as they are not the least bit impartial. The critics apparently believe that unless you hold to their stated view of Caner's guilt, you must be without integrity and beholden to "the powers that be".

I guess we will have to let history and the Lord judge among us who have been gracious and principled and who has not.

Blessings,

Ron P.

michael

Peter,

yes, I do go long now don't I? :)

So in response I will try to be brief and succinct?

We shall see?

You opened this thread this way: "...Recently, I had an email exchange with Dr. Geisler. And, below are his findings on Dr. Ergun Caner.

When asked if I could publish his thoughts publicly, his response was "spread it far and wide."


If I was mistaken, pardon me? When I read that it comes across as a private email exchange with Dr. Geisler; presumably one you initiated, not him? But if he is the one to initiate it and not you, then hats off to you for being centered in Dr. Geisler's mind as one he looks to for guidance in this whole affair?

Yes, my remarks are because of the publicity you brought in here because of posting a private email exchange between you and Dr. Geisler.

[ What you lack is, from my perspective, is any real rationale for such a judgment.]

Apparently perspectives differ.

Your question: "... Why should he remain silent with his view....".

Because of an ongoing investigation that may or may not include him due to the proximity he and Dr. Caner have.

LU might now want to ask him questions, assuming he is well respected by them and he gave you permission to divulged he has conducted his own internal investigation about this matter, talking directly to Dr. Caner and others within LU leadership and coming up with his own independent findings?

You asked: "... “Private conversations”? Where did this come from?" See above my citation of your opening.

Devil's eggs what you meant: " “someone else brought out into the public”? Oops, yes, my typo, should have read "someone else brought [it] out into the public".

" C) You also mention the “charges being set forth, these contradictory evidences and discrepancies that are now out there exist and your belief that they are false is fine, mainly because they are your private views..."

My point here is I have seen articles and youtube clips where Dr. Caner conflicts himself with prior statements. That you view them as false, in my perspective is establish in your article going over things raised by one Matt Svoboda by your question and answer format. In the article you produced it seems to me you are implicit here that evidence is false:

[Peter Lumpkin]: "Hence, I warn you. It is extremely long. But the continued smearing of Ergun Caner has been long. So, I suppose it fits the context.

Know I’m weary of this issue. Those who have prematurely condemned Ergun Caner, establishing his guilt without evidence beyond reasonable doubt must be answered. I have no intention of sitting back while they continue smearing a man’s life just because they can. The log below is hard-hitting. It needed to be.".


Later down this q. and a. exchange, you imply personal knowledge of Dr. Caner's present condition because of such evidences being brought out pointing to his autobiography and take personal privilege in expressing what appears to be based on your own personal knowledge of Dr. Caner's personal life, here:

"...Ergun Caner’s family is going through hell right now. His ministry and vocation is on the line. His entire worth as a gospel minister is called into question. His family bleeds..."

Is that comment to Matt a personal expression from personal knowledge or is it a guess based on evidences being talked about all over God's planet via internet, twitter, facebook, blogs and emails?

I am not now sure which it is?

"D) In addition, there seems to be differences between us on a legitimate use of a term you employ more than once—bias....please leave this one alone.".

Ok.

"E ...Michael, but you offer not one thin line in justification for it."

I thought I did with my early factual story of the criminal Trial? And that you would publish, by permission, a private email between you and Dr. Geisler also is justification for not doing so seeing the publication is well after an announcement by LU that they are doing their internal investigation and should likely publish their findings publically around June 30th of this year?

"F) You write also, “That you would charge Dr. White this way ...".

I was thinking about your characterizations of Dr. White belittling Dr. Caner for not following through with a debate. And that Dr. White is now involving himself in an association with Muslims to make Dr. Caner out to be a fake when he is no expert on Islam. Dr. White, as you know, points to Dr. Caner's autobiography discrepancies, a 2001 blurb where he says he came to America in 1978 and a 2002 AP article where his interview with their reporter claims otherwise which that claim is the one the public Court Documents from Ohio seems to support.

That was what I meant there. I wasn't being clear? Ooops.

"G". yes, I do. Others do not. Apparently we differ. Such is life when it is made up of souls such as we are?

Oh, not to be too picky but now you repeat "F" after "G". Honest mistake:
"F) Nor is this about “sticking up” for a friend, Michael. That is really a backdoor insult....".

I am not sure about that seeing in the Matt Svoboda citation above you show personal knowledge about Dr. Caner's private miseries because of all this. I am not sure how what I wrote becomes a "backdoor insult". I know I am not the brightest bulb in here, though.

"...What you’re implying is, I’m selling out principle to protect a friend....".

No, no I am not. I don't see anything wrong with you defending Dr. Caner. And if you mistook my words to imply "selling out principle", I apologize, as it was not the intent. Sorry.

" H) Nor is the email Dr. Geisler graciously allowed me to publish “inflammatory.”

Ok, again, it is a matter of opinion. Mine happens to be that it is inflammatory. Yours is not. Ok. We differ then on that judgment.

Well the rest of your responses speak for them self and I find nothing in what you said after "H" something to comment on further.

Thank you for this cordial exchange.
Michael

fred

Peter, you said "reckless charges hastily gathered"

You are INSANE. Your mind is DEBASED. The charges were not "hastily gathered." This has been going on for over FOUR MONTHS. Caner DELETED HIS BIO to suppress the truth.

LU doctored his bio to suppress the truth

LU and Ankerberg filed phony copyright infringement charges to suppress the truth.

I could go on and on. You are LYING and you know you are LYING and you know that everyone knows you are LYING.

You have EXPLICITLY DENIED JESUS CHRIST.

peter

Ron,

Your observation is not at all unlike what's surrounding the Caner issue. Critics have already prosecuted him. To them, he stands guilty as charged. The mob will be standing outside the courtroom awaiting the jury's decision. Of course, as I've predicted, since the mob is a mob, there will be a riot upon the verdict.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

"Fred",

Thankz! Of course, you're a little late to the party. I've already been accused of dementia through the back-door. And, you've got far more unproven assumptions in your spew than you realize, I think.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Look at my guidelines. Don't expect another comment to be logged without your real identity...

peter

Michael,

Your response, while wordy, really offers little clarity from your former comment, Michael.  I’ll be brief:

a) I specifically wrote I had an “email exchange.” And, yes, email exchanges are normally private exchanges (well, unless one live in James White’s world). But you’ve blown the thing into “private conversation.” I do not consider at all what went on between Dr. Geisler a “conversation.”  There was no substantial discussion.  Nothing of the sort.

b) You write: “Yes, my remarks are because of the publicity you brought in here because of posting a private email exchange between you and Dr. Geisler.” Excuse me?  I think you’ve got me mixed up with either Wade Burleson or James White.  They are  the ones who insist on the questionable practice of posting emails without expressed permission

c)  I noted whether or not an LU committee is in place, the conversation continues.  James White continues to post about Caner and you even continue to talk about it yourself. Geisler is definitively not on the investigative committee. Hence, he is perfectly free to speak as he wishes.  And, unless you can state a biblical-moral reason why he should not, then let it go. 

d) Nor is it the least relevant that the LU committee just might want to talk with him. So?  What if he has information about which they are not aware?  Would it not be pursuing justice to tap any and all information from reliable sources?  Even so, the fact is, they most likely already knew Geisler’s position.

e) You attempt to clarify: “Devil's eggs what you meant: " “someone else brought out into the public”? Oops, yes, my typo, should have read "someone else brought [it] out into the public". " But clarify you did not.  Forget it.

f) “My point here is I have seen articles and youtube clips where Dr. Caner conflicts himself with prior statements. That you view them as false…” No.  You’ve misunderstood what I’ve argued.  In addition, the long quote from another post says precisely zero in conflict to what I’ve continued to write: discrepancies exist. But discrepancies may only raise questions; discrepancies do not establish guilt

g) Posts on White elsewhere have jack squat to do with Geisler’s statement

h) “Oh, not to be too picky but now you repeat "F" after "G". Honest mistake.”  Funny

I) “I am not sure about that [not sticking up for a friend]” False dichotomy.  Caner is a friend.  Some things friends should do as friends; sacrificing moral principle is not one of them. 

j) “No, no I am not. I don't see anything wrong with you defending Dr. Caner. And if you mistook my words to imply "selling out principle", I apologize, as it was not the intent. Sorry.” Accepted.

k) “Ok, again, it is a matter of opinion. Mine happens to be that it is inflammatory. Yours is not. Ok. We differ then on that judgment.”  Yours also happens to have jack squat to substantiate it.  Yours also happens to indict a credible, accomplished scholar-theologian for doing precisely what you’re doing on this thread—expressing your thoughts.  But, what the heck…

l) “I find nothing in what you said after "H" something to comment on further” Had you considered it, perhaps f) above would have been unnecessary.

With that, I am…

Peter

p.s. I hope I got the alphabet correct.

Lucas DeFalco

Peter,

My time is short this morning as I am due at work shortly, so I will have to economize this post. Before I go any further I would like to thank you for not falling to the temptation to censor me on this thread. I've never posted on your blog before this thread and you've had every reason to blow me off. Also, I am not as bothered by sharp rhetoric as others might be. In fact I welcome heated exchanges as long as they do not lapse into sinful behavior.

Regarding Wario. I've read his post. It can be divided into three main sections:

1. He writes a lot about James White's theological background and education. An interesting discussion, but White has written several times that this discussion is not about Caner's theology OR education. Furthermore, White has never pretended to place himself on the same level as theologians like Sproul, Packer, Geisler, others. And YES, I said Geisler. I have several of his books in my library also and on certain subjects he is a master theologian, current discussion notwithstanding.

2. Wario sites someone who concedes that there are only 25 references to Jesus's name in the Qu'ran but there are over 100 indirect references. While this still does not substantiate Emir Caner's claim that there Jesus name appears 93 times in the Qu'ran, nonetheless White conceded on that same webcast that there are many more "indirect" references but that's not what Emir was referring to.

3. Wario states that White is not an expert on Islam. On the same webcast White stated that he has never referred to himself as an expert on Islam, but rather he only calls himself a student of Islam.

Wario has yet to rebut White's response.

Regarding MoKhan. I have never seen his site or his videos. I have no interest in what he has to say. At best he is nothing but a curious sideshow to all of this. You can cite and refer to him if you like, but you are merely giving him the attention he wants.

Regarding Geisler. I shall avoid exponding any further on the "other statements" I referred to because I truly have too much respect for Dr. Geisler's contributions to the areas of Christian theology and apologetics. Not to mention I have to confess that me bringing it up is a distraction to the subject at hand. I'll just simply concede the point for the sake of the larger discussion.

I do, however, stand by my statement that Dr. Geisler has a vested interest in maintaining Dr. Caner's biographical credibility. Without the dramatic "youth jihad" elements in his story, Dr. Caner runs to risk of become just another "talking head" on the subject of Islam. Even worse, without a degree in Islamic studies or a personal background in the religion, Dr. Caner ceases to be any kind of expert at all on the subject.

The fact is that these parts of his story have helped Dr. Caner sell a lot of books and draw some pretty big crowds in megachurches and elsewhere. It has even caused a spike in enrollment at Liberty. A lot rides on his jihadist youth and debating claims. A lot of people's credibility will be affected if it is proven to be untrue. Among those at risk is Dr. Geisler himself, who has co-published with Dr. Caner and has had Dr. Caner speak at SES. Am I saying that if Dr. Caner falls he will bring Dr. Geisler with him? Certainly not. Dr. Geisler's reputation among evagelicals is virtually set in stone at this stage in his life and barring some major moral failure late in his life it shall remain that way after he goes home to be with our Lord. Nonetheless, he has to be concerned about SES's reputation as well as the ongoing sales of his books. I am not alleging a financial motive here. I am saying that the evidential apologetics movement as a whole (of which he is a figurehead) is affected by this.

My final statement here regarding Dr. Caner. I don't want to see him removed from his post at Liberty. I want to see him answer the evidence that has been brought to light. If he HAS fabricated parts of his past, I want to see him confess, repent, and bring foward his TRUE testimony. If the leadership at Liberty decides to censure Dr. Caner in any way, I pray that the discipline will be brief and intended to lovingly bring him back to right standing with God and the evangelical church.

I promised to keep this post short but I guess I had more to say than I thought. Thanks again for allowing my to respond on your blog. I'll probably give you the last word on this as my wife keeps reminding me I'm probably spending too much time writing about this.

Grace and peace,
Lucas

Curt

Peter,

I hear a lot of talk about the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. And I think there is much wisdom there. At the same time, when exactly is the trial? By the looks of the discussion, you and Dr. Geisler reckon the "trial" to be the investigation being carried out by Liberty University. Others, seeing no criminal component to this affair, are content to consider the evidence themselves that is widely available in audio files, video, court documents, public records, and the like and come to a reasoned conclusion based on that evidence.

I'm not sure either approach is necessarily unwarranted. You paint the latter as equivalent to them "pronounc[ing] Caner guilty and [hanging] him by the neck until he [is] dead". I'm not sure that is fair. Until LU agreed to launch an investigation, there was next to no word from either them or Dr. Caner answering the discrepancies in Dr. Caner's statements. If all one has to go on is the publicly available "evidence", it is my opinion that (at least on some of the issues) a fair conclusion can be arrived at concerning the integrity of Dr. Caner's statements.

I will acknowledge that there is value in hearing from Dr. Caner himself on these matters. It is my prayer that the investigation, it's findings, and Dr. Caner's statements themselves will be God-honoring and edifying to the church. In the same way, I pray that those of us who are inclined to comment, maintain that same standard.

Blessings,

-Curt

peter

Lucas,

You’re very welcome.

Concerning Wario's actual words, I’d much rather he exchange with you, and would welcome it if he chooses.  I will make a few comments:

You mentioned Wario “sites someone who concedes that there are only 25 references…”  I fear you do not give enough credit to the “someone” Wario cites.  He cites standard experts.  Hence, for White—allegedly a self-confessed non-expert (we’ll see in a moment)—to quibble with it is, to say the least, flakey.

In addition, while White claims he’s not an “expert” on Islam but a “student” of Islam, White gets pretty perturbed when his scholarship on Islam is questioned. He scoffs that Ergun Caner could be an “expert” in Islam:

“But here is the point: if I, as a student of Islam, have sufficient knowledge of its theology, its history, its Scripture, its practice, and even its language, to detect error after error in the statements of "experts" such as Ergun Caner, what does this say? … Mr. Lumpkins has asked where I studied Islam… my study has been personal. What does it say about my schooling and my scholarship that I can do that kind of research and produce the body of apologetic defense of Christianity that I have over the past five years in this field? But let's put the shoe on the other foot: where did either Ergun or Emir Caner do graduate study in Islamic theology or apologetics? Answer? They didn't. They have been granted "expert" status for one simple reason: Ergun's claims that they were raised in Turkey, sons of a Muslim scholar, devout Muslims trained to love jihad and to think all Christians hated them” (italics added //link)

Leaving aside for the present James White is dead wrong and owes Ergun Caner a public apology (I intend to show this later this week), from the verbiage White employs above, I do not think it completely accurate to accept the claim White feels he’s just a “student” of Islam. Others can make up their own mind about that.  Furthermore, White is quoted in a recent article where he clearly implies he possesses expertise in Islam (we’ll see that later).

And, yes, whether or not you think MoKhan is a sideshow, he stands nowhere near the edge, Lucas. MoKhan is rooted deeply into this entire mess 

To suggest you have too much respect for Geisler to “expound” any further but then continue repeating the baseless accusation that Geisler has a “vested interest” in this is remarkably duplicitous, Lucas.  Again, you’re attributing not only motives impossible to prove, you’re also attributing sinful motives to him (i.e. he sacrifices moral integrity for some type of supposed gain elsewhere).  Please do not log on with another moral insult hurled toward Geisler if all you have is, “I stlll stand by my statement…”  Your statement is not enough, my good brother. Hence, if you have no definitive proof, let it go.

Finally, I’m glad you “don't want to see him removed from his post at Liberty.”  However, to suggest that all you desire is for Caner to “answer the evidence” I’m afraid it’s entirely too late for that kind of hope.  From Caner’s critics’ standpoint, he cannot answer the “evidence”.  There is no “if” Caner is guilty.  Recall your very first comment on this thread, Lucas:

“What have we come to in the evangelical community when fabrications, exaggerations and lies are dismissed and those who expose such things are called "libelous"?”

From even your standpoint, guilt is already fixed, Lucas. No “ifs” in there, bro. Indeed the only one’s who may legitimately argue such a point—i.e., “if” Caner is guilty--are those like Dr. Geisler who says he’s looked into the matter and while he personally sees no guilt himself, he nevertheless urges all to consider him innocent unless proven guilty

I appreciate your thoughts.  And, I, too, am ready now to move along from our exchange.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter

Curt,

Thanks. No there is no "trial" per se. But as you agree, there is such a principle as innocent until proven guilty, a judicial principle of law derived from biblical revelation concerning justice.

While I do think you are correct that "Others, seeing no criminal component to this affair, are content to consider the evidence themselves," it is precisely at this juncture the present process breaks down. You mention the "widely available" evidence for the "prosecution" (audio files, etc) who examines it and comes to a "reasoned conclusion based on that evidence."

What about the evidence to which they have no access? Evidence that may very well put the defendant into a much more positive light? Lacking such, how is it possible to reach a "reasoned conclusion" based solely on evidence which goes against the somebody? The LU committee is good, if for no other reason, for Caner to be heard apart from the mob.

You also assert that "Until LU agreed to launch an investigation, there was next to no word from either them or Dr. Caner answering the discrepancies in Dr. Caner's statements." That is not entirely accurate. Caner did admit and ask forgiveness for some specific misstatements. Yet even then, the more vocal critics chided his confession as empty smoke.

I'm convinced that for many of Caner's critics, nothing short of a public beheading will suffice. Indeed if he's exonerated, and his chief critics relent, my what a bunch of retracting will be necessary.

For me, I have absolutely nothing to retract. I would argue the same principle for you, Curt, James White, and yes, myself: innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

With that, I am...
Peter

michael

Peter,

Well, putting perspectives aside, you asked for some Scriptural basis for why I believe Dr. Geisler and you should not have gone public at this time with that private communication in here, whatever the depth of it is, God and the two of you know.

Pro 25:1 These also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied.
Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.
Pro 25:3 As the heavens for height, and the earth for depth, so the heart of kings is unsearchable.
Pro 25:4 Take away the dross from the silver, and the smith has material for a vessel;
Pro 25:5 take away the wicked from the presence of the king, and his throne will be established in righteousness.
Pro 25:6 Do not put yourself forward in the king's presence or stand in the place of the great,
Pro 25:7 for it is better to be told, "Come up here," than to be put lower in the presence of a noble. What your eyes have seen
Pro 25:8 do not hastily bring into court, for what will you do in the end, when your neighbor puts you to shame?
Pro 25:9 Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not reveal another's secret,
Pro 25:10 lest he who hears you bring shame upon you, and your ill repute have no end.

If you want me to come back and unpack it with my rationale just let me know. But with those recorded words by Hezekiah's men, I see a rationale for remaining silent at this time, Dr. Geisler that is.

As for our devil's eggish row, well, let me try to rehabilitate it better:

You make it a point in your reply above that your view of Dr.White's disclosure of some emails is problematic for you. Keying off that that would be the kind of objectionable activity I was referencing. Oddly, I wasn't aware of such an activity by Dr. White so I am left out in the cold now shivering. If you want to disclose something private and personal about yourself, fine. That's your call not someone else's. That's my point. I hope we now can move on from it? I hope so??

Let me be clear about this. You have every right and you voluminously exercise that right to express your own personal bias, in here and at other blogs where I have read your comments and responses. That is not what I am questioning at all. It is simply the contention that I do not believe it wise of you and Dr. Geisler to have published this private email exchange that puts over some definitive conclusion out there as "findings" of private and personal exchanges Dr. Geisler and Dr. Caner and other LU professors have had. It's a spin on Dr. Geisler's part in my opinion and it's inflammatory.

Finally, I am glad to see you can have fun and laugh at your abilities to get the English alphabet correct. Even when I am sober, I have difficulty at times myself keeping the order straight. We should laugh at ourselves from time to time and this just might be one of those times?

Thanks again for being cordial and respectful.
Michael

peter

Michael,

Your concordance search I admit is interesting. Nothing in holy writ should be characterized as less. Your difficulty in applying it to me (and Dr. Geisler) leaves me almost (notice I did say almost) wordless.

The hard fact is, nothing you assembled seems remotely applicable to what I asked; i.e., how it is morally wrong for a non-committee member to state a view he holds when a committee is working to solve the issue? Verses 1-7 surely are not relevant.

And, to make things worse for you, the very verses you quote, seem more applicable to you and Caner critics.

For example, "Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not reveal another's secret." Is this what Caner's critics have done? Have they but "argued their case" with the neighbor (i.e. Caner) himself?

Please, Michael. No more quoting ambiguous verses. The hard fact is, you have no moral-biblical reason to deprive Geisler of speaking out about this. If you did, you would not be quoting verses like these which have no teeth to clamp down on the issue.

Not aware of such by White? Well, let's just say such admission reveals your absence on his site. White routinely posts emails without permission from the authors, a staple trade I think he enjoys.

You once again offer the same opinion about not being "wise" to have published "this private email," etc which "puts over some definitive conclusion" Dr. Geisler has had. I think you've said that enough now, Michael, for readers to know that's your position. Fine.

The difficulty is, you can offer no substantial reason for it. The biblical passages you cited scold more your position than Geisler's. How dad-blasted funny. Yet you continue to insist on your position.

And, once again, you offer no reason precisely why Geisler's words are "inflammatory." Just your opinion. I can't argue with that, Michael. No dispute. That's your opinion. But please don't bring it back up. It's fine you've expressed it. But since it cannot be disputed (nothing to dispute; it *is* your opinion), there nothing to clarify.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

All,

I think I've been fairly thorough in answering most of the questions people have logged (many more than once!) What's painful is, the number of comments on the thread I chose not to publish. Many are so blatantly mean-spirited toward Drs. Caner and Geisler (and me), they really deserve no hearing.

The thread is now officially closed.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.