James White and “Anti-Caner” Websites by Peter Lumpkins

When James White asks a question, people listen for his answer.  Unfortunately, White asks a question on his site but strangely could not come up with even a guess. He queries:

“But truly, how balanced and fair is a statement that makes reference to "anti-Caner websites"? Anti-Caner websites? What on earth is that? (//link).

Well, we have an answer for Mr. White:

James White filed a complaint at Vimeo.com to have my video pulled citing "copyright infringement."  Below is the video uploaded to youtube:

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Ed Goodman]

Why can't James White publicly admit that he loves Ergun Caner as a brother in Christ? I guess that's not pertinent to the issue. No sirree, not until he REPENTS! After all, even though we can't earn salvation - not even through prayer and repentance (we must be chosen!) - Dr. Caner must apparently EARN White's love through repentance!

Let me just ask: although Caner has made false statements about his birth place and supposed training in jihad, would it kill White to publicly proclaim his love for Caner? Seems like I read somewhere that LOVE NEVER FAILS (1 Cor. 13:8). Or is professing our love for another brother "too dangerous" for us?

[Craig Daliessio]

Oh dude...you are the best.

[Debbie Kaufman]

The only thing I can't argue with is your choice of music. :)

[volfan007]

buwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

Woo hoo, that's funny.

David

[peter]

It is kinda funny when you think about it...
With that, I am...
Peter

[Kyle in WI]

A quick question; how is it that on this site people keep saying nothing morally wrong has been done?

From the evidence presented Caner willfully lied several times. "Speaking" Arabic where he mumbled words pretending they where Arabic is just one thing that I would classify as a lie; hence a moral action that went against God's word. This is the one thing I don't understand, you have been stating since this started to wait until the facts come out. Now the facts are out and Liberty's investigation is complete could you answer my big question below, I have never seen anyone ask or answer this.

Could you please tell me why you think that nothing morally wrong was done?

D. Kyle Christner
SDG

[peter]

Dear Kyle,

I think you can think whatever you wish to think.

And, as for "on this site people keep saying nothing" has been done wrong, would you like to document that? I've not said any such thing. In fact, no Caner supporter I know suggest nothing has been done wrong. Indeed even Dr. Caner openly admitted such and asked forgiveness.

On the other hand, a) not every thing he critics allege is demonstrable b) the merciless crusade they have advanced is both sub-Christian and in many ways harmful to the gospel.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Vacuous post number 197? Check!

[Kyle in WI]

Peter,

How about Dr. Geisler comments and I would tend to think from all the post and defense of Dr. Giesler comments that you agree with him and the comments he has made. If you do not agree with Dr. Geisler please say so.

"Finally, not one of them involves a moral or doctrinal deviation from the Faith."

http://www.normangeisler.net/indefenseofcaner.html

I would agree with A, a lot of the issue’s are none issue but the ones that remains are still important issue. The issues that withstand scrutiny and have evidence to back them up. It would seem to me that your biggest issue is B the tactics and how the issue will not go away. Is the PC statement by LU sufficient to end this and be the final authority on the issue? If not what should be?

So my 2 question are now.

Do you agree with what Dr. Geisler has said and is saying specifically in regards to the quote above?

Who or what should be the final authority on this issue?

D. Kyle Christner
SDG

[peter]

Kyle,

You did not hear Geisler well. He wrote also, "Ergun publically apologized for this and other mistakes on February 25, 2010 (see “Sixth” below)." He repeats this more than once. Did you miss it?

Hence, Geisler mentions the verbal transgressions as well. So, no, I do not disagree with Dr. Geisler.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Kyle in WI]

Peter,

No I did not miss that.

So you agree that Caner did nothing morally wrong.

What was Caner apolgizing for? From what I remember at the time it had to do with claiming to of debated Shabir in NE still yet to find out who he really debated? and for his pronunciation of Arabic phrases. Many of the issue have come after the first apology and he has not owned up to them. Like prentend to speak Arabic is just one of the big ones. Below is the apology. Please tell me how this relates to the allegations that have facts, vids, docs and other sources or reliable info? I think the most outragous of them all is the prentending to speak Arabic. He knew that only sounds not words where come out of his mouth.

http://sbctoday.com/2010/02/25/statement-from-dr-ergun-caner/

So when will he apologizes and address the rest of the alegations that have facts to back them up. That is all that is needed.

Do you feel that the first apology is suffectient?
Who or what should be the final authority on this issue?

D. Kyle Christner
SDG

[Craig Daliessio]

Kyle...a mistake is not even a sin. The Edsel was a mistake. The Leisure suit was a mistake. Beer and Nachos on a first date...mistake. (Maybe even epic fail)
As for "mumbling words"...I know Ergun Caner, He talks that fast all the time. I am a Yankee so I understand him. All he really ever needed to do was insert "Bless his heart" occasionally and there'd be no problem.

[Craig Daliessio]

"The only thing I can't argue with is your choice of music. :)

Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2010.07.07 at 01:49 PM "

For an instant there I liked you...

"Liz'beth...it's the big one baby...I'm comin home to ya"

[peter]

Kyle,

If Dr. Caner or you or me or anyone actually speaks with intention to deceive, then yes, it's morally wrong, Kyle. That's deception; that's lying. And morally and Scripturally-- all things being equal, of course--there is no justification for doing such.

That's what Dr. Geisler objects to concerning Caner critics: making conflicting statements into defacto lying. However, it does not morally follow that conflicting statements are lies. That's the fundamental fallacy of those who continue to harp about Caner's verbal transgressions.

So, no, I do not think Dr. Caner was immoral because I do not think Dr. Caner intended to deceive. I could be wrong. Maybe I've been fooled. But I do not think so.

Now, I do not know how to be any more straight-forward, Kyle.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Kyle in WI]

Craig,

He was not just mumbling English. He stated he was gone to tell the story of Isaac is Arabic when in Israel. The he stated that the guards yelled in Arabic. That is when he speaks the mumbled Arabic. Even though Caner freely admits he does not speak Arabic.

He pretends to speak Arabic in front of a church.

Do you think this is wrong, to pretend to speak a language you can not?

Here is a video of Caner doing just this. I know you will not like TF or JW but please watch. This made me really sad.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/06/ergun-caner-and-pseudo-arabic.html

D. Kyle Christner.
SDG

[Kyle in WI]

Peter,

Ok that makes sense. This is the big divide.

One side sees this as moral affront to the pulpit and the proclamation of the gospel because of lying in the pulpit.

The other side sees the issue as misstatements that where not international therefore no repentance or apology is needed.

So both sides butt heads together wondering what the other side is thinking.

This make more sense thanks for the input.

Do you understand where James White and other are coming from then?

They and I see this rightly as a huge moral issue because of the prominence and position of Caner, mainly that he was preaching the gospel when he made “misstatements.”

I would find it hard to see how Dr. Caner did not lie; the evidence to me seems to be too great.

Also a few question I had for you that you forgot to answer.

Do you feel that the first apology is sufficient?
Who or what should be the final authority on this issue?

Thanks for your time you guys all have a great day.

D. Kyle Christner
SDG

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter, I need a hug!!!

[The Seeking Disciple]

That's funny. For the first time in a couple of days I had a good laugh at the expense of James White. Thanks!

[peter]

Kyle,

I think we're moving forward. A few clarifications.

A) While I do see some of the conflicts as "misstatements" that were unintentional deception, for my part, it doesn't follow necessarily that "no repentance or apology is needed." If I state when I preach "Jesus was born in Jerusalem and crucified in Bethlehem" I very well may need to apologize and "repent." I certainly need to clarify once I'm aware of the glaring error (again, for the record, Dr. Caner in fact wrote a very humble confessional statement, a statement categorically rejected and at times mocked by his critics).

What I would vehemently deny and argue against, however, is that I lied in the pulpit and consequently need to repent for my immoral behavior. Was what I said a falsehood? It was. Was I intending to deceive? I was not. I mistakenly transposed the two cities in my speaking.

Many things could account for this verbal transgression from ill-preparation to butterflies in my stomach to gas from eating too many baked beans. In my experience, most errors like this we routinely laugh about and promise to be better. But to make this into intentional deception, in my view, would be morally absurd.

B) I do understand, I think, where James White and many with him are coming from. The way I understand it is, there is no slack in their minds whatsoever. Caner lied. End of story.

Why?

C)"mainly that he was preaching the gospel when he made “misstatements.” So what if I transpose cities like I did above? Would I be lying? What if I mispronounced a Greek word or an Aramaic word or a Hebrew word? For me, this is so patently absurd for the simple reason no one can live up to this. We are all liars if this is the standard. But if we are all liars, why are we making a case out of EC?

D) Do I feel that the first apology is sufficient? Let me answer that like this: I learned a long, long time ago I could not write another's script, including a person's statement of repentance, confession, or apology. So, yes. It was sufficient for me. But ultimately the question is, was God pleased with it? And, only our Lord speaks for our Lord about that.

As a byline, Kyle, I've noted Calvinists have a horrible time accepting "pray this prayer" in doing personal evangelism, rightly arguing, by the way, that a "set prayer" is not impressive to God. Why those same Calvinists would demand EC say particular words in his confession slips right by my left ear.

E) The final authority on this issue and all issues is the Lord Jesus Himself Who possesses all authority in Heaven and on earth. We find His authority expressed not exhaustively but truly in the Bible. Beyond that, EC is under his church's authority as well as LU to an extent. Beyond those parameters, the lines become very fuzzy and consequently hazardous to draw with indelible ink.

Hope this assists.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Chris & SD,

Glad you guys got a blistering blessing!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig Daliessio]

Kyle...it's on Souptureenfans site...now THERE'S a source I trust.
Sorry pal...you want him guilty so nothing he can say will ever change your mind. So tell me Kyle...having a "doctorate" from a non accredited school and calling yourself "Dr" which obviously makes you more impressive (until you open your mouth at least) and therefore you might sell the occasional book...that's NOT Lying and deception by your standard? Please pal...pull this leg it plays jingle bells

[Samuel]

You denied that you have attacked White personally yesterday. I guess I was a day to early. Again, you say that James White uses "sub-Christian tactics". What do you call this post which does nothing but mock him?

[peter]

Samuel,

Look. Get your act together, guy. You charged me with attacking White in yesterday's post; nowhere else. Just yesterday's post.

And, my response concerning yesterday's post was, "Begging pardon. I attacked no one. Nor did I mention White's motives."

You didn't read the post, did you? At least, read it to understand it? For had you read it--that is, read it to understand it--you surely would have noted

a)I asked a question about White's practice, his posting names of critics but protecting identities of those who commend

b) then I asked, 'Why?'

Making that into an "attack" reveals a fatal dose of West Georgia dumb around these parts.

Today's post is a spoof. Do you know what a spoof is? If not, I'll be happy to supply a dictionary link.

Now, neither my former post--i.e, asking questions--nor my latter post--a spoof--may be, in my view, reasonably classified as sub-Christian tactics. On the other hand, continually dubbing the one who is being criticized as both dishonest and a liar is categorically sub-Christian in my view, and unworthy of serious interaction.

Please get it together before you log back on to disagree just to disagree.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig Daliessio]

Samuel...this is HUUUMOOORRR. It's FFFFUUUUUNNNNNYYYYY. You do realize the corners of you mouth go UP too, right?
Even Debbie Kaufman chuckled...and right after that I looked outside and actually saw a lamb lying down with a lion.
They were stuffed animals...but STILL..

[marty madison]

those who forget to forgive have forgotten that they have been forgiven.

and when you stand praying, forgive if you have anything against anyone that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your tresspasses.

[Tim G]

Peter,
Well done in the comment stream. I think you have proven the point of the stand. Now if we can just prove that we are all NOT part of the FAMILY - pasta and all! :)

[Drpenn]

That's just out and out SCARY!

[Fredericka]

Peter wrote, "Was what I said a falsehood? It was. Was I intending to deceive? I was not."

If I say, 'I am Anastasia,' this might well be a misstatement, which I could correct by saying, 'Oh no, I meant to say, I am Fredericka.' But if I go on a speaking tour from town to town, and tell each audience hanging on my every word that 'I am Anastasia,' if I accept financial favors on the strength of this claim, and if I do this year by year, making it my business in life, how plausible is it to say 'I misspoke?'

[peter]

Dear Fredericka

You write, "if I go on a speaking tour from town to town, and tell each audience hanging on my every word that 'I am Anastasia,' if I accept financial favors on the strength of this claim, and if I do this year by year, making it my business in life, how plausible is it to say 'I misspoke?'" (all emphasis mine).

I assume you mean to cast the scenario as parallel to EC for the last decade or so. If I am correct, Fredericka, your scenario is so woefully lacking in connecting to the real world, I haven't one clue what you mean to suggest.

Out of hundreds of sermons on public record which were examined, at least 500 interviews, newspaper articles, etc. the conflicting statements are very few and far between. In addition, not one discrepancy is found in the literary works EC has authored.

Hence, comparing the above with your fictitious scenario is hardly a fair analogy.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Fredericka]

Peter wrote, "I assume you mean to cast the scenario as parallel to EC for the last decade or so. If I am correct, Fredericka, your scenario is so woefully lacking in connecting to the real world, I haven't one clue what you mean to suggest."

Peter, thank you for not dumping my post. I mean to suggest that his 'I was a teen-age jihadi' schtick was profitable for Ergun. In the weeks and months following 9/11 his claim that he had come to this country to do what was done on 9/11 boosted him up to the ranks of Christian celebrity. Nobody believes in it anymore, which is real progress. The next step is for everyone to pretend that they never believed in it.

[cb scott]

Peter,

It has been a long, long week. Thanks for a good laugh, even though you risk an ax in the head to provide it.

[icouldbewrong]

Can I ask an question or maybe its an observation. What if Dr. Caner did exactly what some think, he repented went on TV radio and answered every single question. Begged for forgiveness took his books of the market, quit liberty and went to work at a homeless shelter, etc. Would he be forgiven by some of his detractors. The answer is not a chance, even a move of God could not bring this about. It is not about repentance or restoration it is about winning. There is something deeply wrong with that.

Another reason maybe Dr. Caner is not answering questions is because this is a personnel issue and he may not be legally able to answer those questions this could also be true about LU. I dont know just a possibility.