Dr. Ergun Caner Receives More Public Support by Peter Lumpkins

 Contra the Muslim-Calvinist coalition led by British Muslim, Mohammad Khan and Reformed Baptist and Hyper-Calvinist, Rev. James White, a swelling number of Christian scholars and leaders are speaking out. Why?  According to a statement just released...

   

"Converted Muslim, Dr. Ergun Caner has been under attack by extreme Muslims and others who have challenged his integrity and character, claiming that he was not a Muslim, let alone a devout one, and that he intentionally made false statements related to his Muslim background and conversion to Christianity" (//link).

Among the public respondents is Dr. Paige Patterson, President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He writes:

"In a day of negativism and bad news, I am rejoicing today over many things. I rejoice over faithful witnesses of Jesus in a small Ohio Baptist church that loved two Moslem boys to Christ and then encouraged them to live for Jesus. I am grateful to God for the many people that have come to Christ through the witness of those two men. I continually thank God for His unbelievable plan to use sinners and mistake-prone men like the Caners, and even more amazing, people like me, to accomplish some things of great value in His kingdom business. Only eternity will reveal the good that two former Moslems have done. I thank God for them both."

The latest public supporters of Dr. Caner include some who have reputable apologetic ministries such as Drs. John Ankerberg and Ron Rhodes, not to mention, of course, the most prolific and reputable evangelical apologist in recent times, Dr. Norman Geisler.  Perhaps Ankerberg and Rhodes could spearhead a query and resolution from within evangelical apologetics to potentially censure apologists who cankerously thrive on other Christian apologists, especially distancing themselves from apologetic ministries which favor sub-Christian "debate" tactics.

May our Lord raise up a new army, a better army of Christian apologists who speak truth in love to all people not just to the elect.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[The Seeking Disciple]

Peter, get ready for another wave of attacks from James White and his devoted, loyal, and worshipful followers.

[Mlynn]

AMEN AND AMEN AND AMEN!!!

[peter]

SD,

I wish I could disagree, my brother...I so wish I could disagree...

Peace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Justamycleaver]

And I hope Paige Patterson is ready to be called "unregenerate". Ugh.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Did you see who Dr. Geisler credited with defining "exoneration"? Don't want to toot my horn, but man, I am humbled. Even a blind hog finds an acorn, huh? :)

Glad to see others stepping up to support Dr. Caner.

Blessings,
Tim

[A.M. Mallett]

Perhaps Ankerberg and Rhodes could spearhead a query and resolution from within evangelical apologetics to potentially censure apologists who cankerously thrive on other Christian apologists, especially distancing themselves from apologetic ministries which favor sub-Christian "debate" tactics.

“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1Pe 4:17 AV)

We need to ensure our children and church members know what is acceptable behavior in our fellowships and interactions with the world as well as to identify what is not. A&O is as sufficient an example of what is wrong with worldly religion as anything else we could point to and it is not limited to just the extreme Calvinists. There are sub par Arminians and others who would attack just as quickly were the subject in the other camp.

[selahV]

Peter: Reading your post yesterday and today have caused me to recall how Paul once had to defend his ministry in 2 Corinthians 10.
"12 We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise. 13 We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the field God has assigned to us, a field that reaches even to you."

Am praying the strongholds will be torn down among us and we find ourselves at the feet of Jesus in a spirit of brokenheartedness for the lost in our world.

God has blessed us with such grace to use our minds and spirit to discern what is true and faithful work in His name. May we each take great heed in whatsoever we say and do that it brings glory to Christ. selahV

[Craig Daliessio]

Good post Peter. James White attacked Ergun's credibility and in reality his is waning. His tactics have revealed his heart.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Peter,
Great personal testimony in your previous post.

Dr. Paige Patterson is a scholar and Christian gentleman. When he speaks, those who are wise, should listern closely.

May God bless the Caners in the days ahead.
David R. Brumbelow

[Matt Svoboda]

I can't for the life of me understand why you, Peter Lumpkins, and James White are still on this day after day.

Are there not better ways to spend your time? With all the time you two spend on this it is hard for me to imagine Kingdom work being done in your day to day.

One man relentlessly goes after Caner and the other man relentlessly goes after him.... Both, hysterically thinking the other one is evil for going after someone. You, Peter, attack White in the exact same manner that White goes after Caner, if not worse.

The questions were raised, Liberty answered, and that should be that. Liberty answer was weak, but what more can you do? Nothing, so why are you and White still making this a daily priority. James White has a GREAT ministry and i appreciate what he does, a lot. I just wish he would start devoting the time he has been devoting to Caner to his ministry that advances the Kingdom. I think it is time for you both to move on and spend your time advancing the Kingdom.

The more posts devoted to this topic the more pathetic this becomes. There is a reason why you and White are the only two still blogging about this, everyone else has moved on! Join us!

[selahV]

David Brumbelow: I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Dr. Patterson. So many people have criticized him unjustly for his silence through all of the attacks and accusations. We'd all be better off if we followed his example in ignoring the bickering. He is a very gracious man. selahV

[J. K. Jones]

Mr. Lumpkins,

Why do you think Whtie is a hyper-calvinist?

[Ed Goodman]

Peter,

I'm wondering how you think Romans 11:29 should be viewed with regards to this situation? ("For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.") Does Dr. Caner lose his call because of his admitted sin? Wonder what James White would think about this verse in light of the current Caner scenario?

How ironic it would be for ROMANS 11 to be Caner's best scriptural defense against a hyper-Calvinist!

[Tim G]

Great post Peter. Man the attackers are going crazy. One might wonder if they realize that they have lost their premise. I think they have!

[Craig Daliessio]

Peter...you are far more gifted with video than I. I know you could marry this lyric to the Youtube stock of Nat King Cole that exists out there but in the interim...

"Unregenerate"
(sung to the tune of "Unforgettable")

Unregenerate…a depraved man
I cannot be saved…cause I’m Ergun’s friend
Doctor White is…unaccredited
Posts my emails once he’s edited
Wants to know who all…my elders are too

Unregenerate…You know it’s true
Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers…to name a few
And though he’s a great Apologist
He’s as lost as an Astrologist
Cause Dr. Geisler’s unregenerate too

Unregenerate…that’s what he’ll say
Never mind the price that was paid
There’s no heart in White’s chest cavity
I put the “total” in Total Depravity
So says White and his…regenerate few

[Dr. James Willingham]

Peter, not all Sovereign Grace believers are alike. My pastor who ordained me was a five point supralapsarian hyper-calvinist, and one of the finest Christian men I ever knew. He pastored some good churches, and was selected by R.G. Lee to preach his funeral. While there were about five preachers for Dr. Lee's funeral, there was only one designated in Dr,.Lee's will to preach it, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell. He would have never approved of the conduct of some who might be called hyper-calvinists. He most definitely would have wanted to move on, once a failure had been dealt with. I feel the same. Dr. Caner has paid a price for his mistakes as have many who made the mistake of letting their feelings lead them in to the bizarre excesses of egotistical mistakes. And who has not sinned at one time or another? I say let us get on with the task. If those who beat a dead horse continue, they will soon find themselves looking pathetic. If God and the folks at Liberty say the matter is settled, then let us act accordingly and even pay no more mind to those who are seeking to irritate a sore wound which hurts all of us. Not all who hold to Sovereign Grace would want this to go on any longer than absolutely necessary. I know, I do not. One thing I do know, when one who is called by the name of Christ stumbles, we all suffer as the world seldom takes into account our distinctions. Besides a truly liberal and generous spirit grew out of such theology, and I saw it magnified in the conduct of Ernest R. Campbell, Dr. R.G. Lee, and others like them across the years in the research which I did in Baptist and Church History for nearly a decade.

[peter]

Matt,

I've never once, to my knowledge, asked you to read a single word I write. Not once. This post doesn't mention you; this post doesn't concern you; this post is obviously not important to you. Hence, I'm not sure why you read it given what I've written just doesn't float your balloon. Very puzzling to me.

In fact, I honestly think you're wasting valuable time posting a comment here. I know I'd surely find better uses of my limited energy if I felt about a person's posts the way you've expressed yourself concerning mine. Hope that helps.

Nighty night.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

All:

Perhaps this perspective might be helpful. No one less than Phil Johnson, known by many as the right-hand man of John MacArthur, has weighed in on this matter of Ergun Caner.

You can read his post here.

sdg,
dbh

[Healtheland.wordpress.com]

Peter:

Do you believe that Calvinists, including the so-called "hyper-Calvinists", are Christians?

[Thomas Twitchell]

Great satire.

[Craig Daliessio]

Dr. James Willingham said:
" Dr. Caner has paid a price for his mistakes as have many who made the mistake of letting their feelings lead them in to the bizarre excesses of egotistical mistakes"
That whole note sounded wonderful until this part...then it collapsed like gas from a souffle.
You could have made your entire point without a sugar coated dig at Ergun Caner. Even I could have done that and I am the Michael Phelps of the hotheaded posting Olympics

[peter]

Healtheleand,

You get one comment as an anon. Please do not log back on again unless you're willing to lose your anonymous status.

You asked if I believe that Calvinists, including the so-called "hyper-Calvinists", are Christians. For me, that's a meaningless question. It's like asking if I believe Catholics or protestants are Christians.

Perhaps a better question is, do I believe Calvinists including the so-called "hyper-Calvinists" are saved?. Again, though that is not the best question, for no one can offer an viable answer for a generic group.

Let's ask this: is it possible that many--and, in theory, all--Calvinists, including the so-called "hyper-Calvinists" are true believers? To this question, I would answer yes. My understanding is, we are not saved by particular nuances of our theology--which means we can be wrong about a lot of things...even important things...and still be true believers--for our salvation does not depend upon our absolute correctness but upon Christ's death for our sin.

My repentant faith connects me with Him. Consequently, my theological precision is always a work in progress. That does not mean I may believe anything I wish and be a believer anymore than I can live anyway I wish and biblically profess I am saved.

Hope that helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Thomas

Extraordinary literary analysis! Man, what university did you study English 101? I'd love to go back a get a refresher course. Do you know if they offer a class on line or via correspondence? Let me know.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jobezking]

Peter:

I have tried to post as "Job" and "Healtheland" using various methods. You can use my IP address to verify that fact.

The reason why I asked if you regarded Calvinists as Christians is because a lot of the defenders of Dr. Caner certainly haven't been acting as if they regard Calvinists to be Christians. Instead, Dr. Geisler, the people at SBC Today, and many others are accusing Calvinists - and making blanket statements without qualifying them I might add - of behavior that is more akin to Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Titus 4 than of any Christian. For instance, why would any Christian be out to defame and destroy Dr. Caner? How would that represent a victory for Calvinism, or advance the agenda of Calvinism in any way? Again, if Calvinists aren't Christians, then it makes sense. But if Calvinists are Christians, and most or at least some of the Calvinist bloggers challenging Dr. Caner are Christians, then it makes no sense at all.

It appears that the two principals in this controversy are Dr. Ergun Caner and Dr. James White. Dr. Caner's defenders present him as a faithful and effective servant of Jesus Christ who has some flaws, has made some mistakes and is deserving of forgiveness from his fellow Christians. Why Dr. James White should not be viewed in the same manner is something that needs to be explained to me.

It also needs to be explained to me why I should side with the Christian Dr. Caner against his Christian accusers merely because Liberty University says that I should. I do not agree with Liberty University's decision to have a Mormon - and not just any Mormon but one who uses every opportunity to promote the Mormon faith in Glenn Beck - as their commencement speaker, so why should I accept their findings in the Caner matter?

What I am ultimately trying to say is that I have examined both sides of this conflict, and I find a lot of merit to the arguments of the Christian critics of Dr. Caner, and I also find the response of Dr. Caner and Liberty University to be wanting. It is my desire that Dr. Caner sit down with his more responsible and reputable critics (a group that would probably have to exclude Dr. White for various reasons, including but not limited to the fact that Dr. White and Dr. Caner have a prior history of disagreement) and come to a resolution in a Christian manner. I would hope that you would agree that such an action on the part of Dr. Caner would be far more productive to the cause of Christ than is attacking Calvinists.

[Craig Daliessio]

Jobez...
First of all I have YET to see a blanket dismissal of all Calvinists in this matter...except by me and I am seldom ever rational. But I admit it and that is the first step to recovery. Even my rant is not intended at every Calvinist. I can accept most Calvinists...in the fact the young ones have a tender, veal-like quality. Okay more humor. Seriously it's the hyper Calvinists we detest. I know lots of Calvinists...not all of them run around declaring who is and who is not unregenerate. It's those fools we want to smack around. Conversely to your point, most Calvinists instantly apply the Ariminian label to any who disagree with their position. That is equally infuriating. I am no Calvinist but I am no Ariminian.
Now as to Glenn Beck...did you agree to Ollie North giving Commencement while under indictment on federal charges? Did you agree with George Bush?
A college asking someone to give a speech is not an endorsement of their theology. Even bestowing an honorary doctorate of humanities is not. It's a speech. Nothing more.

[volfan007]

Job,

It's a well known fact that many aggressive 5 point types do not like Dr. Caner due to his strong opposition to aggressive 5 point Calvinism.

David Hewitt, the post by the fella, who's the right hand man of John MacArthur, sounds just like the party line of James White.

David

[Craig Daliessio]

DBH...as soon as you mention someone who is "right hand man" to John Macarthur, my volume knob goes to zero. I would not be surprised to discover Macarthur very late at night, by a flickering desk lamp secretly emailing talking points to White. I just had to endure his "Fool's Gold" for a Church Ministries class. Let's just say I am glad it's over. That will probably be the only book I return for buyback money in my entire college history.

[A.M. Mallett]

Perhaps this perspective might be helpful. No one less than Phil Johnson, known by many as the right-hand man of John MacArthur, has weighed in on this matter of Ergun Caner.

... what gives you cause to think that Johnson is respected outside of the narrow sects of Calvinism that he does his best to promote? The man has a pattern of misrepresenting the theological beliefs of many non-Calvinists. His boss, MacArthur, cannot tell the difference between a Baptist and a Pelagian.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Volfan, you said:

"It's a well known fact that many aggressive 5 point types do not like Dr. Caner due to his strong opposition to aggressive 5 point Calvinism.

David Hewitt, the post by the fella, who's the right hand man of John MacArthur, sounds just like the party line of James White."

While it is true that most Calvinists do not like what Dr. Caner says about Calvinism (for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Dr. Caner appears not to understand Calvinism), what you said does not appear to be relevant.

You seem to be saying this -- please correct me if I am wrong:

1.) 5 Point Calvinists do not like Dr. Caner because of what he has said about Calvinism.

2.) Dr. Phil Johnson is a 5 point Calvinist.

3.) Therefore, Dr. Johnson will not like Ergun Caner, and will be opposed to what he has said.

The conclusion doesn't follow the premises. It seems that you are saying just because Dr. Johnson is a Calvinist he would have disdain for Dr. Caner and would maintain claims against him -- because Johnson is a Calvinist and Caner doesn't like Calvinists.

I would ask this: where in Phil Johnson's post did he say anything about any of the Doctrines of Grace? The matter is, in Dr. Johnson's post and other people's posts on the matter, integrity in ministry. It doesn't matter one's soteriological position in this matter; it never has. The question before us all has always been, given all the evidences, no matter where they have come from, can it properly be concluded that Dr. Caner is another in the line of people like Crying Wind, or Mike Warnke, or the others that Dr. Johnson listed in his post?

I believe the answer has to be yes.

Of course, others in this comment thread would disagree with me. I expect that, and I would simply ask such a person to go over the evidence and demonstrate to me that Caner wasn't lying to his audiences, having fabricated part of his upbringing, presumably to make his testimony appear dramatic.

sdg,
dbh

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Also, Peter:

There are many points in your article with which I take issue, as I am sure you are not surprised. May I interact with them and challenge you on them here?

sdg,
dbh

[Scott]

Ed, I really believe that your context in reading Romans 11 is way off saying that "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance". It is talking about the context of Israel's standing with God remaining the same (i.e. they were still God's chosen people) even though they had rebelled and gone against his will. I think the best translation of the verse you referred to is found in the NIV where it says, "For God's gifts and His call are irrevocable." That means that God's blessings and his call on our lives are not changed because of our many mistakes and failures. He doesn't give us those things and doesn't call us to do things and then take it back when we mess up. We live under the grace of God and His call remains the same despite our human nature filled with mistakes and failures. So I would have to say that, if anything, this verse wouldn't seem to help James White's argument at all.

[Healtheland]

Craig:

This is Job trying again, as signing in using Facebook did not allow me to comment.

I repeat, I do not endorse everything that Liberty University's administration does. Nor should you.

Not all "Calvinists" like the term either, but realize that they are stuck with it. "Hyper-Calvinist" is a perjorative that should only be used to describe those whose views obviously contradict scripture, such as those who reject the Great Commission.

And all fundamentalists and "conservative evangelicals" made decisions on who is "regenerate" (or "saved or "born again"), otherwise it would be impossible to have church discipline or choose church officers.

[Healtheland]

Well, this is frustrating. My prior comment was directed at Craig. I might have to just sign up for a TypePad account, or cease attempting to comment on TypePad blogs.

David:

"It's a well known fact that many aggressive 5 point types do not like Dr. Caner due to his strong opposition to aggressive 5 point Calvinism."

It is also a well known fact that plenty of non-Calvinists also believe that Dr. Caner is lying. The defenders of Dr. Caner are doing their best to ignore this fact, but it is true. As a matter of fact, one of the leading bloggers in this incident, FBC Jax Watchdog, is a free will site. Their motivation for getting involved was that it was their church that Dr. Caner came to shortly after September 11th and made his "until the age of 15 I was in Islamic youth jihad training to do what was done on 11 September" comments. The people present interpreted those comments to mean that Dr. Caner was literally in training to be a murderous terrorist in the equivalent of some Hamas or Al Qaeda camp, and as Dr. Caner made those statements to an audience that he was fully aware knew next to nothing about Islam without providing for them the context that Dr. Geisler just got around to explaining 9 years after the fact, how else were those comments supposed to be interpreted?

And again, the charges that Calvinists are trying to destroy Dr. Caner is either A) asserting that these Calvinists are not Christians or B) is slander against other Christians. There is no middle ground, and the fact that you yourself do not seem to much like "aggressive 5 point Calvinists" does not absolve you of Biblical responsibility when you are making charges against them.

[peter]

David,

You can challenge any point I happen to make...excepting one--If you so much as mention my personal relationship with the Lord--or any other professing believer's on this site--you are never welcome back here again. Period. There comes a time when one must cease communicating with some people. My line on laying down the 'salvation card' is hard (i.e. fixed). Please don't cross it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

All

Be please be extraordinarily careful in placing html tags on your words and phrases. I've had to go into two comments just recently and correct the tagging. If I find it necessary to continue doing so, I'll have to toggle the commenting to "no html" which would be a shame.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Healtheleand,

I checked the 'spam bucket' to see if you had any comments there. None. No sure why you're not getting through. Comments are "on moderation" hence, they will not immediately show.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Job,

Since I cannot speak for all those who defend Dr. Caner, I’ll have to limit it to my own musings.  Nor Job am I aware Dr. Geisler or the men at SBC Today is accusing Calvinists of  behavior “more akin to Alexander the coppersmith” than any Christian. If you could point me to a specific example, I’d be in a position to know what you referring to.  On the other hand, James White has specifically referred to me as Alexander the Coppersmith.

As for “destroying Dr. Caner” and why people do it, a number of believable reasons could be cited.  I don’t think that’s your point though.  You seem to think that you could understand if it were non-believers who were accused of “destroying” Dr. Caner but it makes no sense to suggest Christians are doing it.  Hence, if only non-Christians are out to “destroy” Dr. Caner, and Calvinists are the ones doing it, I understand your point to be, Caner defenders are implicitly impugning Calvinists as non-Christians  If I am correct about your point, Job, my answer is no, Caner defenders are not implicitly impugning Calvinists as non-Christian. 

Why?  Because there must be a consistent effort to distinguish between Christians and Christian ethics.  Or, put another way, between Christian orthodoxy and Christian orthopraxy.  Or, better still between Christian ethics and the ethics of Christians.

Now, this sounds similarly on its surface to an antinomian; but I assure you, I am not peddling antinomianism. Rather, to risk oversimplification, it is to say, Christians—true believers in the Lord Jesus—are capable of committing grievous errors, errors both moral and spiritual or doctrinal.  It does not excuse nor rationalize the behavior.  It remains atrocious and rises as stench in God’s nostrils. It further comes with a judgmental price-tag.  Nonetheless, the saved saint is *capable* of committing the sin.

My understanding drives me not to question the genuineness of  Calvinists’ salvation experience because they persecute Dr. Caner.  Rather it drives me to question their understanding of NT discipleship, our biblical mandate to love one another, our respect for local church authority, etc etc. It also raises questions about theological consistency in maintaining philosophical determinism when exegeting biblical sovereignty, etc. But, I do not head for the easy answer—“they do this because they are not saved.” Nor will I. 

Indeed this is why it stands so repulsive to me when James White’s supporters play this game—“you, sir, are an unregenerate.” I’ve been in countless exchanges—many of them heated and really overbearing—with Baptist bloggers, but James White’s buds are the only ones to my recall who’ve ever taken that road.  I will not participate.  Nor will I communicate with people like this. Saved or unsaved—I want no part with them on this earth.

You mentioned why James White cannot be viewed by Caner’s critics similarly as they view Caner—a faithful servant with flaws.  I for one would be delighted to view him that way—openly, publicly.  I have no problem doing so.  The difficulty is, he will not let you.  Nor will his supporters.  He will spit and spew at you if you point out a flaw.  His supporters will besiege your city (i.e. blog) if you mention his name attached with the least bit of criticism (and, I will not debate this with a single White supporter!  I’m the one who has access to my dashboard, no one else.  Hence, I know this to be so.  I have the relentless comments I chose not to publish because they were so riddled personally trashing me).

Nor do I know of anyone who encourages you and others “should side with the Christian Dr. Caner against his Christian accusers merely because Liberty University says that I should.”  The irony is stark, however.  When a group did attempt to hold Caner accountable, did Caner critics cease?  No, they simply regurgitated more arguments against Caner and included Liberty-was-a-whitewash arguments to boot (of course, when some Caner defenders proclaimed ‘exoneration’, they were ridiculed as buffoons, another little amusing irony).

And, Job, if you find the response of Dr. Caner and Liberty University to be wanting, that’s your privilege.  Understand, however:  *you* have *no* authority in the matter.  *Nor* I, *nor* James White, *nor* certainly *TurretinFan* whoever the heck he (she) is, a self-appointed investigator of other people’s lives but thoroughly cowardly about his (or her) own identity. 

And, no I don’t agree with any proposal about Dr. Caner sitting down with anybody in any official capacity. Such a decision is up to those who have legitimate, biblical authority in the matter.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter]

All,

No future comments will be posted which attempts to ridiculously argue about matters not related to this thread. This *includes* the so-called "evidences" to which David has appealed.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

David,

You wrote: "...I would simply ask such a person to...demonstrate to me that Caner wasn't lying to his audiences..." And I would simply ask you to demonstrate Dr. Caner used *intentional deceit* toward any of his audiences. Please drop this ridiculous non-sense that you know he was when you do not know he was. Unless, of course, you have information we do not have.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

By the way, David, since there are so "many" points with which you contend on this very short post, I suggest you give them a few at a time. And please do not write me 1200 words on each one. Just go for the gold ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

DAvid H. and Job,

I'm not saying that 5 point Calvinists are not Christians..lol...good grief, Charlie Brown. But, if you cannot see that they would have on "Rose Colored Glasses" while dealing with this issue, and their biases would come into play, and their feelings for someone like Dr. Caner might throw gas on the fire in terms of them wanting to "lynch" Dr. Caner; then you're the proverbial ostrich with his head stuck in the ground.

All I'm saying about this issue is that none of you know all the facts in this matter. None of you know all the goings on behind the scenes. None of us know all that some are claiming to know about Dr. Caner. So, why obsess on this issue? Also, why not accept the man's apology? He confessed to mis speaking. He told things that werent factually accurate. He confessed this to the students of Liberty, and he put it up on his website. So, why not accept his apology and move on with life? Well, I think we all know why.

There are 3 groups of people out there, who are out to "get" Dr. Caner. The liberal/moderate crowd; the aggressive 5 point Calvinist crowd; and the lost, Muslim crowd. And, apparently, these 3 crowds will not rest until they "lynch" Dr. Caner. They will not rest until they kill the white whale. They have studied his every move. They know what he likes, and where he goes. And, they've set thier course to get the "white whale." And, they will not be happy until they "kill" the whale.

I choose to accept a Brother in Christ's apology. I choose to believe the best and move on with life.

DAvid

[Jobezking]

Peter:

Regarding my Alexander the coppersmith statement, I was certain that I read Dr. Geisler assert that Dr. Caner was under attack from enemies of the gospel, which is what Alexander the coppersmith was. I cannot find it again, so I retract that statement.

To a degree I will accept your "Christians versus Christian ethics" point, which is a good one. But one still needs to explain why Calvinists would exhibit worse Christian ethics on this matter than free will Christians. And even that may be a diversion, because A) Dr. Caner has plenty of non-Calvinist critics and B) Dr. Caner's more responsible Calvinist critics (and even some that are less so like White) credibly state that their criticism of Caner has nothing to do with Calvinism.

And Dr. Caner sitting down with people shouldn't be done in an official capacity in the context of church discipline or Liberty University personnel decisions. However, it should be done in a CHRISTIAN capacity if A) reconciliation between two feuding Christian camps that need to be working together for the sake of Jesus Christ and His gospel is going to take place and B) if Dr. Caner is going to retain his credibility and influence among a wide audience.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, the Christians who disbelieve Dr. Caner and do not accept Liberty University's findings are by no means limited to Calvinists that exhibit poor Christian ethics. For example, there are many students at Liberty stating that they won't take Caner's classes he handles this matter appropriately.

There are plenty of good reasons for a sit-down between Dr. Caner and his reputable, responsible Christian challengers (which again does include plenty of non-Calvinists) to take place, and not a single good reason why it shouldn't. As is the case with pronouncements from Liberty, Dr. Geisler, Dr. Ankerberg, Kregel etc. on this matter, merely stating otherwise does not make it so.

[peter]

Job,

While you concede the distinction I made between Christian ethics and ethics of Christians, you insist one still needs to explain why Calvinists exhibit “worse Christian ethics on this matter than free will Christians.”  Why?  I haven’t made such an assertion a point in my exchanges.  What remains consistently repulsive to me is a) “you, sir, are a liar” approaches which have been pitched my direction more than once;  and, more repulsively still,  b) “you, sir, are unregenerate,” a tactic so far as I know only JW supporters have employed.  If such is what you are referring to as “worse Christian ethics” I’ll gladly exchange with you about that though I would not frame it as, “worse Christian ethics.”

Nor have I ever suggested caner critics are exclusively Calvinists (those who are Christian critics).  Instead I have maintained that Caner’s critics are a) chiefly Calvinists; that is, led by Calvinists; b) there is an odd alliance between Calvinists and Muslim critics.  The former is a matter of examining the record.  The latter is more subjective yet expressed by a number of diverse sources including Christianity Today and Washington Post.  In other words, the liaison is observed broadly and not exclusively by polemical sources.

Job, you may think all you wish Dr. Caner should sit down in a “CHRISTIAN capacity…”, etc. but such is simply your opinion.  No authority exists for such an action other than you think it “must be done” of else a) reconciliation won’t happen b) Caner will lose credibility, neither of which is necessarily relevant.  On the one hand, reconciliation may never happen; indeed reconciliation may not even be desirable by the warring parities. On the other, Ergun Caner’s credibility will not rest on whether he sits down and works things out with his critics.  I, for one, do not think it is possible to work things out with his most vocal critics.  That’s just my opinion but it is based on the response I’ve observed from attempts to “work things out.”

Once again, no one believes (no one I know anyways) that just because Liberty, Dr. Geisler, Dr. Ankerberg, Kregel etc. have spoke positively on this matter that all are supposed to just take their word and that’s that.  Nor does it mean their word is bogus, political, and sheer cronyism as JW appears to argue.  What seems to me is highly significant is, not everyone who has examined the charges closely is as convinced as is Caner’s critics the “evidence” substantiates he is the charlatan his critics insist he is.  And they are willing to stake their own hard-earned reputations on it. Such a sacrifice should not be taken lightly it seems to me.

I’ve said before and I continue to say, EC is either guilty or not guilty (other than the verbal discrepancies he’s already conceded & confessed).  I hold to the latter: Ergun Caner may have made some verbal transgressions but Ergun Caner is no charlatan.  However, all my believing cannot make him innocent (of being a charlatan) if I am wrong.  I do not think I am wrong. Nor does Ankergberg, Geisler, Rhodes, Patterson, Kregal, Hussein, Tim Rogers, Tim Guthrie, Craig Daliessio, and any number of others commenting here.

In that light, Ergun Caner’s future belongs to God and no other.  And, for me, once those who think him to have committed the errors have made it known, to continue to harangue him with this demonstrates, in my view, little more than a crusade to destroy him.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter]

All,

I'll be away awhile. Comments will be slow posting. Sorry!

With that, I am...
peter

[Jobezking]

Peter:

The idea that mature Christians of good will in both parties do not wish to be reconciled with each other flies opposes what the Bible says about the fruits of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ's prayer that we would be known by our love for one another. Also, plenty of people who disbelieve Caner and have little faith in the line of defense that Liberty, Kregel, Ankerberg, Geisler etc. have stated that they do not wish to see Dr. Caner lose his career over the matter. One of those people, by the way, is the very Matt Svoboda who asked you to drop the matter and wound up receiving a very aggressive reply from you.

Now sir, right now we are at an impasse with opposing camps that both contain earnest Christians of good will holding their respective opinions for very legitimate reasons. Dr. Caner is the only one with the ability to end the impasse by discussing the issue with Christians who disagree with him. And the idea that Christians should not discuss matters with other Christians who disagree with them is completely unsupported in the Bible.

So again, there is no reason for Dr. Caner to avoid discussing this issue with reasonable, spiritually mature Christians who want to reconcile with him but in their own good consciences cannot because they believe that - for instance - going to First Baptist Church in Jacksonville (among other places) shortly after and claiming that you were in training to become a murderous terrorist far exceeds saying something that is basically factual but is merely misspeaking or getting dates, names and places wrong.

[Jobezking]

David:

"There are 3 groups of people out there, who are out to "get" Dr. Caner. The liberal/moderate crowd; the aggressive 5 point Calvinist crowd; and the lost, Muslim crowd. And, apparently, these 3 crowds will not rest until they "lynch" Dr. Caner."

So, which crowd am I in David? And am I out to lynch Dr. Caner, David? How does having Dr. Caner sit down and talk with Christians who don't believe him constitute "lynching"? The amazing thing is that this whole controversy apparently started with Dr. James White challenging Dr. Caner's claims that he had debated Muslim clerics. So, Dr. Caner can debate Muslim clerics, but he can't sit down and talk with good, sincere Christians, Christians who believe that it would be in the best interests of him personally, his career and most important his service to the gospel of Jesus Christ were he to appropriately deal with this matter? Because allow me to inform you: it can't possibly get any worse. Even among Christians, everyone but a decided minority of Dr. Caner supporters don't believe him and are not accepting his defense by Liberty, Dr. Geisler, Dr. Ankerberg and others. Please do not countenance the false notion that it is only Dr. Caner's supporters that matter.

Further, your strident comments betray a belief that there is one correct way to view this incident, and that those who do not adhere to your views are not only wrong, but are acting in bad faith with bad motives, making them evil. So am I acting in bad faith, David? Do I have bad motives? Am I evil? Further, what authority do you possess that makes you the single arbiter of truth on this issue, and what gives you the right to judge, convict and condemn those who do not agree with you?

What it boils down to David is that a lot of people put little stock in Dr. Caner's apology because they honestly believe that a lot of the things that he said rise far beyond "discrepancies" and "pulpit mistakes." And yes, this group includes pastors that have given just as many sermons as Dr. Caner has. These people are going to drop the matter and leave it alone, but they are going to do so with the opinion that Dr. Caner willfully made improper and untrue statements in the past, failed to deal with it in the present, and for that reason is untrustworthy in the future. I do not want that to happen, David. Do you?

[volfan007]

Job,

You say that I said this, and I meant that; when I didnt. Please dont put words in my mouth. And, I really dont see any point in continuing this conversation, because you are sold out to this whale hunt. You're Capt. Ahab, and you dont want to listen to anything except to hear "There's the while whale, Capt. There she is."

And, I think that people, who are in the 3 camps that I told you about, will continue to believe the worst about Dr. Caner even if he were to get on top of the Empire State building and shout out an apology for every single thing that every single person accuses him of....even faking being tasered!

I am just trying to encourage everyone to stop the whale hunt. This is not a good thing for anyone.

David

[Craig Daliessio]

Some people didn't spend enough time unsaved. That is becoming my ever increasing opinion. For you (Jobez) or any other Caner bashers to seriously hold that "all he needs to do" is have some sort of open council...this would be where I'd insert the "put down the crack pipe" joke. Thankfully I was almost 30 before coming to Christ and I have a jaundiced eye about how deeply "changed" the saved really are. The fact is we are all scaliwags...even after Calvary. Humans are humans. People want to rip and tear at the easiest target because it's better than BECOMING the easiest target. Keep poking Ergun Caner in the eye with a stick because that way nobody is poking YOU with one.
Ergun Caner should never say another word to any of you. If he were me...which he is not...he should leave the SBC and come over to the Calvary Chapel affiliation. (My church of preference) James White already went after Brian Broderson.
It is lunacy to me that these people who keep asking for a sit down with Ergun really truly believe that would resolve anything. They have gone after the man's family! He is supposed to believe he would be treated with any sort of dignity? And what if L.U. required him not to speak about it whatsoever?
I offer myself to you...as Lot offered his daughters. You'd have more fun with my mug shots and criminal record. Leave the man alone.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Peter, you said:

"By the way, David, since there are so "many" points with which you contend on this very short post, I suggest you give them a few at a time. And please do not write me 1200 words on each one. Just go for the gold ;^)"

I can do that, though I may post several comments in succession. :) It helps keep me focused and to be able to get all points addressed instead of getting tied up in (part of) one and not getting to everything.

dbh

[peter]

 

Job,

You respond by writing, “The idea that mature Christians of good will in both parties do not wish to be reconciled with each other flies opposes what the Bible says about the fruits of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ's prayer that we would be known by our love for one another.” No, that’s not necessarily so, at least the way I understand biblical revelation and human conflict. Again, I must insist on our making careful moral distinctions. On the one hand, we are biblically required to forgive those who’ve wronged us, spoken evil about us, cheated us, etc., etc. In addition, this requirement to forgive remains the loving obligatory response toward those who wrong us decidedly apart from whether or not the other person ever “comes clean” or not. In short, forgiveness is mono-dimensional, or as our Lord puts it, “from the heart.”

On the other hand, however, reconciliation may never be a reality desired or undesired. Reconciliation is by nature, at least duo-dimensional; that is, reconciliation requires at least two people whereas forgiveness can and should happen only with one person--the person offended. Nor are we commanded—at least in the sense I mean—to be reconciled for the very reason it is duo-dimensional not mono-dimensional in nature.

I can think of numerous believable situations when reconciliation cannot take place. For example, the poor wife whose husband is an unrepentant, incorrigible womanizer. Should she forgive him? She not only should forgive, according to Scripture, she must forgive him. Does such forgiveness entail full reconciliation? It does not. Indeed not only does it not entail full reconciliation (at first at least if reconciliation becomes desirable), there is tragically put in place a possible path to trod, the end of which is a permanent, formal division—divorce, if you please—formally severing herself from him. Hence, the reality is, there may be no reconciliation when there must be forgiveness.

Other examples come to mind: for example, a business partner cheats us out of our share of the stocks. We are required to forgive without reservation. On the other hand, we are not required to reconcile with him or her.  Martin L. King Jr. said somewhere “I can forgive a white man for stealing my pencil But I don’t have to reconcile till he gives it back.” Much of this depends on the depth of the human hurt involved. It is also indicative of the fallen world in which we live.

I only brought in these examples to demonstrate it is hardly conclusive to argue as do you the idea that “mature Christians of good will in both parties” do not wish to be reconciled with each other “flies opposes [sic] what the Bible says.” For argument’s sake suppose one feels strongly that another professing believer not only tarnished his ministry by spreading gossip and half-truths about him causing untold turmoil on himself and upon his family, but also had teamed up with non-believers to do it. To think that “mature Christians” in such theoretical circumstances would “desire” to sit down and “reconcile” is simply unrealistic. Nor does it necessarily fly in the face, so to speak, of biblical revelation.  Forgiveness is necessary on both sides. Reconciliation on the other hand requires an entirely different paradigm under which to operate.

As for my reply to Matt, Job, I will not get into that with you.  Suffice it to say, a) much more exists there than just receiving an “aggressive reply” from me; and , b) he did much more than simply asked me to “drop the matter”.  Instead, Matt’s comment is arguably much more aggressive than my reply!  In summary, Matt suggested I’m “hysterically” going after White, “attack[ing] White in the exact same manner that White goes after Caner, if not worse” which is demonstrably untrue, why I suppose he chose not to offer any specifics.  Matt wants me to “drop the subject” because “Liberty answered” and therefore “that should be that.”  Nonetheless, Matt can criticize Liberty—i.e, the “Liberty answer was weak”--but apparently, in Matt’s judgment, I “waste time” if I also mention “weak answers” and, unlike him, take the time to show why specifically I believe such to be so.  Also, Matt seems to think White & I devote relatively equal amounts of time to this issue which is patently absurd.  And, I’ll be glad to publicly retract if someone shows me to be wrong about that.

Again, Job, you are arguing points against a phantom opponent.  You insist, “And the idea that Christians should not discuss matters with other Christians who disagree with them is completely unsupported in the Bible.”  Who has argued such? 

You further assert, “there is no reason for Dr. Caner to avoid discussing this issue with reasonable, spiritually mature Christians…”  Please, Job. There may be plenty of reasons, not the least of which is, not a single Christian nor group of Christians has any biblical authority to insist EC or any one else sit down and talk anything out apart from the parameters I mentioned earlier, parameters I think you may have denied.

With that, I am…

Peter