Index of Responses to Norman Geisler

Today, Norman Geisler expanded on his short Facebook defense of Ergun Caner with a lengthy piece at his website:

In Defense of Dr. Ergun Caner: A Response to His Critics, By Dr. Norman L. Geisler

James White has done a detailed 4 part analysis of Norm Geisler’s statement in defense of Ergun Caner:

Of Joseph Smith and Ergun Caner (Part 1)
Of Joseph Smith and Ergun Caner (Part 2)
Of Joseph Smith and Ergun Caner (Part 3)
Of Joseph Smith and Ergun Caner (Part 4)

TurretinFan has also responded to Geisler in 3 parts:

Responding to Norman Geisler’s Defense of Ergun Caner – Part 1
Responding to Norman Geisler’s Defense of Ergun Caner – Part 2
Wrapping Up Geisler’s Defense of Caner

While there is, predictably, a lot of overlap between the two series, each talks of things not mentioned by the other.

Lynchburg, We Have A Problem...

The train wreck that is Ergun Caner continues.

(Other posts on this subject: Like Watching a Train Wreck & The Caner File)

On Friday, May 21, 2010, I received an e-mail from Basyle Tchividjian, Assistant Professor of Law at the Liberty University School of Law regarding the investigation into Ergun Caner's multiple and contradictory biographical assertions. Professor Tchividjian worked as a prosecutor for 7 years in Florida. He then worked in a private law practice, also in Florida, before joining the faculty at Liberty University School of Law.

Mr. Clyatt:

A colleague and I have been asked by the LU administration to investigate the various claims against Ergun Caner. I have reviewed your site and found it extremely helpful as you link the primary source to each allegation. The purpose of this note is to inquire whether you or anyone else for that matter has;

1. Made any contact with Jerry Tackett, the individual who allegedly led Ergun Caner to Christ. Do we know if he has verified Ergun’s conversion account?


2. Made any contact with Ergun’s brother, Erdem, and verified anything about their upbringing?


3. Confirmed Ergun’s claims regarding his post high school education?


4. Talked with anyone who knew Ergun during high school, college, or post-secondary school prior to 9-11?

Mr. Clyatt, we would appreciate if you could keep this email and the enclosed inquiries confidential. It is our objective to seek and obtain the truth during this investigation. Our God is too holy to allow us to do anything short of that objective. Much thanks.

Peace.

Basyle 'Boz' Tchividjian
Assistant Professor of Law
Liberty University School of Law

I sent the following reply to Professor Tchividjian on Saturday, May 22, 2010:

Mr. Tchividjian,

Thank you for your kind words regarding my blog; I tried to be accurate and thorough.

However, all I did was compile the research done by others. I’ve not attempted to contact Jerry Tackett or Mark Caner. Nor have I looked into Ergun Caner’s academic records. As you are no doubt aware, the bulk of the research was done by Jason Smathers and TurretinFan.

I will respect your wishes to keep this e-mail private until the investigation is complete. Know that I am praying for God to guard the integrity of all who are involved in this investigation, and for the truth to be honored.

God Bless,

~Squirrel
Gene Clyatt Jr.
A Squirrel in Babylon

Well, it seems that Liberty University has concluded their investigation into the Ergun Caner situation. With that conclusion, my agreement to keep Professor Tchividjian's e-mail confidential is also concluded. I am grateful that Professor Tchividjian found my compilation of information helpful. I agree with him that "Our God is too holy to allow us to do anything short of... seek[ing] and obtain[ing] the truth." I have no doubt that Professor Tchividjian and his colleague did just that.

I also have no doubt that Dr. Ron Godwin and the committee that he formed know exactly what the truth is in this matter. What they have done with this knowledge still kind of boggles my mind a bit.

Ergun Caner has been removed from the office of President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. He will, however, remain as a full professor, at least for the 2010/2011 school year.

Here's the full text of Liberty University's statement announcing their actions:

After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory.

However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence.

Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.

Dr. Caner’s current contractual term as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary expires on June, 30, 2010.

Dr. Caner will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

The university has offered, and Dr. Caner has accepted, an employment contract for the 2010-2011 academic year. Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a professor.

Right away, we see that Liberty University is trying to minimize Dr. Caner's position at the school. The statement says, "Dr. Caner will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary." Yet the biography at LBTS's website listed Dr. Caner as "President and Dean of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School."

Then there is the phrase, "Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review." It sounds an awful lot like Caner's statement of February 25, 2010, in which he said, "through two decades of ministry and hundreds of sermons there exist discrepancies in my testimony. In all honesty, I probably could have saved them a lot of time and trouble. The truth is, I would be surprised if no discrepancies were discovered, given the hundreds of messages I have given during all that time!"

This is nothing less than classically Clintonesque. “Misstatements” are things like saying “San Diego” when you meant to say “San Bernardino,” and “discrepancies” are saying something happened at 10 o’clock in the morning to one group and saying that the same event happened at 3 o’clock in the afternoon to another group. In other words, normal mistakes that any public speaker could make, and all public speakers do make, sooner or later. Dr. Caner's actions are something on a different order all together.

In February, Dr. Caner said, "I have never intentionally misled anyone." No, what Dr. Caner, did is called lying. He has deliberately, repeatedly, & knowingly told audiences things about himself & his upbringing that he knew were untrue. Whether he lied for financial gain or in an effort to obtain some sort of ego gratification is immaterial. Why he lied really does not matter. He lied, and the powers at Liberty University know that he lied. To say, "I have never intentionally misled anyone," is just another lie.

Instead of addressing Caner's lies head on, Liberty University has chosen to, once again, try to sweep the whole mess under the rug. Knowing that the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore completely, Liberty University has made a token gesture in an attempt to appease their critics. There doesn't seem to be any consideration at all among Liberty's leadership about trying to please a Holy God.

Let me address Liberty's leadership directly for a moment. Why all the obfuscation, Liberty University? Vague hints at “factual statements that are self-contradictory,” and unspecific references to clandestine apologies "for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review" in the face of the overwhelming mountain of documentation of Ergun Caner's interminable pattern of dishonesty before multiple church audiences over a period of almost 9 years seems inadequate. If you're trying to save face, it is backfiring. As James White said, "While I am thankful that Liberty has at least confessed that there is, in fact, an elephant in the room, when are they going to get around to explaining how he got there?"

And why extend Dr. Caner a professorship for a year? You can't have liars lead the school, but you think that it is okay for them to teach there? Is there a different standard of integrity for administrators then for faculty members? Or for students? Back in 2001, Notre Dame fired George O'Leary as football coach for falsifying his resume, and, just recently, Texas A&M senior vice president for administration Alexander Kemos resigned when his claims to have been a US Navy SEAL were shown to be false. Are your moral, ethical, and academic standards less then theirs? As I tweeted last Friday, “Retaining @ErgunCaner in a professorship damages LU's academic integrity (what they've got left...) What's he gonna teach? Lying 101?”

God’s standard is to do what is right, without favoritism or partiality. Deuteronomy 1:16-17 says, "Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, 'Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.'” Has Liberty’s judgment is this matter been righteous or impartial?

A lot of people have asked me, "What do you want to see happen?" That’s a good question, and it deserves an honest answer. The short answer is that I want to see “fruit in keeping with repentance.” (Matthew 3:8)

Here’s the long answer:

I would like to see:

1. A public statement from Dr. Caner in which he admits, without any prevarication, that he intentionally and repeatedly lied in order to inflate his testimony and embellish his conversion story (& an apology for the same.)


2. His immediate resignation from the faculty of Liberty University as a sign of contrition for having intentionally and repeatedly lied in order to inflate his testimony and embellish his conversion story.


3. A tour of all the churches to which he intentionally and repeatedly lied in order to inflate his testimony and embellish his conversion story to make public restitution by telling them the unvarnished truth this time.


4. An honest and forthright version of his testimony and the story of his upbringing in Ohio in a broken home. (The truth is actually a very compelling story, from what I’ve been able to put together from the bits and pieces I can find.)


5. I would like to see a statement from Ergun Caner's brother Emir Caner, president of Truett-McConnell College, explaining his role in aiding and abetting Ergun Caner's lies. (Over the years, they spoke at many of the same events. There is no way that Emir was ignorant of Ergun's penchant for lying.)

At this point, I think that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see any of that. There are two possibilities that I do see happening.

1. Dr. Caner, Liberty University, & everyone else involved completely refuse to say anything more on the subject. Liberty University’s academic integrity continues to erode, and Liberty University fades into insignificance as pastors stop recommending it and parents stop sending their children there to be educated.

Or

2. The public discussion of Dr. Caner’s lack of integrity and Liberty University’s lack of male anatomy in dealing with Dr. Caner’s lack of integrity continues, and the continued pressure that results causes Dr. Caner to resign for undisclosed "personal reasons” and Liberty University tries to ignore the whole thing.

I would like nothing better than to stop talking about Ergun Caner and Liberty University. I've listened to more Ergun Caner sermons than I ever wanted to, believe me! And I'm more than tired of the accusations of ulterior motives being ascribed to myself and others as to the "real reasons" we're "going after" Ergun Caner. Yes, I'd love to be done with it all, but, unfortunately, I don't think this train wreck is over just yet.

[There are a many others who have commented on this situation, some that I think are worthy of your attention are; James White, Carla Rolfe, Rosemarie, & Daniel Spratlin.]

Must Read Stuff on Ergun Caner

TurretinFan has posted more documents for The Caner File over at Thoughts of Francis Turretin. If you are following this story, you need to read this.

Who Is Ergun Caner?

Professing to be wise…

Professing to be wise, they became fools,
(Romans 1:22 NASB)

Last Friday night, Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries, debated Dr. Robert Price, fellow of the Jesus Seminar on the topic of “Is the Bible True?” with Dr. White in the affirmative, and Dr. Price taking the negative. And I have some thoughts…

Oh, not on the debate, I wasn’t there. I look forward to listening to it just as soon as the .mp3’s become available. (Until then, try these!) No, I have some thoughts on an atheist’s comments that were posted online after the debate. You see, yesterday, I did a Google search on the debate, to see what various reviewers were saying, and my search turned up the Free2Think Atheists, Humanists & Freethinkers forum (WARNING: this site contains certain monosyllabic words that always get bleeped on television.) The site is a forum for atheist discussion & “Killer Bud” posted his observations from the debate, which he attended.

In reading through his account, I was first struck by something “Killer Bud” said about his encounter with an unidentified Christian who tried to share the Gospel with him before the debate. “Killer Bud” said, “I had explained to him that it was not just some extemporaneous decision, and that my choice to be an atheist was well thought out.” So, his decision to become an atheist was “well thought out”? After some sort of thorough investigation as to the truth claims of Christianity and other religions?

But, no, it seems that is not the case. Later, as he is discussing the debate itself, “Killer Bud” writes, “To be honest, I had a hard time following a lot of it because I do not know much about the bible. They were quoting Hezekiah, Jeremiah, and I swore I heard Aunt Jemimah [sic]. I realize they both were really educated in biblical stuff but all that Matthew, Acts, and Corinthians stuff just kind of ran together for this laymen [sic] to follow.” Golly! He made a “well thought out” decision to reject the Bible with little or no Biblical knowledge to work from! Huh…

Then, later in the forum, “jedg.1987” said, “But yea, there was a good portion of it that was way over my head, and you have to imagine that if it was over the head of us atheists, the people who actually tend to study the Bible somewhat critically, it had to have gone over the head of 90% of the Christians there.”

Wait, atheists are the ones who “ actually tend to study the Bible somewhat critically ”?! If the debate is over their heads, then the Christians sure wont understand it? Well, sure, because atheists’re so much smarter than any dumb Christian, right? Yeah… Right…

The arrogance displayed in their ignorance is stunning! Atheists love to style themselves as intellectual & informed free thinkers, yet, truthfully, they are often uninformed and their ability to think is always in bondage to their sin.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
(2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NASB)

I am praying that God will open these atheists' eyes.

If It Was A Song, CT's Article Would Be Off Key

I’ve been wondering for a while just how long it would take before national media outlets got around to the Ergun Caner story. It’s the kind of story many reporters dream of, with Lies and Corruption in High Places. It fits most all the templates established since Watergate. The more that becomes known about Ergun Caner, the more enticing the story must look to a good reporter.

I’d been watching the story pick up steam for several months in the blogosphere, and, two weeks ago, after finally writing about it myself, I received a request from John W. Kennedy of Christianity Today for an interview, which I granted. As you can imagine, I’m not at all accustomed to getting calls from the press, but my interview with Mr. Kennedy was quite pleasant and professional.

Well, yesterday, Mr. Kennedy’s article for Christianity Today’s was posted on line. I’ve read it carefully, and I have a few thoughts and a few questions.

First, he did quote me accurately & I thank him. I stand by what I said. But I must say that I find the whole focus of the article to be very much “off target,” beginning with the title itself.

The article is titled “Bloggers Target Seminary President” when it really should be “Seminary President’s Dishonesty Exposed”. The actions of bloggers in uncovering Caner’s… um… embellishments, while interesting, is totally secondary. It might have made a good sidebar to the main article, but it isn’t the main thing here. The whole tone of the article – “Well, look at that! People are asking questions! I wonder why?” – is off the mark.

CT’s article also makes it sound as if a bunch of Calvinists were going after Caner because he opposes Calvinist doctrine. This is an attempt to deflect away from the real issue, which is Caner's record of dishonesty. If the charges are true, the theological position of the person bringing the charges is irrelevant. It is just a red herring. In regards to myself, sure I disagree with Caner's stance on Calvinism, but there are a lot of other publically known pastors, preachers, and teachers, with whom I have theological differences, but whose integrity I have absolutely no reason to question. The real story should be about Dr. Caner’s nine-year penchant for bending the truth about his past.

Mr. Kennedy completely fails to deal with any of the evidence which has been gathered and documented that shows Dr. Caner’s pattern of falsehood. I know that Mr. Kennedy spoke with Jason Smathers; both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Smathers told me so. Why is none of the evidence that Mr. Smathers collected discussed in the piece? It’s not like these are wild, unsubstantiated rumors, Mr. Smathers has gathered court records and other documents that directly contradict the timeline presented in Dr. Caner's readily available speeches on audio and video.

As the left-wing atheistic People for the American Way put it, “These are no vague or reckless charges, but carefully documented exposés that draw from Caner’s sermons, speeches, and online videos, and other public records.” If worldlings (c.f. 1 John 2:15)can understand what this story is really about, why doesn’t Christianity Today “get it?”

While both Ergun & Emir Caner declined to speak to Christianity Today (maybe the first time ever that Ergun Caner has turned down a request for an interview by a national media outlet), we now have official statements from Liberty University, in the person of Dr. Elmer Towns.

Dr. Towns, age 77, was co-founder, along with Jerry Falwell, of Liberty University back in 1971, and now serves as Vice President of Liberty University & Dean of Liberty’s School of Religion. According to Christianity Today, Dr. Towns and the Board of Directors of Liberty University “are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate.” Theologically inappropriate? What in tarnation does that mean?

"It's not an ethical issue, it's not a moral issue," Christianity Today quotes Dr. Towns as saying. "We give faculty a certain amount of theological leverage. The arguments of the bloggers would not stand up in court." Repeatedly lying over a period of nine years is not an ethical or moral issue? A pattern of distorting the truth is simply “theological leverage?” Wow! I shudder to think how far someone might have to go before Dr. Towns would classify his actions as unethical or immoral!

And, as far as the evidence that has been gathered “not stand(ing) up in court,” I think that it fully accords to established rules of evidence and easily meets the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” required in civil court, and would, in my decidedly unlawyerly opinion, also meet the standard of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” required in criminal cases.

Further, Christianity Today reports that Dr. Towns believes that these are just attacks against Caner because of his opposition to the “Camel Method” of evangelizing Muslims. That doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory of examinations. Dr. Caner made his publicized remarks about the “Camel Method” in February of this year, yet James White was asking for help locating recordings of Ergun Caner’s debates over four months prior, back in October of 2009. Also, Dr. White has stated that he pretty much agrees with Dr. Caner’s opinion of the “Camel Method.”

Dr. Town’s statements, as reported by Christianity Today, raise new questions as to just how in touch Liberty University’s leadership really is with what is going on, and Liberty University’s academic integrity is now even more in doubt.

I have no doubt that Dr. Caner and Liberty University want this to just all go away. Who wouldn’t? But it isn’t going to go away. The situation continues, and needs to be dealt with honestly, forthrightly, and soon.

Postscript:
Because it was mentioned in the article, I want to briefly discuss the proposed resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention that I brought up quoted here. I exchanged e-mails with the author of the proposed draft resolution. He told me that he has been advised by good and Godly leaders in the SBC, not necessarily friends of Ergun Caner's, not to pursue such a resolution. As the CT article stated, "But in recent years, the SBC Committee on Resolutions has ruled as out of order nearly all efforts against individuals." So, don't look for anything to come to the floor at the Convention regarding this matter. (And I just caught this... I didn't tell CT that a blogger had written the draft, that is an assumption on Mr. Kennedy's part.)
Also:
James White, Fred Butler, & Tom Chantry all weighed in on the Christianity Today article yesterday.

More Questions in Search of Answers

I have a friend in Ireland who has, along with Jason Smathers, been responsible for gathering much of the information that has confirmed that Ergun Caner has been “embellishing” his testimony. I’ve listened to way more Ergun Caner audio recordings than I ever wanted too, but I probably haven’t listened to a tenth of what my friend has.

While my friend has gathered all of this information, he does not blog. He also wishes to remain anonomous. So, in light of yesterday’s Focus on the Family broadcast, while I have no intention of A Squirrel in Babylon becoming a “Caner Watchblog”, I did want to bring you the following information from our guest blogger.

Squirrel

---

More Questions in Search of Answers

by Squirrel’s Friend in Ireland

Ergun Caner has been a popular speaker at hundreds of events and has related his Christian testimony numerous times on audio, video and in book too. Ergun has claimed that although he was born in Sweden he was 100% Turkish.

Emir, his youngest brother, is similar to Ergun in that he too has entered academia and speaks at many events. Emir Caner has told his testimony several times in audio recordings that are available on the internet.

One such testimony was contained within a sermon preached apparently on Sept 20, 2009 entitled “Isaiah 9:2-6; The God Who Draws Near”. In his testimony Emir states, “I am Turkish, my father was Turkish and my mother is Swedish.” He then goes on to state that he was born in America unlike his two older brothers. His name, Emir Fethi, was chosen by his father and it apparently means “The Prince of Islamic Conquest.”

Emir also speaks that his parents came to America to build mosques and his father Acar was the architect of the mosque in Columbus, Ohio. However there is some new material presented because he reveals his mother came from a Swedish Lutheran background and was a convert to Islam. However Emir reveals on her arrival in America she soon rejected Islam in favour of universalism and became a hippy and effectively Karen Carpenter became her god. This appears to be what is at the root of previously documented disputes with her husband Acar over the religious upbringing of their sons. The boys’ grandmother was also Swedish Lutheran but Emir describes her as having pluralistic beliefs.

Emir makes mention that at one stage his grandmother was in a nursing home while he was pastoring in Wood, North Carolina but he believed he should invite her to come and stay with his family. His reasoning being that his grandmother took care of him for many years. Whether this was because of the marital breakdown is not specified but it would not be surprising if it had occurred because Monica, his mother, was working. According to Emir, his grandmother could only speak Swedish.

For the three boys Emir says American culture was somewhat alien and they used the television to acclimatize to it. Emir specifies that the 3 American cultural reference points they used on TV were the Andy Griffith’s show, wrestling and football. This differs from Ergun’s account played on the April 22, 2010 Dividing Line where Ergun states that Andy Griffiths was a window on to American culture when they lived in Turkey.

The Caner boys’ Swedish grandmother and their mother became Christians after the boys did. The boys’ father Acar rejected his sons because of their new faith but eventually news broke that he was dying of cancer and so the three sons paid a final visit to see him. Emir reveals that Acar was pleased to renew acquaintance with his sons but he was obstinate that the name of Christ could not be mentioned and he presented them with Qur’ans.

It is interesting that Ergun blots this detail out of his testimony about how devoted the family were to Islam. Ergun has said that his mother continued to wear the hijab the Islamic head covering until she removed it in the baptistery on the occasion of her baptism. The puzzling aspect of this is that if she had rejected Islam for a hippy lifestyle then why would she continue to use Islamic dress? Is this aspect of the Caners’ upbringing omitted as it suggests they may not have had such a strict Islamic upbringing as Ergun has previously stated?

---

Well, there you have it. More questions the need to be answered. The thing that gets me is the ongoing defense that is being mounted on behalf of the Caners. At Grace and Truth to You, Pastor Wade Burleson wrote on Monday, “The notion that there are no integrity issues that need addressed in Ergun Caner's background is ludicrous. The evidence is irrefutable. Only sycophants and ignoramuses in the Southern Baptist Convention will deny that there is a problem.” And, “Some pretty high profile people have pushed the Caners to the top of the academic world and the speaking circuit of the SBC. If the Caners' integrity is in question, either Ergun's or both Ergun's and Emir's, then there will be some pretty embarrassed high profile Southern Baptists.”

In Pastor Burleson’s comment thread, I wrote:

You know, I can "get" the Caners and LU buttoning up like turtles and hoping this goes away. Embarrassment is one of the hardest things any of us ever have to face. Especially when we've done it to ourselves.

What i don't get is guys like Tim Guthrie who, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, keep hanging it out in public. Reminds me of "Baghdad Bob" – "There are no (BOOM) American troops (Sound of aircraft & bombs) in Iraq, let alone (Sound of tanks driving by) in Baghdad!"

Inconceivable.

Squirrel

The evidence is mounting & questions continue to be asked. These questions are not going to go away without satisfactory answers. Doctors Caner, we are waiting.

Like Watching a Train Wreck…

Truthful lips will be established forever, But a lying tongue is only for a moment.
(Proverbs 12:19 NASB)

It’s ugly, and it’s only going to get uglier. You know it’s not something that you really want to see, but you just can’t look away. You keep wondering what’s going to happen next.

I’m speaking of the fact that, for many years now, Dr. Ergun Caner, President of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, Virginia, has been “embellishing” his “testimony” at various and sundry venues at which he has spoken. Dr. Caner’s untruthfulness is so widespread, and so well documented, that it is undeniable. It seems that, shortly after September 11, 2001, Dr. Caner began to tell audiences things about his background that were less then truthful. In all likelihood, Dr. Caner, responding to a growing interest in all things Muslim in a post 9/11 world, began stressing his Islamic background and distorting his personal history in what can only be described as a quest for self-promotion, celebrity, and ego gratification. It appears that, for Dr. Caner, image often trumps truth.

I understand dishonesty, as it is a sin I have battled often. I understand the temptation to lie in order to make one’s self seem something more. I, too, have felt the desire to “improve” upon a story, to exaggerate a claim, or otherwise bolster something that might be considered lack-luster. And, if you’re honest with yourself, you know you’ve felt that temptation yourself upon occasion. It is part of our fallen nature, and I’d bet a pile of premium walnuts that everyone who is reading these words has told somebody, somewhere, something that they knew wasn’t true. We’re all guilty of lying, that’s not the point.

The point is that a very public person in the Christian community has been caught lying repeatedly, in speech and in print. It cannot just be ignored, as the entire situation brings reproach on the cause of Christ.

Shortly after questions about Dr. Caner’s false statements were made public, Dr. Caner issued a statement. I’d love to tell you what exactly it said, but, less than a month after it was posted, it was removed from his website. His biography was also removed at the time that the statement was issued.

After weeks of “404 – file not found”, a new & much stripped down biography of Dr. Ergun Caner has been posted at his website. Long gone are demonstrably false statements like, “ Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in thirteen countries and thirty-five states,” to be replaced by a brief bare-bones factual account that contains none of the self-serving aggrandizements of the former biography.

Here is the old bio from 2009: “Ergun Mehmet Caner (B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th.M., D.Min., Ph.D.) is president of the Liberty Theological Seminary at the Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as the son of a Muslim leader in Turkey, Caner became a Christian shortly before entering college. Serving under his Chancellor and President, Jerry Falwell Jr., Caner led the Seminary to triple in growth since his installation in 2005. A public speaker and apologist, Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in thirteen countries and thirty-five states. The author of seventeen books, Caner lives in Lynchburg with his wife Jill and two sons, Braxton and Drake.”

The new bio reads: “Ergun Caner is the President and Dean of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as a devout Sunni Muslim along with his two brothers, Caner converted in high school. After his conversion, he pursued his call to the ministry and education. He has a Masters degree from The Criswell College, a Master of Divinity and a Master of Theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Doctor of Theology from the University of South Africa. He has written numerous books with his brother, Dr. Emir Caner, who is the President of Truett-McConnell College, a Baptist college in Georgia”

Notice that the list of degrees has changed, mention of being “Raised as the son of a Muslim leader in Turkey” has been deleted (Caner, we now know, was born in Sweden and raised in Ohio since the age of four,) and that any mention of debates has been removed. There are also many recordings, both audio and video, of Dr. Caner, often speaking with a pronounced accent, claiming to have grown up in majority Muslim countries (Sweden and Ohio, I suppose,) having been trained as a Jihadist, etc. etc.

Dr. Caner’s response to all this seems to be ostrich-like. Likewise, Liberty University seems to be trying to ignore the whole thing, too. But sticking their heads in the sand and hoping this all just goes away, in addition to not being the proper Biblical response, doesn’t seem to be working. I’ve already been made aware of possible resolutions being brought to the floor at June’s meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention calling for the removal of fellowship with Dr. Caner & Liberty University by Southern Baptists until and unless there is public repentance. And Liberty University’s academic integrity should require Dr. Caner’s resignation from office, whether he repents publicly or not.

There have been some who have rushed to Dr. Caner’s defense. They say the attacks are "personal," that people are “out to get” Ergun Caner for this or that reason. But the evidence exists, and it does not favor the defense. The “circle the wagons” response we’ve been seeing in this situation will end up damaging all involved.

Those who follow Christ, who said of Himself, “I am the… Truth” (John 14:6), should be known for being truthful and standing for the truth. Scripture calls the body of Christ, “the pillar and support of the truth.” How can we, the body of Christ, stand for the truth, while enduring such dishonesty?

Dr. Caner, please, repent and resign.

I'm Hoping That They Are Wrong...

Since I'm not posting anything substantive today, I thought I'd point you towards some stuff that I think is worth reading. The Question of the Day seems to be, "Will America keep having elections?" and/or "Will America's elections remain free and fair?" We've seen ruthless power grabs in other countries, why are so many so certain that it cannot happen here?

Thomas Sowell writes, "What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That can be enough to make him a two-term president, who can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power."

Rush Limbaugh said yesterday, "They won because they held Congress and the presidency, and therein lies the lesson: We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out. We need to chase them out of town. But we need to do more than that. We need to elect conservatives. If there are Republican primaries, elect conservatives and then defeat the Democrats -- every last one of them -- and then we start the repeal process. And by "repeal," I mean use every single legislative and bureaucratic tactic we can muster to obstruct, derail, and defeat them. Just saying "repeal" does not make it happen. We're going to have to turn out en masse in November and stop these people. As you have seen, the law will not stop them, the Constitution will not stop them, hoping that they will do the right thing will not stop them because their definition of "the right thing" has nothing in common with ours."

Whistleblower Magazine shows, step by step, how the socialists (I refuse to call them "Democrats" anymore) could steal the next elections, and end liberty in the United States for the foreseeable future.

America stands at a crossroads. Liberty hangs in the balance. I really really don't want to say, "I told you so!" on my way to the gulag.

When Brakes Fail...

I was just getting ready for bed, was in bed, actually, when I felt the whole house shake. Then my Mom yelled down the stairs to our basement bedroom that my daughter had driven though the back wall of the garage. Mrs Squirrel and I threw on some clothes and ran outside to see the nose of Mandy's car sticking through the back wall of the garage and a very shaken Mandy sitting in the driver's seat with an amusingly stunned look on her face.


The driveway is steeply sloped downhill from the street to the garage, and her brakes failed on the hill. As it would happen, she had already hit the button to open the garage door (although I imagine replacing the door would have been less expensive then rebuilding the back wall.) It's also a good thing that Mandy parks in the end slot, as the other two parking places back up on the laundry room, and if she'd driven through that wall, she'd have been parking her car inside the house.



There were no injuries, and the damage could have been a lot worse. We have to wait until we get a contractor to shore up the wall before we can tow the car out. Then we'll have to assess the damage to both. But God is good, and, ultimately, this is a minor incident and easily reparable. This is why we pay those insurance premiums each month, right?

The Will, Free or Enslaved?

In the discussion in the comments section last week, the question of man’s free will came up. Does the Bible teach that man has a free will? And, if man’s will is not free, are we therefore just robots? I want to briefly address this before moving on to God’s unconditional election, as it is really part of the argument for the Total Depravity of Man.

First, we need to define what we mean by “free will.” Here’s one definition: free will noun 1: voluntary choice or decision “I do this of my own free will” 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention ("free will." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 3 August 2009 ) I would contend that the Bible teaches that, by the first definition, man does have free will, but man does not have free will by the second.

It is clear from the Bible that we all make the choices we make of our own volition, but it is also clear that our very nature makes it impossible for us to make choices other than the ones we make. Our sin nature would be classified as a “prior cause” under this definition. The Bible teaches that we have a will, but it is a will enslaved to sin, and this concept is found clearly in Romans 6.

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (Romans 6:17-22)

In this passage, Paul, clearly identifies the unregenerate (and the regenerate prior salvation) as being in a condition of enslavement to sin. What does it mean to be enslaved to sin? In his commentary on Romans, John MacArthur puts it this way:

“(T)he unregenerate person is under the continual, unbroken slavery of sin. That is the universal position of the natural man, with no exceptions. No matter how outwardly moral, upright, or benevolent an unsaved person’s life may be, all that he thinks, says, and does emanates from a proud, sinful, ungodly heart. Quoting from Psalm 14, Paul had already made that truth clear. ‘As it is written, “there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good there is not even one”’ (Romans 3:10-12)” (MacArthur, John. Romans [volume 1]. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991. Page 346)

So the unregenerate will is unable to do good, nor is it able to change itself from bad to good. As it says in Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.” That seems to be a pretty clear declaration that we are unable to change ourselves. Do you see how clearly this fits with the Ephesians 2 concept of being “dead in our trespasses and sins”?

Unfortunately, while grappling with this issue, many people erroneously reach the conclusion that Biblical predestination is deterministic fatalism. However, this is not the case. You see, the Scriptures make two things very clear; 1) God is a personal God, and not an impersonal force. He takes a personal interest in guiding and watching over each and every one of us. And 2) man is never portrayed as a robot, but as a being freely choosing his actions, and fully deserving the consequences of his actions. The invitation of the gospel is truly offered to all men. The problem is that all men, each and every one of us, would, if left on our own, freely reject that offer.

Fatalism also carries with it the idea that, no matter what we do, our actions cannot affect the predetermined outcome. But on the contrary, the Bible teaches that we are real people making real choices that do indeed affect the outcome. Our choices have consequences.

The Bible teaches that man has a will; it just is not a free will. In fact, you might say that man’s willfulness is a big part of man’s sinfulness. We are willfully disobedient to God. So where did this idea of a free will come from? The answer seems to lie more in philosophy than in Scripture. The idea goes something like this, “God gives a command | God holds man responsible for obeying the command | Therefore man must have the ability to obey the command in order to be held responsible for it.” Neat idea, but it isn’t found in the Bible.

The problem with this argument is that man is capable of understanding God’s commands; he simply chooses not to obey. This can be easily demonstrated by taking any group of people through a detailed study of the 10 Commandments. Everybody in the group, Baring severe physiological mental incapacity, will understand that stealing is wrong, yet all in the group will have willfully taken something at some time that they knew was not theirs. And, truthfully, the same can be demonstrated for the other nine commandments as well.

John Macarthur puts it this way, “the unsaved person is not free to do good or evil as he chooses. He is bound and enslave to sin, and the only thing he can do is to sin. His only choices have to do with when, how, why, and to what degree he will sin.” (MacArthur. Romans. Page 344)

Let’s be honest, the truth is that without God’s gracious restraint imposed upon us, we would all be much, much worse than we are.

So, in a nutshell, what the Bible says is this: that man is sinful, lost, and hell bound, and there is nothing he can do about it. This is the bad news that makes the Gospel truly the “good news” that it really is! And until and unless we can truly convey this lostness to the people we are evangelizing, they will not accept just how in need of help they really are.

Defending Dordt

Part I

Late last week, I received an e-mail containing a link to an article “refuting” Calvinism by King James Only advocate David Cloud. The person who sent me the link, not a Calvinist herself, knows that I am a Calvinist, and wanted my opinion on the article. While I had heard the name in regards to King James Onlyism, I had never read any of Mr. Cloud’s writings before. I was most pleased to see that Mr. Cloud’s writings were, in contrast to the abundant vitriol of many in the King James Only camp, reasonable in tone & less of an “attack piece” then I had expected.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cloud, poor arguments and incorrect conclusions, however well written they are, are still poor arguments and incorrect conclusions.

I’ve given a lot of thought to how best to respond to Mr. Cloud’s position. I could go through Cloud’s arguments, and answer each in turn, but that has already been done, and done well, here. My apologetic methodology has always been to basically just tell people what I believe, and why I believe it, and let them do with that information what they will. So I’ve decided, instead, to present a positive defense of what is known as the 5 Points of Calvinism. For, if I can show that the doctrines that we collectively know as Calvinism are Biblical, then Mr. Cloud will stand refuted.

But, throughout my positive defense of Calvinism, I will address certain of Mr. Clouds errors along the way.

Before we begin: some preliminaries. I am a Calvinist. What does that mean? When I say that I am a Calvinist, I mean that I hold to the 5 Solas of the reformation (Sola Fide - by faith alone; Sola Scriptura - by Scripture alone; Solus Christus - by Christ alone; Sola gratia - by grace alone; Soli Deo gloria - glory to God alone,) and to the 5 points as codified at the Synod of Dordt in 1618-1619, and that is all I mean. I’m not an expert on Calvin, his life or his theology. I know that my theology differs from his on a few points, including baptism and eschatology. While I do own a copy of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, I have not read it cover-to-cover, nor studied it in depth. (I do intend to at some point. I even downloaded a lecture series on Calvin’s Institutes from Covenant Theological Seminary, but I haven’t listened to it yet.)

Also, I am not an expert on Church History. In fact, I’m not an accomplished scholar in any field. I’m just a humble country preacher who’s trying to do the best that he can. So, if you’re expecting some doctrinal dissertation, you’re in the wrong place. Just so you know.

It is my intention to break this into several parts. We’ll just stick with the TULIP order, for convenience and familiarity, if for no other reason. Today, I’ll introduce our subject.

Introduction: Why 5 points?

John Calvin never reduced his theology to five points, and the 5 points do not encapsulated Calvin’s entire theology, but deal only with the questions of “Who does God save?” and “How does God save them?” Calvin died in 1564, but the “5 points” didn’t come to be until 1618-19, during the Synod of Dordt, which was held in Dordrecht, Holland, in response to the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his followers, who published the 5 Articles of Remonstrance (re•mon•strance noun 1: an earnest presentation of reasons for opposition or grievance [Webster’s]) in 1610, the year after Arminius died.

It was 8 years later, during the winter of 1618-1619, that the Synod of Dordt met to address the Remonstrants’ articles. They met in session 154 times, from November 13th, 1618 to May 9th, 1619. The results of their deliberations were published as The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands, commonly known as the Canons of Dordt. The Canons were never intended to be a comprehensive or exhaustive treatment of Calvinist theology, but were narrowly focused on the issues brought up by the Remonstrants. The point being that it was the Arminian Remonstrants, not the Calvinists, who first developed 5 points, which are the polar opposites of the Calvinist’s TULIP.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Cloud is correct when he says that the TULIP acronym did not appear until the 1700's, and was developed as a memory aid. A brief web search does not reveal exactly when, where, or by whom the TULIP was planted.

Mr. Cloud made a point of saying that, while he is certainly not a Calvinist, he is also not an Arminian. And I understand that. There are people who sit somewhere between 5-point Calvinists and 5-point Arminians, so that is not really an issue. But Cloud takes issue with Calvinists’ “black and white thinking.” Well, the real heart of the issue is Monergism vs. Synergism, and that is a black or white issue.

Monergism (“mono” - one + “erg” - work - the work of one, or working alone) is the doctrine that salvation is entirely God’s work from start to finish. He begins it and He accomplishes it. Man adds nothing to his salvation, and can take absolutely no credit for any part of it. It is all God’s doing, and to Him belongs all the glory.

Synergism (“syn” - together or with + “erg” - work - to work together, cooperate) is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man. In order for a person to be saved, God has done His part, but the individual must do his. Synergism says that the human will and the divine Spirit work together in the act of regeneration.

That is the heart of the issue; Those are the two sides of this debate. I hope, by the time we’re done, that you will have gotten a good understanding of both sides.