Dr. Norman Geisler on Ergun Caner: A Remix by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE: “When I went to bed last night I had no idea I would spend the entirety of Saturday writing a small book in response to the further promotion of an evangelical cover-up, a sad defense of the blatantly indefensible. But the Lord knew, of course…” (//link).  And elsewhere, “I had planned on writing this post as the only item posted on the blog today. Well, man proposes, God disposes” (//link).  Hence, according to James White, while he had other plans, God over-ruled those plans and proposed his writing the mammoth response to Dr. Geisler. Now I ask, who could possibly argue with that? If so, who would even want to argue with that?

In light of James White's continued crusade, one cannot help but wonder if White "wanted answers" to his questions concerning Ergun Caner only as fodder with which to continue to argue and "debate." Is this the future of "Reformed" apologetics?  We hope not, but the divisive and sometimes sub-Christian tactics of James White is making another future disappear just over the horizon. 

===============================================================================

A while back, I received permission from Dr. Norman Geisler to post the contents of an email he composed affirming his support for Ergun Caner contra the wild, ceaseless fury unleashed against Caner led by a strange coalition of Muslims partnered with Calvinists.  Media representative as diverse as Christianity Today and Washington Post recognized this same co-belligerent cause (//link //link).

Once again, Dr. Geisler has spoken concerning Dr. Caner.  This time, however, it is more than an email.  On his website, Professor Geisler has a lengthy treatise entitled "In Defense of Dr. Ergun Caner:  A Response to his Critics."  In the clear, tight style for which Geisler is known, he sets out a solid case in defense of Dr. Caner, answering point by point the criticisms which Muslims and Calvinists alike have pitched his way.

Repeatedly Caner's critics have insisted that all they wanted were answers to their questions.  That's it.  Answers.  Well, they have answers now. An LU investigation raked Dr. Caner with a fine-toothed comb.  And, Dr. Geisler has provided point-by-point responses to virtually all the criticisms offered against Dr. Caner.

Will Caner critics be satisfied? The answer, of course, is no, they will not, if James White has anything to say about it.  After implicating Dr. Geisler as a liar, White has already posted in response to Dr. Geisler, a three-part post four-part post on Geisler totaling over 6,000 approximately 8,000 words, fully three almost four times the length of Dr. Geisler's piece defending Dr. Caner.  Also, White re-posted some many of the same old videos he's posted before. 

So, does this sound like Caner's critics are satisfied if questions are answered?  It does not.  James White shows no signs of being satisfied with any answers Caner can offer.  After all, why should he or Muslims be satisfied?  Caner was a priori guilty as charged.  Nothing he can say will change that in these guys' mind.

Nonetheless, we are profoundly grateful to Dr. Geisler, a very well-known and reputable scholar, theologian, ethicist, and Bible-believing Christan in lending his engaging thoughts to this issue. 

With that, I am...

Peter

 

Comments

[Drpenn]

You know he posted yet another piece "Part 4". It is the longest diatribe yet. Interestingly, a friend of mine posted how upset they were about reading this...etc. You know, when I saw it, I laughed. I don't mean just a chuckle. I mean a gut shaking, tear inducing rolling laugh.

My mind's eye sees a toddler, full-blown, red-faced, jumping up and down screaming tantrum....veins popping - the whole bit. But the toddler isn't two, this toddler is a full-grown man.

It's *comical* how he continues. I mean, seriously, what more is there to say about this topic that hasn't already been said?! He is beating a dead horse. He listens to no one, even Norm Geisler he is calling a liar?! How INSANE is that?!!

If nothing points to the insanity of "he who shall not be named" - THAT does!!

What's he going to do, take on the entire SBC forefathers next??!! Maybe he's like to take a shot at Billy Graham?

All I can say is - wow. Insanity in 6000+ words. Oh boy - here comes the laughter again....

[Craig Daliessio]

Peter...in said rambling, megalomaniacal, insanity riddled 3 part response, James White compares Ergun to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith!! A heretical, psychopath, cultic polygamist!
I could stop there.
I am praying for the ability to will leprosy on people the way Drew Barrymore started fires in "Firestarter".

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Oh my, now Dr. Geisler's critics will have the charge that Dr. Geisler is claiming to be Richie Cunningham. Since Dr. Geisler had a father he referred to as Fonse. Oh me. Heeeeeeyyy!

Great article and explanations.

Blessings,
Tim

[drwayman]

It appears that Dr. Caner has a poor memory at times as many people do. If one were to look at I Cor 1:16, it appears that Paul could have had a poor memory as well. I wonder if Dr. Caner's critics would also call the Apostle Paul a liar if someone else was baptized by him other than the people that are listed...

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter,

Thanks for the post, all of them. Frankly, I am appalled by all of the "Christians", and I use that term broadly, that find it their purpose to teardown a person rather than be biblical. Jesus and His disciples treated apostate Judas better than these folks treat their brother Ergun. Interestingly, Peter the leading disciple gets no print as to being "liar", while clearly he did. This covert aggressive mentality is appalling. Many of these same folks consistently claim that conservative Christians are fighting fundamentalist, while al the time picking, looking, instigating and waging war.
One final note, God wrote the torah through liar Moses, not perfect Pharisee. He chose David the adulterer to pen the Psalms, not the polished braggart. Again God took the hand of Paul to pen much of the NT not that of the well trained scholars who, while never admitting it, still trusted self as meritorious to God.

[Bennett Willis]

I'm listening to a pod cast that mentions you--rather accurately in the description. You could probably get several more postings out of it. You have chosen your side well and you fit right in with Craig and the Thames.

[RazorsKiss]

You folks do know that Dr. Geisler has a far longer history with Dr. White than Dr. Caner does? He's been addressed far more often, and over a far longer period. First, because his apologetic method is terrible, and Second, because his theology, which drives his apologetic, is likewise sub-par. Y'all act like this is the first time he's ever addressed Geisler - it's not, nor is it even close to the first time. News flash - semi-Pelagian apologetic methodology, evangelistic approach and most importantly, theology, isn't well-received by Reformed folks. Never has been, never will be.

I appreciate Geisler's defense of the faith over the years - I don't appreciate his theology or approach. Emotive argumentation is hardly compelling - and the comments thus far on the response to Geisler are as fallacy-ridden as his "defense" of Dr. Caner and his appendix to CBF. If you want to be taken seriously, write seriously.

[A.M. Mallett]

Whether White draws a comparison of Caner to Joseph Smith or Peter Lumpkins to Alexander the coppersmith, the pattern is the same. Introduce schisms into the body of Christ and claim "God told me to do it".
White has lost this war and is trying to resurrect it however it only carries weight among the sycophants who breath his every word.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

You know, I'm pretty sure what Dr. White meant was what the writer of this Proverb said:

Proverbs 19:21 ESV Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

In other words, Dr. White planned one thing, God determined that something else would take place.

Are you sure you are giving Dr. White the same courtesy and benefit of the doubt that you are demanding he give to Dr. Caner?

sdg,
dbh

[Mary]

God definately has plans for men like Mr. James White. It's obvious the Caner haters didn't realize how much they were exposing themselves as the hateful, bitter, unhappy and in White's case just plain out deranged people they really are.

[Mary]

Maybe this is OT but I gotta say I've yet to meet the "Arminians synergist" white describes. I've actually known quite a few real "Doctors" too. Does White really make a living knocking down straw men?

[Samuel]

It is very interesting to me that you can call James White's tactics "Sub-Christian", and yet defend Caner who told several groups of people that he was raised in Turkey on the border of Iraq, trained in Jihad, and learned his English from the "Dukes of Hazzard", and yet court documents proved that he has lived in Ohio since he was 3 or 4 and learned his English from the public school systems there. That is very interesting indeed.

[Tim G]

James White loves to draw attention to himself and his "intellect". Other than that, the only thing he proves again is that the only difference between men and boys is - there age.

RazorKiss once again pulls the White tactic above and claims Geisler is "emotive".

This is so easy to see. When this group of self called minions see they may be losing ground - they play the emotions card on their enemy.

So to save them trouble - I will simply say "this is SAD!" There you have it - my emotions out in the open.

[A.M. Mallett]

I do not believe anybody is demanding White give Caner a benefit of doubt. Instead, I think the consensus is that White pick up his shorts and waddle home before he does any further injury to himself.

[J K Jones]

What does "factual statements which are self-contradictory" mean?

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Mary said,
"God definately has plans for men like Mr. James White. It's obvious the Caner haters didn't realize how much they were exposing themselves as the hateful, bitter, unhappy and in White's case just plain out deranged people they really are."

Dr. White doesn't hate Dr. Caner or Dr. Geisler. Neither do I. At the same time, I do believe that Caner intentionally misrepresented his past and needs to repent of such specifically to those he told the lies to originally. That would be the Christian thing to do, and I could only hope that were I do to do something similar that I would be admonished by Christian brothers to repent and to do so as publicly as the sin was public.

Mary also said:
"Maybe this is OT but I gotta say I've yet to meet the "Arminians synergist" white describes."

Perhaps because of a definition confusion; I really don't know, but I'll toss a couple of definitions out there hoping they will help.

A synergist is a person who believe that man and God work together in some way to bring about the former's regeneration. Most often if not always this is seen in the form of man having faith and being born again as a result of man's faith combined with the Spirit of God. If a person believes that is how one is born again or regenerated, then that person is a synergist.

A monergist, such as myself and any Calvinist, believes that the new birth, or regeneration, is the work of God alone, at the discretion of God and not the will of man. Such a person is made alive and immediately believes the Gospel that they have heard. Being born again though is completely the work of the Holy Spirit.

Hope that helps.

sdg,
dbh

[peter]

Chris,

Thanks for your words my brother. Wisdom is vacant alot these days...

Bennett,

I'm flattered...

RazorKiss,

Please, you're making my belly hurt :^0

David,

I do not need to give him the "benefit of doubt" because I think I "get it" what he's saying. And what he says is obviously consistent with his theological presuppositions. No problem, bro...

Craig,

My guess is, White will look through his dissertation at CES (his book on the Trinity) and see if he can nail Geisler for deviating from John Calvin is some way. So, at least one more shot at Geisler is my entry!

DPenn,

You are correct. The four posts (thanks for the heads up on the last one by the way) reveal some baby-boiling whay-whay...

Samuel,

Yes. i think James White employs at times sub-Christian tactics in responding to his critics. Case in point: "you, sir, are a liar" is one which shows its ugliness far too often (More accurate, David?;^)

J.K.,

Think, boy, think. You can do it if you try.

Tim,

RazorKiss's glib dismissal of Professor Geisler's works gives me a belly ache.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Don Johnson]

Mary,

I basically agree with David's definitions. However the Bible is where to look for our theology and not from definitions. The Bible teaches faith precedes regeneration.

[cb scott]

Peter,

Happy Fourth of July. But, I want you to know that I am not dreaming of a "White" Christmas.

cb

[RazorsKiss]

Considering I have a few of his works, I simply have to chuckle at "glib". While he may be a "hero" to some folks in the Tiber Wader Convocation, I hope you realize he is a a) Thomist b) Evidentialist, c) Arminian. None of which are especially impressive to anyone Reformed.

[Craig Daliessio]

I have Peter down for a part 5...
And My desire for Leperokinesis would only involve his fingers and tongue, Then we'd never hear from him again in any medium.
Unless of course Bobbie Boudreaux could read his thoughts by placing her hand on his head like Spock.

Peace...

[Michael Smith]

"Dr. Geisler has provided point-by-point responses to virtually all the criticisms offered against Dr. Caner.

I wonder why Dr. Caner has not provided a point-by-point response to all the criticism?

[peter]

RazorKiss,

Oh my goodness. Sweet West Georgia peaches! I didn't know!

Michael,

Did it ever for one glimmering moment occur to any of you guys that for some reason beyond public knowledge someone was tying Ergun Caner's hands on this issue? Ever? For example, what if--just imagining--what if LU forbade him to speak publicly about it? I'm not saying they did; I'm just saying what if they (or another) forbade him for reasons unknown to you or me to speak about this? Would such knowledge of that--if it were so--soften your now hopelessly hardened heart against Ergun Caner?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

CB

You dirty-dog. You have forever ruined one of my favorite Christmas oldies! :^)

Don't you just love dealing with so many guys who think you're tops? White's supporters are as addicted to me as they are to him albeit for different reasons, of course. Nonetheless, it's still addiction...sweet, sweet addiction. If only blogging were a paying enterprise...ummmmmmmm....ahhhhh....

With that, I am...
Peter

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

RazorKiss,

By the way, you're very comfortable labeling Geisler an Arminian. Of course, you're following your mentor--James White--who loves to lead the charge, "Geisler is an Arminian." Yet Norm Geisler does not at all believe he embraces Arminianism but moderate Calvinism. Yet you continue to label him Arminian.

On the other hand, James White & minions continually loathe anyone who breathes the label Hyper-Calvinism in his direction. He calls them liars and slanderers.

So, if I am a liar and slanderer for dubbing James White a Hyper-Calvinist, are James White and RazorKiss liars and slanderers for dubbing Norm Geisler an Arminian?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig Daliessio]

Michael...
Christ Himself kept silent as the beatings ensued and the whip cracked.
Ergun has told me the terrible things that have been directed at his WIFE and his CHILDREN! If it were me, the only words I'd say would be "Feel Lucky Punk?" while showing some folks the business end of the reason he has the concealed carry permit. If you stalkers and obsessors won't stop when it's merely ME doing the talking, or Peter or NORMAN GEISLER...what earthly reason would Ergun Caner have to believe that ANYTHING he said would be sufficient for you jackals and that this would stop.
No...Sherlock White killed his Moriarity and this is all that remains...the endless blabber of his sublings and the crazed rant of Sherlock himself. He is now face to face with the man in the mirror and realizing that he is, in fact, NOBODY. And the longer he looks out his basement window, the more Dr. Norman Geisler transfigures from a windmill to a giant. Bring on the fair Bobbie Boudreaux...let her become Duclinea once more...the game is yet afoot!
(Wow! You won't find THAT on a Whitehead blog!)

[Bennett Willis]

When you have nothing true to say--hypothesize. Peter, that is an approach that should be beneath you. Next are you going to ask us to suppose some horrible disease that has paralyzed his hands and voice--and that his lectures to his summer classes are recordings?

By the way, have you made any progress on the date that he became a US citizen--wait, maybe he gets to vote three times? Or are you just going to take the positive comment from that comment and do no work? :)

[Darby Livingston]

"Oh my goodness. Sweet West Georgia peaches! I didn't know!"

Toooooooooooooooo funny!

[Darby Livingston]

Yeah, but White never called Geisler a hyper-Arminian. :)

[Brennon]

I hope you realize he is a a) Thomist b) Evidentialist, c) Arminian. None of which are especially impressive to anyone Reformed.

RC Sproul. Nuff said.

[Eric Opsahl]

Peter,
If he isnt , then yes.

[Craig Daliessio]

As long as he isn't a Cowboys fan.

[peter]

RazorKiss,

When you answer the simple question i asked, you may log once more. Until then, no soup for you.

Bennett,

And just what is actually wrong with asking a simple question albeit one that may only be hypothetical? Is doing such somehow intrinsically irrelevant? Far from it in my view.

TurretinFan

Nope. You get far too many freebies logging on anonymously while pretending to be a prophet. Just go back to your place and "prophesy" all you wish.

With that, i am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Don:

I'll of course agree with the statement that the Bible is what determines what we must believe. I'll address it back on the other thread now that I don't have quite as many pressing engagements. :)

Craig:
Your comment was filled with ad hominem, at least one red herring, and a genetic fallacy.

If people have said slanderous or threatening things to Dr. Caner's wife and children, then there is a problem. Such things are wrong. Whatever other positions a person may hold against what Caner has done, it doesn't follow that everyone embraces all of the beliefs of the others in this debacle. That is, just because someone such as myself believes that Dr. Caner has lied, it doesn't follow that I approve in any way of threatening his family. Your argument seems to suggest that Dr. White, and by implication others who would agree with him, are guilty of hatred against Ergun's wife and children. This is a fallacious line of reasoning.

Perhaps it would help if you were to define what you mean by a "stalker" or an "obsessor." I, like Dr. White, would much rather this whole thing were over. I'm a bit tired of it, though I suspect not nearly to the level that he is tired of it. The reason Dr. White goes forward has a lot more to do with principle, with biblical mandate, than it does with Dr. Caner. Perhaps you should peruse what he has written about this situation lately and see for yourself, especially the parts where he has said that if Caner were reformed he would have much more quickly addressed it. His words were, I do believe, "At this point may I say once again that the fact of the matter is I would have been much faster to the attack on this issue if Ergun Caner was Reformed." You can find that reference here.

I of course object to the terms "stalker" and "obsessor." :)

sdg,
dave

[Steve Allem]

"I don't appreciate his theology..."
Posted by: RazorsKiss | 2010.07.04 at 10:01 AM
========
This is the crux of the matter for all these hyper-Calvinists...Hardshells I call them. It all comes down to this that they don't like the theology of faith proceeds salvation.

A couple of years ago it was Paige Patterson, this year it is Ergun Caner and it seems Norman Geisler is next one to suffer the White dogpile method.

What is sad though, is that all Hardshells really do is leave devistation in their wake. Their party boat doesn't get any larger, because is it always the same few who jump on the boat. Meanwhile their victims continue on to serve our Lord once the party boat passes.

Patterson is still at Southwestern preparing pastors to preach the gospel, Caner will still be speaking at events and working at LU spreading the gospel, and Geislter will go on defending the gospel.

Meanwhile, White will be trolling his party boat around, like a roaring lion, looking for the next Christian in whose "theology he doesn't appreciate" to steer towards and attempt to devour.

Given a choice, I want to be with the crowd that spreads the gospel rather than looking for the next person's character to make an attempt to destroy.

White's 5 parter reminds me of a deranged Capt. Queeg in "The Cain Mutiny", when he is on the witness stand, twiddling the ball bearings in his hand while he rambles on about how he caught the strawberry thief.

Queeg YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgeQmzV9kk

[gary dilworth]

TurretinFan

Nope. You get far too many freebies logging on anonymously while pretending to be a prophet. Just go back to your place and "prophesy" all you wish.

With that, i am...
Peter

----------------

Peter,

Have you ever posted an anonymous comment on TurretinFan's blog?

Yes or no?

Thank you,

Gary

[Tim G]

Steve,
I love that movie and YES it fits White in this situation. Great picture of it all!

Razor,
What if Caner has been told to NOT respond? Awaiting your answer. Would you agree that if he were told by those he is under authority, thus he has the character to NOT speak and be under authority? Would this change anything?

[peter]

Gary,

The answer is no, I have not. In fact, to my recall, I've only posted on his site in a single thread (though perhaps I posted more than one comment in the single thread).

An example of allowing anons to consistently post here would be RazorKiss who makes no real attempt to cover-up who he is and has revealed it here and elsewhere. The problem RK faces in not getting all his comments posted is, when asked a question to which he knows it will make James White look negative, he conveniently skips it and pours scorn all over me for asking it.

For example, I asked RK this above:

By the way, you're very comfortable labeling Geisler an Arminian. Of course, you're following your mentor--James White--who loves to lead the charge, "Geisler is an Arminian." Yet Norm Geisler does not at all believe he embraces Arminianism but moderate Calvinism. Yet you continue to label him Arminian.

On the other hand, James White & minions continually loathe anyone who breathes the label Hyper-Calvinism in his direction. He calls them liars and slanderers.

So, if I am a liar and slanderer for dubbing James White a Hyper-Calvinist, are James White and RazorKiss liars and slanderers for dubbing Norm Geisler an Arminian?

So I tell him I won't post his comments anymore till he answers. He fades away into the sunset. He always returns though. They all do. White's supporters *always* return. I am their drug. And they are addicted.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Salvatore Mazzotta]

Steve Allem wrote:

This is the crux of the matter for all these hyper-Calvinists...Hardshells I call them. It all comes down to this that they don't like the theology of faith proceeds salvation.

I don't know of any Calvinists who would disagree that "faith precedes salvation." The gift of faith comes before most of the other gifts that God gives as part of His salvation: justification, progressive sanctification, bodily resurrection, glorification, etc.

What is distinctive of Hardshells or Primitive Baptists is the idea that God regenerates sinners without the preaching of the gospel. Most Calvinists, including JW, rightly reject this idea. So, it is simply inaccurate to refer to JW as a Hardshell or Primitive Baptist.

Given a choice, I want to be with the crowd that spreads the gospel rather than looking for the next person's character to make an attempt to destroy.

I appreciate what White has done to defend the integrity of the gospel by exposing someone who has prostituted the gospel from pulpits across the country for personal aggrandizement and monetary gain by associating it with a grandiose but fabricated testimony. It can't have been easy, given all the flack he has received for taking this principled stand.

God will, I am convinced, continue to bless the stand White has taken for the pure gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ, bringing sinners to a saving knowledge of Himself through his labors.

[J K Jones]

Peter,

I am quite capable of thinking.

And you say White is childish.

Answer my question.

[peter]

JK,

Only when you are willing to verbalize what you think LU meant by the phrase. Think some more. Now, if that's being "childish" so be it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[J. K. Jones]

Mr. Lumpkins,

I don't know what they meant by the phrase. It sounds like a strange way to refer to a lie.

What do you think?

[peter]

JK,

I expressed my confusion concerning what LU meant by some of the phraseology in the investigatory statement. At the same time, I attempted to understand without insinuating they were all a bunch of dodo brains.

Given that, I suppose they meant something similar by the phrase "factual statements which are self-contradictory" statements which are factual in nature and not theoretical in nature. For example, though not a perfect illustration, it might be the difference between "Lincoln was a great leader" and "Lincoln was the 16th President of the U.S." This explains for me LU's explicit examples of the errors they suggested were in some of Caner's spoken addresses, errors concerning "dates, times, residences" etc.

That's how I took it. And, that's all I know.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

RazorKiss,

Nope. You will not have any comments posted til the question is answered. And, I could care less whether you think others should decide whether you answered my question. Nor do I care if you think that's being unfair. Nor am I going to post any more of your "you, sir, are a liar" drivel on this site.

So, RazorKiss, I think you're losing all the way around.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

RazorKiss,

Please, man, get a life. Your silly games posting on this thread when I told you it aint' happin is reminiscent of junior high schoolers. Post anything you wish about me, my views, your "you, sir, are a liar" spew at your James White hero-site. But it's not happin here.

For the record, SBC Tomorrow's "moderation" policy on comments is in place thanks to guys like you who think you have a right to be listened to by others. Hence, you attempt to force your comments. Just like your continued logging on the thread forcing me to stare at it when I check my dashboard. Oh, hum...sigh, sigh, sigh...

Now, if you log another comment on this thread, I'll flag your IP.

With that, I am...
Peter

[J K Jones]

Mr. Lumpkins,

I asked a question. It was not my intent to imply anything.

The fact that you and I both are confused tells me LU should be more clear.