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



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


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


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

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


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.



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.



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…


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.


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.


Ron P.



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.".


"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.


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.




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...



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...

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



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…


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

Lucas DeFalco


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,



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.





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…




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...



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.



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...



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...

The comments to this entry are closed.