Monday, May 17, 2010

The Proper Ergun Caner Inquiry

With all the trash talking Calvinist bloggers crucifying Dr. Ergun Caner following the discovery of some inconsistencies with his personal bio, it is refreshing to see his employer and spiritual home look into the matter themselves absent the biased innuendo and personal animosity and grievances of certain Calvinists, some of who relish in this controversy. If Caner is indeed guilty of various embellishments, he will need to repent of this and assess his current standing. It would be unfortunate because Dr. Caner is a talented and blessed evangelist for Christ from all reasonable accounts. I do not know the man and I have no connections with Liberty University except having lived off Candlers Mountain Road in Lynchburg when the University was still a fledgling school with a growing student body many years ago. Caner was still a young fellow then and the Moral Majority was still in its infancy. I was also not a Christian at the time so I viewed the school as an oddity and, well, just plain weird. I have since come to Christ and view schools such as Liberty to be beacons for Christ in the midst of squalor. It is a sad reflection on the church as a whole to have sectarian zealots airing their dirty laundry, especially so when one of the principle parties has been fostering a bickering animosity toward Caner, the late Jerry Falwell and Liberty University in general. While I am expressing an opinion, I'll just state it openly. The Calvinist community should be ashamed of this smearing campaign regardless of whether or not the allegations are true. James White has made a career of swinging his callous sword throughout the house of God for his own personal promotion and advancement. I believe the best thing Liberty University could do is proceed with their investigation and dismiss the self serving smear campaigns of the anti-evangelicals whose purpose strikes me as an intention to do harm to the body of Christ.

Here is a link to a local AP story on this matter.

I will make this last observation for my own purpose. Before I came to Christ, I would have relished what these Calvinists were doing to the Liberty University community. The reason for that is I was an enemy of Christ and anything that opposed the work of God would be stirred in my soul by the father of lies. Today, the Muslim anti-evangelicals, whom these zealots have utilized in their private battle, can only be pleased with what White and his sect are doing. The atheists, the God haters and the carnal, dead world in general are arm and arm with White and his mission. That should cast a pall over the whole stinking mess. When it is over, who is going to haul the schismatics before the elders of the church and hold them accountable for the entertainment they proffered to the world?


Andrew D said...

"James White has made a career of swinging his callous sword throughout the house of God for his own personal promotion and advancement."

Question for you A.M. Mallet: How are you treating James White any different than his alleged treatment of Ergun Caner? In the above quote and elsewhere, you do the very thing you accuse White of doing to Caner.

You characterize this Ergun-Caner-integrity-issue as if it were a campaign by nefarious Calvinists. Did you know that Muslims, Calvinists, even *gasp* LIBERALS can sometimes make true observations? For instance, they might notice a public figure is manufacturing phony stories. They might ask questions. Has that profound thought crossed your mind? Seriously, even atheists can make true observations.
Is the ASSOCIATED PRESS a Calvinist organization? Christianity Today? The Lynchburg News & Advance? Are you paranoid and delusional?! Because this has never been about Calvinism.

The man (Ergun) is on record lying about dozens of significant points in his "testimony", and these are the same lying illustrations he uses to point unbelievers to the Lord...

...and here you are blathering on like a crazy person about "them Calvinists". Come on, in your heart you must know better!

A.M. Mallett said...

It sure did not take long for the White sect to arrive. Is it your position that White's deliberate misrepresentation of Arminian and other Non-Calvinist doctrine is a fair and educated presentation by a man interested in unity of the faith and honest discourse? I would state without hesitation that he is either utterly ignorant of Arminian theology or he is a liar. You can make the choice.
This is a campaign by Calvinists. It has been fueled by James White since White backed out of a public debate with Caner over a 10 minute time issue. The animosity is there for anybody to witness.

Now, enough of White. My primary interest is in how fellows such as yourself reconcile your supposed Christian character after crawling out of bed with Muslims and the world. Do you not realize you have embraced the world in this quest and that the world relishes your schisms? This should have been a private matter in the church and not embraced by Mosques, secular media and sectarian internet Calvinists on a mission.
Wake up and look at what you are a part of.

Andrew D said...

Please reread my orignial comment and try again. I forgive you for the ad-hominems. Just move on and knock it off.

Please demonstrate some contrition by interacting with the substance of the comment and leave ME. I am not the issue.

White's past alleged baggage is not the issue either. Even Satan himself utters truthful statements (he mixes them among lies). This is why we need discernment. Nobody is 100% false or 100% true all of the time, except Jesus. So it really doesn't matter WHO has accused Ergun of lying. If the evidence is Ergun speaking falsehoods to crowds of people on TV, it does not matter if a a false teacher calls his bluff.

Jay Van Til said...

Again, please take White on with the Bible.

You have again chosen to take this to the personal level and not the theological level.

You, first of all, cannot call this a Calvinist thing, since there are plenty of Arminians that are not accused of lying about their past by Calvinists. Hence, there is not in the Calvinist armory a "go after his background" weapon.

Secondly, You seem not have looked at the evidence against Caner, which you seem not to care either way on the issue, and you seem not to want to represent White accurately or you would know the issue with the failed debate was over the thesis, time and format.

Please at least get the easy facts right, then we can have a more lively debate.

We waste a lot of time just correcting your facts.

A.M. Mallett said...

Andrew D,
You popped up on this rather semi public blog that serves another purpose than soliciting comments and did so fifty one minutes after I posted it. Some of us who have been around awhile have observed the Whitehead phenomenon repeat itself several times over.
If my assessment of the White vendetta against Caner (regardless of the charges made and the truthfulness of them) offends your sensibilities, then by all means, move on to another venue. Be blessed.

A.M. Mallett said...

The sectarians who have made a campaign of this matter have a history with Caner. There has been a good deal of acrimony in the theological disputes between White and Caner. Now that the smell of blood is in the air, I detect a considerable amount of glee on the part of these schismatics. That is the point of what I have stated. The blood thirst is an embarrassment regardless of the outcome of allegations and I find it reprehensible. Many of you do not and for myself that is a sad reflection on the church today.

As for theological issues regarding Calvinism, I am always fair game.

Jay Van Til said...

I have to wonder why you speak of "blood" in reference to the "schismatics" when they have first tried to contact Ergun personally, then after being rebuffed, they openly raise the questions, which it is ok for people like Peter Lumpkins to do, and then openly plead for him to repent.

Do you really think that White calling for Caner's repentence is the same as being out for blood?

You wrote: "This should have been a private matter in the church and not embraced by Mosques, secular media and sectarian internet Calvinists on a mission."

If you have read the history of this story, you would have seen that it began with personal pleas.

The real problem is taht it should not have taken a muslim and the secular media to goad Liberty into taking action.

This is the logical outcome and biblical outcome to this issue.

Ergun was contacted personally: did not repent.

Ergun was contacted by multiple people: did not repent.

His authority, Liberty, was contacted, or at least became aware of the allegations: they failed to do anything substantive. (Note the swift reverse from the Christianity Today article to the announcement about the investigation)

Now, since the allegations include statements made to millions of people on TV, Radio, Internet and in Print, the issue was taken to the Church Universal, since that is where the comments were made.

And, yes, I do believe these events have given the unbelievers the opportunity to blaspheme. Yes I do.

But, the Calvinists are not to blame.

The blame falls on Caner for the lies and the unwillingness to repent.

As I have said before, it should not have taken all of this "drama" for him to repent.

As I noted on the comments of my blog, I have witnessed a public Christian make a public sin, repent publicly, and quickly I might add, and be reconciled.

That can happen. It does happen. And, the reason is that Christians can and should forgive.

I look forward to our conversations when this is over. Hopefully, you and I will be noticing the dropping of the subject on Calvinsit sites, should the issues be Biblically resolved.

If it is and the attacks continue on sin repented of, I will be right with you condemning the unforgiveness.

Andrew D said...

I see no difference between:

A.M. Mallet's allegations of White


White's allegations of Caner

Therein appears to be gross hypocrisy that must be addressed before moving on.

A.M. Mallett said...

Andrew D,
I am a hypocrite for pointing out the hypocrisy of another who has attacked a member of the church, his spiritual home and mentor and now, you are a hypocrite for attacking me for being a hypocrite for ... on and on and on ...
Well, I will assume you have nothing else to say on the matter .. be blessed.

A.M. Mallett said...

I do not believe it is as simple as that. There is glee among many internet Calvinists over this matter and that is inexcusable.
As I have noted several times now, if Caner is found to be accountable for these allegations, he needs to be held as such and repent of them.
I would be curious to know what offense White suffered through Caner that gave him any standing to ever get involved in the matter.
In any event, I think it has run it's course and will remain in LU hands at this point.
Be blessed.

Andrew D said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A.M. Mallett said...

Andrew D,
I am guessing you did not read my last comment to you.

Well, I will assume you have nothing else to say on the matter .. be blessed.

Jay Van Til said...

Please take this into consideration.

I just say on James White's blog, I only bring this up as an example, where a pro-Ergun Caner indiviual used profanity and threats toward White.

Now, if I used the same kind of argument you have been using here, I could say, "See those Arminians out there are arrogant and schismatics."

But, you and I both know that is wrong.

If you have seen Calvinist blogs, name a few, please, that are actually doing what you say, they are not doing it because they are Calvinists. They are, if indeed what you say is true, sinning, because they are SINNERS.

This guy on White's site, if it is true, sinned because he is a sinner, NOT because he is and Arminian.

Please take on the Calvinists for Calvinism and the sinners for sin, but when you wrongly mix the two, you are in error, as anyone could find examples of someone in your camp.

I believe you can be reasonable here. I think you can handle yourself well, you seem to have a zealous heart, please focus you passions aright.

A.M. Mallett said...

I have been involved with Arminian apologetics for several years now. I do not believe there is a Calvinist argument I have not heard. I have read or listened to just about every conceivable slander and libel a Calvinist can print or speak about Arminians. I truly believe I am better read of Calvinist systematics and theologians than your average Calvinist bear in a cave. As for White, I can tackle his nonsense or leave it. This animosity he is flaming and has been for the past three years now irks the daylights out of me. Just read his latest post on the matter. I want to vomit and I knew better than to read his junk.
You may indeed be right that I am allowing the personality to effect my posting.

Jay Van Til said...

I do indeed think you are having trouble differentiating between the two.

I can bring it to light by changing the words, as some people have done on other topics.

"I have been involved with Calvinist apologetics for several years now. I do not believe there is an Arminian argument I have not heard. I have read or listened to just about every conceivable slander and libel an Arminian can print or speak about Calvinists. I truly believe I am better read of Arminian systematics and theologians than your average Arminian bear in a cave."

Had I said that to you, what would you have thought?

Jay Van Til said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A.M. Mallett said...

I would have examined your knowledge to see if it was as extensive as you claim.

Jay Van Til said...

Good answer, but we both know that that comment lends nothing to the truth or falsity of the position and if valid at all, is equally valid on both sides leading to a stalemate.

You think too much to let things get personal.

A.M. Mallett said...

Jay wrote:
Good answer, but we both know that that comment lends nothing to the truth or falsity of the position and if valid at all, is equally valid on both sides leading to a stalemate.

I reply:
Well, there is always the evidence.

Jay Van Til said...

Exactly. And that is precisely what the people in the Caner controversy have been saying the entire time. Look at the audio, video, published and legal evidence. They haven't been saying take my word on it. They have said look at the evidence.

By the way, the Caner evidence is readily available.


A.M. Mallett said...

I have looked at the evidence and Dr. Caner needs to address these inconsistencies. I have not claimed otherwise. As you should well know, my concern is with those in the glass houses throwing the stones.

Jay Van Til said...

OK. I am pleased with our interaction on this subject. I will focus on our other discussion now.