Update: Norman Geisler: A Final Defense of Ergun Caner by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE:  James White responded to Norm Geisler’s objection to the anonymity of TurretinFan.  He writes:

“…Geisler takes specific aim at TurretinFan for being anonymous in his blogging and writing. Yes, I know why this is, and I affirm that he has perfectly moral and proper reasons for remaining anonymous” (//link). 

O.K.

Now note what James White says on his YouTube page pertaining to comments:

It is my experience that the vast majority of insulting and absurd comments posted on the Internet arise from the anonymity one has behind a keyboard. That disappears when you have to pick up a phone and talk to someone one-on-one. Few of those who are brave in comboxes are overly convincing in person. So, if you wish to comment meaningfully, the number is 877-753-3341 during The Dividing Line. I'll talk to you then! :-) (//link)

Now, the obvious question is, why is Dr. White so anti-anonymity when people show up and want to comment on his site but remain unidentified, yet on the other hand, he appeals to “moral and proper reasons” TurretinFan remains anonymous?  Is this just another I-can-but-you-can’t-because-I-can-beat-you-in-debate strategy?  I do not know.  Perhaps the readers have an insight I do not.

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

Since early February, I've watched as Hyper-Calvinist James White, Muslim Mohammad Khan, and several other James White supporters sift out every conceivable criticism they could to bring Ergun Caner down. Twice Dr. Norman Geisler has addressed this issue.  And, now he puts out what may be the definitive summary for answering the charges Khan and White concocted against Ergun Caner. 
Dr. Geisler writes "In Further Defense of Ergun Caner":

Since issuing a recent defense of Ergun Caner against his critics, a number of unjustified attacks have come to my attention.  Many of them are just a rehash of old ones already answered with a futile attempt to prove his intent to embellish and deceive.  Not one of these charges is substantial, involving any major doctrinal or moral issue.  Nonetheless, since left unanswered they tend in the minds of some to imply moral guilt; a brief response to them will be helpful. 

Also, Dr. Geisler further makes a very good point:

a blogger-critic refuses to give his real name, using a pseudonym.  This violates a moral and legal rule that one has a right to face his accusers. [This is also a good way to avoid libel charges.] 

While Geisler does not name him, one may be fairly confident in assuming he was specifically referring to one of Caner’s chief critics and right-hand man for James White, “TurrentinFan.”

I personally have an aversion to anonymous commenters and offer no real platform for them on SBC Tomorrow.  And, I hope bloggers will take Dr. Geisler’s point about pseudonyms seriously and refuse them an open thread to spread their message without the least bit of accountability. 

Read Dr. Geisler’s entire defense here and here.

Thanks again Dr. Geisler. It’s time to put this issue to bed.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[A.M. Mallett]

Dr. Geisler has a point although I use both my real name, A.M. Mallett and a handle name in other places, travelah. The latter is not meant to be anonymous. Instead, I have used an alpha or numeric equivalent of that handle since the BITNET days in the very early 1980s. It is hard to give up.

[Craig Daliessio]

In this calm...before the bullets fly...
They'll be coming Peter...sure as the sun will rise they'll be coming. I don't know if I'll survive the next round. But if I don't...you sir, are a brave man. And I have been honored to defend this hill with you!
Drums...I hear...Drums! They're coming Peter!

[volfan007]

What a link! Thanks again, Peter, for telling us about this. I'm with Craig; they are coming. They never miss a beat to attack in a viscious and mean fashion.

Get ready.

David

[Brian Hutchinson]

This is getting to be like a Roman gladiator event ... and this is what the body of Christ looks like to the world? God help us!

If I had heard about the Caner situation but didn't know many details, I might be inclined to take stock in Dr. Geisler's defense of him given his reputation. But anyone that has taken the time to listen to Caner's messages and hear some of these claims "in context" knows better.

If Dr. Geisler's explanations are true and this really isn't such a big deal, then why have Focus On The Family take down the "From Jihad to Jesus" message that they recently rebroadcast? Why not host that message on Dr. Geisler's site or here?

Regards,

Brian

[Kyle in WI]

It seems to me Peter that James is your drug. You cant get enough of him. I would even say you are addict to White. You are as biased as MSNBC. It would be funny if where weren't all christians.