Archive for the ‘ SlashQuotes ’ Category

Immorality and Brute Facts

My last post examined the bare assertions made by our erstwhile evolving atheist, Jason Burgoyne. In this post, we will examine the comment that he feels sufficiently answers the issues I raised with his eisegetical treatment of 2 Samuel 12, and his previous (now-removed, with the excuse that he failed to “check his source” sufficiently) post wherein he posts a fabricated substitution for a verse in the book of Numbers, as Staks Rosch suggests in this blog.

Unfortunately, the comment amounts to a rambling, emotive, and invective laden screed, devoid of logical argumentation of any sort whatsoever. A friend of mine calls this approach “the three As – asserting assertions assertively.”

He was offered an internal critique of his own position. Instead of answering the critique, he simply repeats the same naked assertions so often leveled by unbelievers. The lack of introspection evidenced in his response, and the amount of personal investment shown is also a clear sign of emotive, irrational argumentation – so-called.

Here is the justification offered for his superficial treatment, and question-begging. My comments will be interspersed throughout.

It was only meant to be a short look into the atrocities in the book that is meant to inform our morality (In the eyes of Christians).

What sense does “atrocity” make when you have no moral foundation save subjective, arbitrary fiat? What sense does it make for a naturalist, evolutionist, atheist to be speaking about subjects such as “morality”? Morality is an immaterial – has no evidence for it’s existence, per the mantra so often chanted by the materialist hordes.

To be speaking of “morality” is to be spouting gibberish, per their worldview. However, not only are we speaking of “morality”, but “atrocity”. What physical scale may we measure the morality of acts by? What empirical measure do we follow to arrive at the dividing line between “immoral” and “atrocious”?

Further, what ever gave you the idea that the Bible is meant merely to “inform” our morality?

It is pretty clear who the rapists would be (the neighbors who would lie with the wives in public)

You know, the neighbors. The word is רֵעַ – a close relative, a friend, someone intimate with you. In just a few chapters, Absalom, David’s son, fulfills this prophecy. If our friend here had done as I had suggested, he would know this. Further, he would know that the phrase “in broad daylight” (in the better translations) is, literally, in sight of the sun. Openly. The immediate context – ie: the very next verse – tells us how we are to understand this. David sinned secretly, but the usurper will sin *openly*. I always find is fascinating when unbelievers approach these issues as if we have no idea about them. This is probably one of the best-known scenes in all of Scripture. There are volumes upon volumes in print concerning just this one passage, and everything surrounding it. God is not saying “there will be a public orgy”. Such a thing makes absolutely no sense in the context of Israel. He’s saying that as he has taken another man’s wife from him, so another man will take his wives from him. Except, while David did so in secret – the other will do so openly.

and the immorality of striking down a CHILD with sickness is evident and needs no further examination.

Why? How does your worldview provide the preconditions for 1) any sort of conception of morality at all 2) a conception of morality which is non-subjective 3) a conception of morality which carries the “ought” along with it?

Second, by whose standard of “evidence”? I haven’t seen you give any evidence to *be* evident. You’ve merely proclaimed, by fiat, that such is the case. Why should anyone care that your opinion happens to be such?

Thirdly, who on earth ever told you facts were “brute” or “uninterpreted”? The central question in any debate is the meaning of the facts. You are simply assuming your own pet meaning for anything you encounter – but unlike me, you’re not laying your cards on the table. Simply calling names like “immoral” without justification for doing so is less that useless – it’s senseless.

The verse following clearly states that GOD strick him with illness and that he dies 7 days later YOu attempt to defend this immoral and terrible verse with a mocking look at how short it is, but no amount of explanation can undo the evil of killing a child who i innocent for the crime of another

Typing in all caps denotes yelling, thus giving the impression that you are being emotive in your assertions here – I decline to grace them with the term “arguments”. By your standard, every person who dies makes God a murderer. Such a standard is not only ludicrous, but egregiously arbitrary. Second, you use terms like “terrible” – on what grounds do you apply this to the actions of God? Third, you use “immoral”, yet again. You have yet to offer anything non-arbitrary as a supposed foundation for these seemingly odd assertions.

“Morality is a subjective conversation that best decides on how to enact the “My rights begin where yours end” tenet.” – From this post. Okay, so if morality is subjective – where do you get off telling anyone else what is and is not moral, please? Subjective morality is solely self-referential, by definition. Second, on what possible basis can this immaterial concept make any sense whatsoever in a naturalistic worldview? The very notion is absurd, when you are sufficiently self-reflective concerning the inconsistency between the various parts of your worldview.

Finally – I will note this only in passing – I sure hope our erstwhile atheist is against the murder of unborn children in the womb, for consistency’s sake in the immediate sense. Ultimately, however, he still has no reason to be.

Second, I have thanked you for pointing out my error in not checking my source for the original post, but you continue to delight in your childish victory after I apologized and posted a retraction.

Not in the slightest, and your insistence on seeing it as such begins to look like simple projection. Your “source” is entitled “create your own Bible verse”. I’m still finding it amazingly difficult to believe you could be that clueless. That boggles my imagination.

The point remained the same, and your defense of the actions that I referenced was weak and immoral.

The point remained the *same*? Gang rape as “penance” for sin? Penance is a Roman Catholic invention. There is no such thing in the Old Testament. The sacrifices atone for sins – a symbol pointing forward to the atonement of Christ to come, in which they have faith in as Old Testament believers. Further, repeated gang rape? Really? How is that even *remotely* similar to your second objection? In that case, it’s one man and a bunch of women. If you actually knew the context, that is.

Further, saying my “defense” was “weak and immoral” is completely unsubstantiated. You don’t even TRY to prove your assertions. You just, dare I say it, dogmatically spit your preconceptions back when challenged – instead of making any sort of rational case. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say there was indoctrination involved. You yourself say your morals are subjective. Yet *constantly* you assign your subjective “oughts” to the objects you are writing to. That is the opposite of subjective, Jason.

The fact that you choose to defend the murder of a child as “not heavily examined enough” is terrible and an insight into your own morality. The fact that you can hear, “a child was murdered” and you need to hear the whys and how comes before you can determine if it was a moral act is very telling of you.

So, because I don’t bow to King Jason’s subjective feeeeelings, I’m being a nasty ‘ol rotten scoundrel. Gee, thanks. Here I was thinking I’d get an actual argument, finally. Okay, no, not really. I’m still expecting naked assertions and emotive, unsubstantiated nonsense. That’s all I get, as we can see. Does Jason even attempt to make an argument, or does he, throughout this response, resort solely to autobiography? Given that he simply assumes “murder” – simply assumes “rape” – with neither being present in the text itself, I think it’s safe to say that we have mere rhetoric (and rather heavy-handed and wooden, I might add) being substituted for reasoned argumentation. Yes, Jason, it’s customary to consider things for greater than 1.4 seconds before reaching one’s conclusion on a matter. It’s actually customary to study what is being presented, instead of inserting one’s own preconceptions willy-nilly. Yes, it’s customary to consider that words actually mean something, instead of assigning whatever meanings we prefer them to have, regardless of the author’s intent, the context of the text, and the easily-found references made to the surrounding story, of which it is part. Yes, Jason, when reaching a conclusion foreign to practically every reader of this text in history, it would, actually, be beneficial to offer an actual argument to substantiated your novel claim; reaching, as you seem to have, a conclusion missed by millennia of Biblical scholars, in a very well-known text, which you have proceeded to butcher with the ham-fisted rapacity of a Vandal intent on Roman spoils.

Your interest is not accuracy sir, it is in trolling. I attempted MANY times to engage you in conversation on this, and you choose instead not to reference my questions on twitter but to attempt further attacks on me here.

Yes, sir, it is in accuracy. Twitter is not a medium suited to conversation requiring any sort of precision or care. Given your lack of either quality in your handling of the Biblical text, I can see why you prefer to discourse there on topics requiring disciplined study and effort to speak to cogently. Since you seem to lack even the bare minimum of ability to examine the text at a depth greater than an eighth of an inch, I’ve undertaken to show you where, precisely, your ignorance of the subject leads you. First, the ignorance necessary to mistake your first attempt for something in Numbers, let alone Numbers 35, let alone an accurate English translation, is our first clue. The second clue is the lack of familiarity with this text in general. This is the biggest, most public fall of a Biblical character in the text of Scripture. It is the Old Testament pinnacle of the expression of God’s mercy as well as His justice, being exercised in tandem, as they should. Your twin accusations are neither present in the text, nor are they remotely sensical. Your reading of this passage is absolute, and utter brainrot – and that’s putting it mildly. It has taken this much time, and this many words to address, because you have screwed up your attempt *by the numbers* – pun intended.

Infantile at best.

Given what you consider a good objection, I’ll take that as a compliment.

I see now that your goal was NOT to attempt to keep the posts accurate and to ensure that sources are cited, but to attack anyone with any ammunition that you can get because your faith was insulted.

Actually, it was just to respond to one of the worst sequences of Biblical “criticisms” I’ve ever encountered. I do dislike it when people ignorantly make claims they both cannot and will not back up, however – which has been precisely what you have done.

Sad and infantile.

For pity’s sake, at least be original with your ad hominem. Be creative – make me work for my expected insult. It’s not as if I don’t hear this half a dozen times a week from every sort of garden variety atheist “intellectual.” Seriously – if you’re going to take the line that we’re irrational, reasonless drones, at least bother to use something a tween couldn’t equal in the cafeteria.

I gave the bible fairness for 30 years, now I simply can’t excuse its evils any longer.

Well, it’s quite apparent you aren’t fair to it now. Are you sure you were back in the day? I don’t see why you couldn’t excuse any evil, though, really. You’re a subjectivist. Just change the standard when it’s convenient to do so.

I am sad that you can see morality in the death of a child and the rape of women, and see only immorality in the mistaken posting of an erroneous verse.

I’m still wondering why you’re asserting either is even found in this text. Or why you think we should care, being little Mr. Subjectivist. Is truth supposed to be objective now?

The fact that you find your offense in that, and not in the terrible acts depicted in the bible that I revealed, is telling of the indoctrination and dogmatic view that keeps you from the ability to think critically about such things.

I find the fact that your reading comprehension is so abysmal, and your studies so superficial, compelling reasons to reject any claims you have to offer, and find your ignorance of the Biblical text indicative of your dearth of experience with critical thinking. Further, your own stated worldview gives you no reason to even forward your objections in the first place. I find it telling that you can parrot all your little catchphrases about “immorality”, “indoctrination”, and “dogmatism” with a straight face. The sheer effrontery of such accusations in the face of your utter lack of epistemological, moral, and logical justification for any of your claims is staggering.

This is my last post with you, as you have revealed yourself to be too dogmatic to converse, and too proud of yourself to accept thanks when given.

Peace

I hate to burst your bubble, man, but a steady string of assertions, made with no attempt at support or argumentation, simply on personal authority, is definitional dogmatism – and exactly what you’ve presented here. Perhaps where you hang out, they call that “arguing your point” – but around people who actually do debates, that’s called a “logical fallacy”. ie: “Proof by assertion” – “Repeated assertion fallacy”, ad nauseum, Ipse-dixit, etc.

If you thought this post was about you – you’re only partly right. It’s partly about the lack of serious contemplation evidenced in your objections, and responses to challenges to them – but primarily, it’s an object lesson for anyone reading this. If you’re going to make a claim – please, please, please, have something – *anything* to substantiate it. Please give any sort of argument – whatsoever. Please bother to study what you’re objecting to. Please invest at least a modicum of effort into the due diligence required to offer an intelligible response. Thank you.

Facebook Atheism

“Only a fool believes something without proof. To simplify that for you: only a fool relies on faith.”

Interesting assertion.

1 Cor 2:1-5 – And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

1 Cor 2:10-14 – For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Note: The assertion of the atheist I quoted seems to be that they have something else to rest their knowledge on. They are merely making a negative epistemological claim, with no positive claim to be found, however. In fact, their claim is in accordance with the Scripture above – that our epistemological claim is foolishness to them. The reason this is so, is because it is *spiritually* discerned. On the contrary, we claim that their epistemological claims are foolishness, from the standard of our worldview. This is the antithesis that exists between the wisdom of the world, and the wisdom of God.

Here is where transcendental argument comes in. Their claim to knowledge is unintelligible from their worldview. There is no basis to assume that 1) They exist to know what they claim to know 2) That what they claim to know has any sort of intelligible relationship to anything else they claim to know 3) That their epistemological basis (self) is capable of providing the preconditions of intelligibility.

The claim “I know” (x) has a precondition – (y) the Triune God of Scripture. That is the only means by which “I know” has the preconditions of intelligibility. Only in the revelation of the Triune God in His Scripture is there is an absolute, self-sufficient, self-existent, eternal and immutable (not excluding attributes, but eliding for the sake of space – see here for more on this topic) source who can communicate with us, and gives us those preconditions. Since x is only preconditioned by y, y is true, and ~y is impossible.

Since we have this absolute, objective epistemological foundation, and the unbeliever has no foundation whatsoever to stand on, epistemologically, on what basis does “a fool rely on faith”? Self has no epistemological foundation. Self has no absolute reference. Self can’t justify self, induction, deduction, or intelligibility, for that matter. Yet, we’re told that Descartes “I think, therefore I am” is a starting point? What does “I think” assume? The consequent, “I am”. It’s circular. My existence is only made intelligible by the Triune God of Scripture. The unbeliever’s existence is made intelligible by what, by His standard? Until the unbeliever can offer me a justification for his own claims, and demonstrate that he knows what he’s denying, we can safely say that this assertion is empty rhetoric, countered by an argument with content.

A Predictable Muslim Response

Yahya Snow, with his typical monotony, already has his spin ready. Ready to hear it?

They had it coming.

Yup! Asking questions, and engaging in dialogue, according to Mr. Snow, is grounds for arrest. As he says in the lead-in to his article:

The controversial evangelical group has had its co-founders arrested. You may remember the controversy they caused at last years Arab Festival in Dearborn; they were ejected from the event by security. This year they top that by getting arrested.David Wood and Acts17 Apologetics Were Looking For Trouble Under the Guise of Evangelism

Yes, since they were so peaceably ejected (you saw the video in my previous post – does that make any sense, folks?) from the festival last year, it’s only reasonable that they get arrested this time, right? Give me a break. As Nabeel pointed out in the video last year, this is America. You don’t get free reign to assault people, or to infringe on their right to free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religious expression. Maybe that’s “acceptable” elsewhere, but not under this governmental system. I also find it laughable that Mr. Snow is attempting to “guilt trip” Dr. White into not associating with Nabeel and David. Does Mr. Snow have any conception of the work Dr. White has engaged in for over two decades with Mormons? Witnessing at their yearly convocation in Salt Lake City (which they gave up recently, due to the obnoxious behavior of KJVO protestors, not evangelists), or at the annual Easter Pageant in Mesa? This is nothing new to any Christian. This is nothing new to Dr. White, nor will it be “shocking” to him, or to Christians who know their Scripture. It’s quite familiar, and Biblically expected.

A note to Muslims: When people act as is shown on the video from last year, the face of Islam is unmasked. You can try to spin it all you want, but it’s plain as day to the people of this nation, and to Christians all over the world. I hope you understand that these men and women went to this festival, despite there being death threats made if they returned. To a Christian, that is pure joy, to be persecuted or killed for the sake of their Lord. As Nabeel and David noted in their followup video, we are quite able to assert our rights as citizens – but that doesn’t mean that we don’t expect persecution anyway.

Stop playing innocent. We know better, and so do you. They had as much right to be there as anyone else – and had those rights infringed.

They have a post up about their experience here.

Consistency and Truth

Recently, Hussein Wario was challenged to call into the Dividing Line to answer for his recent accusations, some of which were in conversation with me. The transcript of that call on June 10th (which I did myself) is included here.

James: We received a call a number of weeks ago from Hussein Wario, who himself is a former Muslim, who from my understanding converted when he was in 8th grade, or something like that and is living in the United States now, and we had a discussion about some things; as I recall it had to do with using a restroom as a place for Muslim prayers.

Well, since then Mr. Wario has had a lot to say in regards to some of my statements, so he’s been kind enough to call in today. Let’s make sure that we’ve got a good connection here and let’s talk with Hussein. Can you hear me?

Hussein: Yes, I can hear you.

James: Good, excellent, thank you for calling in. I know you don’t have a lot of time. (…) I’ll get right to some of the things you’ve said here. After the June 6th Dividing Line, actually there was no June 6th Dividing Line, but on June 6th you made the statement on the web that you can prove that (I) “made at least 20% contradictions…

Hussein: (laughs)

James: …in (my) recent DL webcast – does that make him less Christian?” Now, even my worst opponents grant me a little better than 80% accuracy could you explain what you were referring to there?

Hussein: Well first of all, like I said before, I’m not going to be here to talk about either of the Caner brothers, that is irrelevant. As a Reformed Christian, I’m very concerned about how you run your ministry, and how far you go with it. I was going to first write a blog entry on that 20% I am talking about, but I
haven’t come to that.

——–
(For the reader’s context, this is what he tweeted just prior to the comment to DSpratlin about 20% contradictions, and the mention of a blog entry to @hereiblog)
@erguncaner saga almost over. Muslims critics have taken to their heels. Can his Christian critics handle their misstatements? Stay tuned… Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:48:22 PM via web
@hereiblog @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze his critics and see if they can explain their “misstatements.” Can you handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:45:00 PM via web in reply to hereiblog
@JeremiahBailey @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze critics and see if they can explain their misstatements. Can they handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:44:22 PM via web in reply to JeremiahBailey
@Shinar_Squirrel @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze critics and see if they can explain their misstatements. Can they handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:43:53 PM via web in reply to Shinar_Squirrel
@pregador27 @erguncaner saga almost over. Time to analyze his critics and see if they can explain their misstatements. Can they handle it? Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:42:22 PM via web in reply to pregador27

Now, note this – he tends to “hype” his posts repeatedly. What is this called, when the statements are in fact untrue? Libel.

Back to the transcript.
————

Hussein: The reason I am calling is just because there are a few concerns that I have. It’s only (probably that?) 1, 2, 3, 4 of them, and I’ve only been listening to the Dividing Line for probably.. for less than 2 months. And I’ve already found like 4 things in here that raise questions about, you know, your integrity, or it could be just about how you do things, especially with people that you don’t agree with, so maybe we could just go to that, because I just want…

—-
Note: Hussein has said previously: “Christians bickering in public needs to stop.” He has also said: “Dr. White is the only apologist I know who openly criticizes people he disagrees with by name.” Now you can add yourself to that list, Mr. Wario. Further, remember this? “I believe in restoration of a fallen Christian and not gossip them in public.” yet, you took the majority of this show – his show – to slanderously revile this man personally. As I said in a previous post – “I find it amazing that he attacks Dr. White himself throughout this piece, the comments, and via twitter – while trying to say that we can never publicly respond to public comments. Further, he is making public rebukes to me – while saying that we shouldn’t publicly rebuke people”
——–

James: So you’re not going to answer any of the accusations you’ve made, then?

Hussein: Hey! This is 4 out of how many dividing lines you have done, or how many interviews you have given. This will be enough to… equal to 20% of what you have done. And it’s like, less than two months.

——–
Let’s examine this one. Let’s remember that there are two Dividing Lines a week. 4 weeks in a month. 2 months. 2x4x2. There’s 16. That’s about 25%, give or take – if he made only one statement per show, of course. However, add an interview. Only one. It’s now 23.5%. Add another interview. 22.22%. Further, this doesn’t count videos, blog entries, or any of the other things that Dr. White engages in. Now, add in, say, 2 videos in the same time. Then you’re at 20%. At my count, he has done 15 videos in the last 2 months. So, we’re at what percentage now? Counting 2 interviews, 16 Dividing Lines, 15 videos – and 4 errors – we’re at 12%. How many blog entries did he author in that time? Let’s say, a dozen, even though I highly doubt it’s that few. Now we’re down to 8.8% – and that is just counting by a simple formula. Even granting that Dr. White made 4 factual errors – how does this even approach 20% of what he has said? How is it even remotely close? There’s a deeper problem with this, however. How many statements are made on each Dividing Line? A few dozen? A hundred? A couple hundred? That’s the real issue here. Let’s say that he makes 2 dozen statements on a Dividing Line. That’s 384 statements in 2 months, by that conservative estimate. Let’s use the same average for a blog entry, and a video. So, 45 (for the sake of argument) pieces of media produced. 2 dozen statements apiece. That gives us a .0037% error rate.

However, when we’re talking about Ergun Caner, he *makes up almost his entire history*. Do you see the problem? How many statements is that to get wrong in one lecture/sermon/speech, in every speech he gives which includes his history? An even bigger problem is, as you will see, that he fails to substantiate a *single error* – while dodging all of his *own* claims! I’m not going to give a particular percentage, because it really doesn’t matter. The arbitrary usage of statistics is demonstrated to be useless, in any case. The problem is not statistical, it is ethical. Ethical by the terms of Scripture, not opinion. The systemic falsehoods are the issue. Hussein is comparing systemic, widespread falsehoods to what are apparently isolated statements – and I have a suspicion that he gave his examples of those in this particular call. If this is so, he is left with nothing whatsoever to demonstrate this. It is apples and oranges – and Dr. White was very right to insist that he answer for his accusations by directly making them and defending them.
————

James: Okay, so the entire list of things that I had here, you don’t want to talk about them, you want to talk about your points, is that the case?

————–
Here is what Dr. White is referring to: In response to the 20% claim, Dr. White sent this: @HusseinWario Why don’t you call the DL and attempt to back up your accusations? Your attempt to parallel me to EC’s overt lies offensive.

His reply was as follows: @DrOakley1689 If you let me talk, I will call the Diving Line. Would you please go back to doing what you do best? In the end, you lose.

Back to Dr. White: @HusseinWario Of course I will let you talk, if you will provide a logical, rational defense of your new accusations. (Note this – it’s important)
Again: @HusseinWario “In the end, you lose.” If being consistent at personal cost means losing, then may we all start losing together.

This was on the morning of the 7th. On the evening of the 9th, he posted these:
@RazorsKiss I have never sensed Reformed Christians this passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:22:46 PM via web in reply to RazorsKiss
@LaneChaplin I have never sensed Reformed Christians this passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:22:31 PM via web in reply to LaneChaplin
@internetbible I have never sensed Reformed Christians this passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:21:58 PM via web in reply to internetbible
@Tomjunlee I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:21:00 PM via web in reply to Tomjunlee
@Jerry_Kirby I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:20:41 PM via web in reply to Jerry_Kirby
@reformata I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:20:22 PM via web in reply to reformata
@stepcraig I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:19:52 PM via web in reply to stepcraig
@CapitalistObsvr I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:19:36 PM via web in reply to CapitalistObsvr
@ThApologeticHub I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic lampooning @erguncaner must be their new priority Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:19:10 PM via web in reply to ThApologeticHub
@sjcamp I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:18:25 PM via web in reply to sjcamp
@thecrosschurch I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:18:15 PM via web in reply to thecrosschurch
@faithfulnews I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority. Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:17:55 PM via web in reply to faithfulnews
@jfontes0217 I have never sensed Reformed Christians these passionate and enthusiastic, lampooning @erguncaner must be their top priority.

As for me, I replied with the following: @HusseinWario You’ve never seen me deal with the proper place of all of God’s attributes in apologetics before then 😉 Caner’s a side issue

I received this reply: @RazorsKiss You need to start putting your energy into reaching Muslims. They are never satisfied. Enough has been said about @erguncaner

Now, honestly; since when does Hussein dictate what ministry I engage in? What does his opinion of what I should be doing have to do with what I should be doing? Muslims are not the only group in the world to which we minister, nor are they the only ones that we should minister to. Just because they are the ones he ministers to does not mean that everyone should be like him, or have the same ministry. I told him as much. @HusseinWario I address Muslims occasionally. I address a wide variety of groups. Therein lies balance. I think it would do you good too.

Later, when he tweeted Dr. White again, with more accusations, he was once again challenged to call the Dividing Line (he didn’t call in on the 8th). @HusseinWario I challenge you to call the DL today. Your fallacious reasoning evaporates when you are forced to answer direct questions.

—–

Hussein: No, no no, when I made that statement, I was going to do a blog entry on you. I talked to other Christians, and they told me there is no place for it. Other Reformed Christians have told me. This is not about… I’m not going after you, okay? I just don’t like it the way you just go about talking about other
Christians. You have been (unintelligible) some of them…

James: Who?

Hussein: You wrote something about me.

James: Who?

Hussein: You did write about me.

James: You’ve been raising a lot of questions, and I have had to point out that some of your arguing is… not rational.

Hussein: But well, you put me in the same line as Ahmed Deedat, you know?

James: No I didn’t.

Hussein: C’mon, you did say that I remind you of Ahmed Deedat. That’s really bad

James: No, I never said that. Where did I say I remind you of Ahmed Deedat.

Hussein: Oh my. Your blog entry didn’t do that?

——
Note: He did not even try to argue his point. Not even an argument advanced for why this was so. he just stated it. When challenged, he simply repeated it. I can understand why someone might say it looked that way, but he didn’t even make an argument to demonstrate that such was the case. What are we supposed to think, since he won’t even argue his point?

On the other hand, Dr. White has documented, just about every time that we go through a Muslim speaker’s presentation, that the shallow argumentation they provide is in many respects a cultural thing. You are encouraged to examine the archives of that program where he more fully explains that phenomenon.
——

James: No, it didn’t. In fact sir, this morning you said that I shouldn’t have made parody videos about Ergun Caner. I’ve never made a parody video, so sometimes I’m not certain if you’re completely aware of what you’re looking at.

—–
Dr. White, as did I, believed that he was referring to the viral “Dr. Ergun Caner” videos that have been making their rounds lately. There have been comments in multiple places throughout the blogs that confusedly think that Dr. White is making those. This is apparently not what Hussein is referring to, however.
—–

Hussein: Oh, you know what? Some of the Arabic stuff you have done now muslims are after it.

James: Uh, yeah. (laughs) If you can be after a Christian, who’s not a former Muslim, missing one phrase in quoting from memory…

Hussein: Uh-huh

James: …Surah Al-Fatihah, and think that that’s relevant to everything (Hussein interjects something I can’t make out) else we’ve said… that’s a good example of what I’m talking about here. But wait a minute, where have I ever made a parody video of Ergun Caner, can you tell me that.

Hussein: Okay, you know what? You are… all I can just say is this. The way you are making fun of the Arabic, they way you have this Arabic tutor, that is like totally out of line. Like how much have you pointed out about these brothers. It’s almost like you’re not giving grace.

—–
I believe he is saying that the video with the tutor is a parody video. This gives us a clue, I think: Muslims are laughing at Christians on Facebook because of @DROAKLEY1689 videos. Visit @erguncaner fan page on #fb Comedy central dissing!
It’s a parody because people laugh at it? William Shatner is therefore a first rate satirist – of himself 😉
——-

James: Okay, okay, Hussein… we responded to his claims, we played them…

Hussein: But who are you to… But who are you.

——-
Once again, he assumes this is personal. “Who are you to…” Does everything have to be an appeal to authority? Even so, he is a minister of the Gospel, responding to one who puts the Gospel to open shame. He is an apologist to Muslims as well as to other groups, responding to one whose falsehoods *were already mocked* by unbelievers. We are not only to exhort and teach, but to reprove and rebuke. You will see further where Hussein affirms this is personal. In the past he has said “This issue would not have gained any traction had Dr. James White and Dr. Ergun Caner been in good terms.”
———

James: …and many people commented on the fact that we were very fair and in fact inserted all sorts of other discussions about other things. In fact, I bent over backwards to say maybe you could possibly look at it this way – it still isn’t Arabic, but I bent over backwards. I just… I cannot even begin to comprehend why it is we have all this data that demonstrates that Ergun Caner has lied about his past and lied about what he is, and if anyone points that out, somehow they’re wrong, rather than the person who has stood behind a pulpit and connected this stuff with the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand your way of thinking Hussein. I really don’t.

Hussein: I don’t understand you either. Here you are, a Christian, and a caller calls you. On April 22nd. He called you up, and you discussed this on the Dividing Line.

James: Uh-huh!

Hussein: and you praised Kennedy, okay. John Kennedy.

James: Praised John Kennedy?

Hussein: You did praise him, you said the guy is the expert on…

James: Oh, you mean he’d done his.. he’d demonstrated that he’d actually read some stuff, yeah, I did say that he’d clearly read some stuff.

Hussein: You said he has written over a thousand articles.

James: That’s not praising, that’s just giving factual background! (laughs)

Hussein: Okay, okay, that’s fine, that’s fine! But, once the article came out, and didn’t meet your satisfaction. As a minister of the Gospel, you kinda went ahead and started (couldn’t make it out) some kind of (couldn’t make it out) you know what I mean?

James: You mean when I pointed out that it did not exactly deal with all the issues, somehow there’s a contradiction there?

Hussein: Well! I can say that there can be a problem, because like, here you are, you speculated, saying that Liberty University must be like the main advertiser of Christianity Today.

James: That’s true.

Hussein: Maybe they didn’t get to the bottom of the matter.

James: That’s a possibility.

Hussein: Yeah, but I cannot accept that from a Christian Minister to say that is a possibility!

James: Why? Why would a minister be so naive not to recognize that Christianity Today is a profit-driven organization?

Hussein: Ay, yi yi yi yi. You are a minister of the Gospel.

James: Yeah, I am. That doesn’t mean I’m naive.

Hussein: But why would you even make that kind of a statement?

James: Because it’s a factual statement. Follow the money, Hussein. Follow the money. It’s just a factual statement.

Hussein: Oh my word.

James: Ministers do not become naive, sir.

Hussein: No, no, but here you are talking publicly about something you don’t even know, such as how much Liberty university advertises on Christianity Today, and you are talking as if…

—–
What I find amazing here is the willingness to consider Dr. White to be “out to make a name for himself” – but he is defending a corporate entity from the possibility of defending their bottom line. What?
—–

James: So I raise the possibility that the reason that it didn’t go into the depth the way it did was because… something a lot of other people had noticed, and you somehow think that’s wrong. Okay, fine. I will leave that to the audience to determine whether that is simply being naive, or if it’s something wrong, as you said. But your reasoning, in your argumentation. For example, you have argued that you have debunked TurretinFan’s Hadith listing. I’d like to ask you, since you’re a former Muslim, could you tell me, please, could you explain to me, Hadith 2982?

Hussein: You know what, if it is mentioned in the body of the writing, whatever it is about, Hadith 28, or whatever it is you said

James: 2982, can you tell me what it says.

Hussein: I cannot tell you offhand, I have to look for it, okay?

James: How would you find it?

Hussein: Hold on just a second. I just have to look through my Hadith books. Your Hadith 957, it didn’t take me that long to find it.

James: Hussein, Hussein – you and I both know that there’s no way you can find Hadith 2982. Because there’s a piece of information missing. You and I both know that.

———
Note: Search “Hadith 2982“. You get al Bukhari here. You also get this. (Muslim, I believe) You also get this from AOMin. (Jami At-Tirmidhi) You also have two here, both 2982, Muslim and Ahmad. Yusuf Ali can be found here.

Now, which one am I supposed to be referencing? This is what Dr. White is talking about.
——–

Hussein: Yeah, but Dr. White you’re not justified here, for you can just say that’s just one way to quote the Hadith. In fact, even a Muslim did not make that an issue. (I couldn’t make this out)

James: Hussein, Hussein – you could not find Hadith 2982, could you?

Hussein: Anyway.

James: Could you?

Hussein: No, I have to look in the books!

James: You still couldn’t find it because it’s not giving you enough information to know what it is I’m referring to. You know that.

Hussein: James White cannot find it if he doesn’t have the Hadith books, okay?

James: I have the Hadith books sir, but you know, and I know, that there are different collections…

Hussein: So what are you saying here, I’m lying?

James: …of Hadith books; and therefore, you need to know what the collection is, don’t you?

Hussein: Hey, if it’s mentioned in the body I can find… you just, the whole time you were talking about it

James: No sir, you could not!

(talked over each other for a second)

Hussein: Anyway

James: Sir, there is more than one Hadith 2982…

Hussein: Anyway

James: …because there are different collections

Hussein: Anyway, anyway, anyway

James: See what you’re doing here, see what you’re doing here. See, you have not debunked the problem there.

Hussein: Hey, I have debunked the problem!

James: Okay, then answer the question – quote to me, quote to me Hadith 2982. If you can’t do it, then you are not answering my question honestly.

Hussein: I am a former Muslim, I’m supposed to be memorizing Bible verses, okay? You can’t be asking me on air…

James: I’m not asking you to quote it, I’m simply pointing out to you, Hussein…

—–
Just two notes here. When Dr. White asks him to quote it the first time, he is expecting him to look it up and quote it. That is the sense of “quote” meant there. In case anyone is wondering, I asked him. In the second case, he’s saying it in the sense of “quote from memory” – it was unclear, it’s live, and mistakes happen. Obviously he didn’t expect Hussein to “quote from memory”, which was what he intended in the “not asking you to quote it”. He was making the point above – *which* Hadith 2982?

Secondly, note the “anyway” whenever he doesn’t want to answer the question. I was not the only one to notice this. The entire chat channel was commenting on it only a few seconds after the third time he said it.
—–

Hussein: Anyway

James: …You could not find a reference…

Hussein: Anyway, Dr. White, you know what…

James: See, there ya go folks, there ya go, there is the illustration…

Hussein: Yeah, it is! It’s is always James White. He’s never wrong!

—–
Where does this come from? Did he respond to the argument? No. What has he been doing for a solid few minutes? “Anyway”. But James is never wrong?
—–

James: …one side has the facts…

Hussein: You are never wrong.

James: …in the argument, and the other side is just not going to answer the question

Hussein: Yeah, but you are never wrong! The Muslims are telling you, you have messed up a chapter from the Qur’an.

—–
Red herring.
—–

James: No sir, no sir I did not!

Hussein: No, but you are, hey! Your.. tutor..

James: Issam…

Hussein: Hold on…

James: …in quoting from memory as a Christian…

Hussein: …will you let me finish please?…

James: as an illustration of how this flows through the Syrian culture, missed one phrase…

Hussein: No, no!

James: and this is relevant?

Hussein: I’m not making that an issue! What I’m making an issue is, and the Muslims have a problem with you is, the way that chapter appears, you should have corrected your tutor, and you did not correct him, and you’re not willing to take into…

James: You know what, I will gladly let the listening audience compare…

Hussein: (loud interjection, can’t make it out)

James: what you just brought up with the fact that I have demonstrated that you.. that quoting Hadith 2982, or 957, is the same as saying Bible 3:16, it’s gibberish, you know it, and I know it..

—–
Personally, I would compare it to saying “commentary 5,18”. Which commentary? Is that a chapter? Page? It doesn’t matter, because you have no idea which commentary to use!
—–

Hussein: You know what, James White… hey

James: and the people listening know that, Hussein

Hussein: Dr. White, I know this is all about you. That’s why you have a problem.

—–
This is not the first time he’s made this sort of statement, nor is it the first time he’s been corrected. For instance: “I am convinced that he cares less about the Caner Brothers’ repentance but score some popularity from this saga.” Is that not criticizing a Christian in public? As well as: “All Christian leaders I have talked with who also work directly with Muslims agree with me that Dr. White has some major issues.” and “Dr. White is all about himself.” and “That was when I realized that Dr. White has an underlying problem, perhaps beyond these accusations of Dr. Caner being a liar.” and “I am utterly ashamed of Dr. White. In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the Reformed faith—sola scriptura—because of his meddling in this matter and his disregard of the scripture. He is tacitly helping Muslims with their war against Muslim converts to Christianity.” and “Oh my! I am glad to know I am not the only one. He is nuts.” Now, by this point, I hope you see the pattern of ad hominem argumentation. His responses are “to the man”, not to the argument.

Just a quick additional note to possibly help Hussein recognize what the problem here is.

Argument ad hominem is “to the person”. It is directed at who a person is, or to a person’s character, not to the statements or arguments of the person. For instance: Here is Dr. White addressing Ahmed Deedat: “Ahmed Deedat is a great example of this. So often his arguments were so shallow, so poor, so disjointed, and yet you will find men shouting Allahu akhbar! in response.” Is that ad hominem, or ad argumentum? Ad argumentum, of course. Compare that to “He is nuts.”

When I bring up fallacious argumentation, I am doing so in order to point out inconsistency. When one argues from one standard and applies it to someone else, yet do not apply those same standards to yourself, you are demonstrating that this is not what you yourself ascribe to functionally. It is inconsistency, and the sign of a failed argument. If Hussein wishes his arguments to be considered irrational, he should argue rationally.
——-

James: It’s all about me.

Hussein: Dr. White is never wrong. Yeah! Just like you are after these brothers, and it is all about making a name for yourself.

James: Oh, oh yeah, that’s, that’s what it’s all about. That’s why I somehow forced Ergun Caner to falsely claim to have debated Shabir Ally?

Hussein: oh my word, look at this, I mean you say they brag about this, that’s why no one is taking you seriously. You just say to them, they are the ones that are bragging about this, but you are the one who actually does it…

James: Yeah, that’s true.

Hussein: I mean, what does that say?

James: What does that say? It says that the next time I debate Shabir Ally, I’ll be able to look him in the eye and say I have sought to be consistent as a Christian in answering Islam, and in exposing those who are dishonest in what they say about Islam, and how they go about the ministry. That’s something that’s absolutely necessary to do.

Hussein: Yeah, but is debate really the only way to reach out to these people?

James: Where… again, how does that flow from what I just said?

—–
I’d like the reader to note that Dr. White has engaged in evangelism to Mormons for over 25 years. He has had very few debates with LDS representatives. His passion for evangelism to all kinds of men is very well-attested, and numerous examples of that passion for the Gospel can be found in his videos, articles, and yes, even his debates.
—–

Hussein: No, no!

James: Where did I just say that the only way to reach out to these people is by a debate? Where did I say that?

Hussein: You are talking about integrity in the way to debating muslims, but for me I just don’t get it I see a lot of you into all this, and sometimes you even…

James: Well sir, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong about that.

Hussein: (Loud interjection, can’t make it out)

James: You don’t know my heart… you don’t know my heart…

Hussein: I don’t know your heart, but you don’t…

James: But you’re simply…

Hussein: …know Caner’s heart either!

James: …wrong, that’s not the case. I would love to have avoided this entire mess, but there’s something called integrity, sir, there’s something called standing up for what’s right…

Hussein: Which only James White has.

James: and when someone stands before an audience and makes up his entire…

Hussein: Which only James White has. That’s what bothers me.

James: No, thankfully there are others who likewise have recognized that there is a real problem here.

—–
This is amazing. Dr. White has linked to very many people throughout the course of this – and some have also worked along similar lines and have not been linked to. TurretinFan, Gene Clyatt, Jason Smathers, Walt Chantry, and many, many others have also weighed in on this affair. To simply assert that Dr. White thinks he is the only one to possess integrity is absurd. Now, if you were to ask “which well-known apologists have shown integrity in this affair”, the list would be significantly smaller.
—–

Hussein: But who are others out there, Muslim scholars, who are Christians, I mean Islamic scholars, who are speaking out against it, against James White, and his followers

—–
Hussein faults Christians: “Dr. White is tacitly helping Muslims with their war against Muslim converts to Christianity.” Also, he has said: “Muslims look for opportunities to discredit ex-Muslims and even some Christians. He has given them a foothold and that should not widen the rift between Christians.”

Now, he is using Muslim argumentation? How is that consistent with his own position? How is this not “widening the rift between Christians”, by his own standard? How is he not “tacitly helping Muslims” here? How is he not taking advantage of “opportunities to discredit … *even some Christians*?”

This is inconsistent. Let me demonstrate. After this show, he sends this message to the originator of the accusations concerning Dr. White’s tutor. @YahyaSnow Who argues with @droakley1689, self-home-schooled student of Islam? You know very well, Yahya. What does he do, after all that talk about accepting things from Muslims? Note this: @HusseinWario…thanks for pointing my blog post out to white… It is in response to this: @DrOakley1689 You are in big trouble with Muslims over your debunking of @erguncaner Arabic http://tinyurl.com/22um3gp

Let me remind him of his own statement, and see if he is consistent with it. “Muslims are on a mission, please let us not aid and abet to their tactics that attempt to discredit the Caner Brothers, other Christians of Muslim background, Dr. James White, et al. We should give our brothers the benefit of the doubt before going global with what Muslims bring to our attention.”
—–

James: Islamic scholars who are what? I don’t have followers, first of all, sir, so I really don’t appreciate that kind of language.

Hussein: Okay, fine, fine, I take it back.

—–
I prefer friend, myself. If you’re going to be pejorative, however, at least use “loyal minion!”
—–

James: But the fact of the matter is, most people don’t even know about what’s going on with Ergun Caner. The news is gonna get out, if the right things are not done, and repentance and confession does not take place, but, I think even that’s too late now as far as the information getting out. The fact of the matter is, for you to accuse me of wanting to use this to get my name out there, is so amazingly absurd, and I can just simply tell you, it’s ridiculous.

Hussein: It looks like that to you, but it looks that way to me, okay?

—–
That’s a very postmodern comment. Not only that, but he just insinuated that Dr. White is lying about his intentions. Note earlier that he was offended by his (mistaken) impression that Dr. White was calling him a liar – but now he has no compunctions about doing the same.
—–

James: Well, I think for some reason you seem to be incredibly biased about this issue. Why is it? Do you have any evidence that Ergun Caner lived in Turkey, and was trained as a jihadist?

Hussein: Hey, you have no idea what happens in a madrassa, okay?

James: Do you…

Hussein: Hey, I cannot…

James: …have any evidence…

Hussein: I cannot say that he lived in Turkey, okay?

James: You can’t say that.

Hussein: Court papers say that he went to madrassa.

James: Okay, let me ask you a simple question. How do you explain, Hussein, that the same time that Ergun Caner is standing in front of audiences and television cameras, and telling them he lived in Turkey until 1978 or 1979, he’s telling AP reporters, and Turkish reporters, that he moved to the United States in 1969? How do you explain that?

Hussein: Hey, that Turkish reporter guy? I’m having it translated for me by a Turkish lawyer, okay? I don’t think that was a direct interview.

James: How about AP then?

Hussein: What I can say is this, Ergun Caner can answer his questions

James: So you’re not going to answer the question.

Hussein: Why am I going to answer for him? The problem I have is, you dismiss him, that he’s a fake, ex-devout muslim. And you don’t have any evidence to prove that.

—–
Note the diversion here. He has an answer for the first – or a potential answer, at least, but has no answer for the second. He was willing to answer the first, but now not willing to answer his questions? Inconsistency.
—–

James: I have tons of…

Hussein: You don’t have any!

James: …evidence, you just ignore it.

Hussein: You do not know this guy, you did not know this guy, okay?

James: So if the only evidence you can have is that I had to know him back then.

Hussein: no, no, no, Dr. White

James: Then you can’t know anything about history.

—–
For those who weren’t there, this was a principal argument in the Robert Price debate. Robert Price argued that we simply cannot know anything for certain from the Biblical accounts – or from anything in history. In fact, we couldn’t know anything unless we had multiple video attestations of an event!

If we have systematic doubt about historical events, even though we have documentation of them provided – we cannot know anything about history. Here Hussein is making a similar case to Robert Price. Despite the fact that we have documentation of where he was, when, we cannot know. This is what we speak of when we address “balance” in apologetics. If you are zeroed in on a certain topic, to the exclusion of all others, you tend to develop tunnel vision, and lose your balance as an overall apologist. Dr. White very, very often cautions his listeners not to only address one group of people. His consistency as an apologist, by the grace of God, lies in the fact that he not only engages with Muslims, but with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Atheists, and a large variety of other groups. I attempt to vary my personal engagements as well.
—–

Hussein: This is where we have a problem. He went to madrassa. I gave an example of a 3-year-old, I have a link, on my blog, who was asked questions on tv, about some aspects of Islam, okay? Prophet Muhammad say, when a kid is 7 year old they have to be instructed, when they are ten (I can’t follow it, I know some is Arabic) and all that, they have to be, you know, (can’t make it out). He talk about that, Prophet Muhammad. The court documents clearly say they went to madrassa, I don’t know how long they went, do I go about and say they were never devout, I don’t even know, because you don’t know what transpires in madrassa. Other than what your muslim friends tell you. They have an ulterior motive, they tell you what you want to hear, or make the agenda – so because of that, maybe you need to make some apologies to these brothers for some of the things you have said which are not true.

—–
What does his having gone to madrassa for some unknown period of time have to do with whether or not he lived in Turkey, or was trained as a Jihadist? In fact, “to do that which was done on 9/11”, to use his own words? Nothing whatsoever. Just because one fact is verifiable, we ignore all of the other falsehoods? What sense does that make? Is that a sound argument? No, it is not. It’s called a “red herring.” An irrelevant fact thrown into the conversation to distract from the real issue under discussion. Further, is he seriously trying to tell us that it is typical for American Muslims in the 1970s to have been trained in terrorism? Even more pertinently, He’s only 4 years older than I am. This means that by his standard *he cannot know either*, as he was not in the US at that time. His own argument fails by his own standards!
—–

James: Okay, well, Hussein, thank you very much. I think that, even though we didn’t get into all of the questions and things I wanted to ask you, I think we’ve made the point pretty clearly.

Hussein: Thank you so much.

James: By the way, one other thing. I’m sorry. You did take a few shots at my church in your tweets.

————-
(Again, some context. Hussein asked me, of all people, about Dr. White’s church. Starting here, where he makes generalizations about Reformed churches: @LaneChaplin I am Reformed and know very well how our churches stink at evangelism. Time to put our passion and enthusiasm to godly use 🙂
I respond here: @HusseinWario Then you need to 1) Find a better church 2) Reevaluate where you get your evangelism definition. You can’t fault DrWhite there He replies here: @RazorsKiss What better church? Reformed churches are dying. How many people have become members of PRBC who had no church background? Also: @RazorsKiss Talk is cheap. Time for Dr. White to focus on his pastoral duties. Enough said about @erguncaner

Dying? Really? I’m left at this point wondering what churches he interacts with. Further, how am I supposed to know PRBC membership histories? I don’t even go there! Even if I did, what does that matter? So I replied: @HusseinWario That’s a very broad brush. I’m a reformed baptist – we’re always small. Talk is also cheap when you want unity w/o holiness.

He then asks a few more questions: @RazorsKiss Do you have a consistory at your Reformed Baptist church? Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:41:49 PM via web in reply to RazorsKiss My reply: @HusseinWario Nope. @HusseinWario We have a body of elders, however. Hussein replies: @RazorsKiss Do they call elders, pastors? My reply: @HusseinWario The teaching elder is most often called “pastor,” but they are all pastors. He then says: @RazorsKiss I was in Sedona last Sept-Oct. Almost came to Phoenix. Will look your church up next time. My reply: @HusseinWario I don’t go to PRBC, but both my church and PRBC have multiple elders. PRBC currently has two, we have 3.

For some reason, he also believes that all Reformed churches have consistories, engage in public announcements of repentance in a church service, and apparently that they all stink at evangelism. Perhaps his church does this, but not all do. If he ascribes to a R. Scott Clark viewpoint concerning what is or is not Reformed, in which case his comments would be accurate, he’s left explaining why he has labeled other churches as “Reformed” in the past.

Back to the transcript.

——-

(James:)…Can you explain on what basis, given that you say that I can’t say anything about the Caner situation since I wasn’t there. Have you ever been to my church?

Hussein: No, I’ve never been to your church.

James: Oh, okay. Alright.

Hussein: I asked Josh about your church – he told me a little bit about it….

James: Josh?

—–
Josh 2982 😉
—–

Hussein: …One of the guys on twitter, he doesn’t even… I don’t know his last name, but he goes by RazorsKiss – it seems like all of the Reformed people out there, they go by pseudonyms, and some of them don’t even reveal who they are…

——
Now, interestingly, I gave him a link to my bio quite a while ago – which gives more info than most people are comfortable with ME sharing. So that hardly applies to me. I’m surprised that he doesn’t know my last name, as well, since I provided him a link to that information. He just didn’t take me up on reading the link I offered. I just use an online “handle”. If he’s talking about TurretinFan (which would hardly be “most” Reformed people), I would direct him to this post: Pseudonymity and the Calvinists.
——-

Hussein: …Anyway, the problem I have with you, in my church, our pastor, he has a consistory, the consistory of the church, they kinda like keep an eye on what the pastor does and stuff, and the pastor has a lot of work to do? And it seems like you’re a minister, a pastor, an elder?

James: I’m one of the elders, that’s right.

Hussein: You have a lot of time on your hands to blog about other people. Had you been a member of my church, which is a Reformed church, they probably would have told you to stop doing that.

—–
While the reader may note, of course, that Hussein apparently has plenty of time to blog and tweet about other people himself. This irony escapes him, it seems.
—–

James: So, Hussein, you know I’m doing two debates next week with Muslims? You think I’m going to be prepared for those?

Hussein: Ahhh, I dunno, you’re probably going to be debating about the same issues you debate about all the time.

—–
Well, there you have it. Since debates are about the same issues he debates all the time, he probably doesn’t need much preparation time. As I’m sure my readers know, debates take a significant amount of preparation. Chiefly, because every opponent’s argumentation is different; secondly, because every opponent has said different things which must be responded to; thirdly, because every topic is slightly different, even if it is the same “debate topic”. I’ve listened to or watched a large portion of Dr. White’s debates by this point – and at least a hundred other debates that others have engaged in. I can assure Hussein – his assertion is not even remotely the case.
—–

James: So, when I debated Robert Price, which required hundreds of hours of preparation, did I show up unprepared?

Hussein: I don’t know, I’ll find out.

—–
I was at that debate. Robert Price is a man with a truly encyclopedic knowledge. There were literally dozens of directions he could have gone. To prepare myself to listen to this debate properly, I listened to 2 of Price’s prior debates, and several of his lectures. When Hussein makes these sorts of claims, he demonstrates that he isn’t very cognizant of what it is Dr. White does, or who the people are that he has debated. His assertions that Dr. White is “wasting time” in addressing a professed Christian debater who *does not debate* are resting upon a significantly shaky foundation, as you can see. He doesn’t know the subject he is addressing well enough to be making these sorts of claims. Dr. White has explained why he is addressing this subject, in great detail, on his blog.
——

James: You don’t know.

Hussein: But hey, you’re a smart guy. Maybe you should put your energy where you need to put it, okay?

—–
Such an amazing assertion. Hussein is telling Dr. White, a 25 year ministry veteran, where he should or should not spend his time – and it isn’t here. Not only that, but saying so on his show, to his audience. The hubris in this statement is incalculable. Not only that, but he was just saying recently that Ergun Caner wasn’t accountable to James White (not that Dr. White has ever insisted he was) – but now James White is accountable to Hussein Wario? Interesting.
—–

There were pleasantries exchanged, the phone call ended, and then Dr. White addressed a few of the issues directly after, and with the next caller. I transcribed this in order to do one thing. Demonstrate to Mr. Wario that contrary to his assertion that “My arguments can be weak (formulation) but the facts are straight.” – he has not only presented weak (and in fact fallacious) argumentation, but his “straight facts” are red herrings. There is not merely a minor problem, but a major problem! This sort of argumentation is not something to be overlooked, as long as “your facts are straight”.

Facts are not neutral, and they are not brute objects with no context, and no interpretation needed. All things must be seen in the light of Scripture, it’s call to holiness, and it’s call to wisdom that is from above. When we argue with either unbelievers, or believers, our argumentation and statements need to be transformed by the renewing of our mind – not in accordance with the world. We are not to assume ill of our brethren for no cause – and when we are confronted with sin, we must repent. When we confront our brothers, it must be in righteous judgment, not an unrighteous judgment.

I know this can be an emotional issue. I’m completely aware of this. However, what shall rule us? Shall our emotional state, or shall our renewed mind reign us in, through self-control over our members? The tongue is a raging fire, ladies and gentlemen. That small organ can drive us to shipwreck i nthe blink of an eye.

Do you want to know how we should think? Scripture tells us. “For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.” (Rom 12:3) Note a few things there. From faith comes understanding and sound judgment. This means that there is not only a command to judge soundly, but that it is possible to judge unsoundly. This also means that only by faith can we understand; as Augustine says, “I believe, in order that I may understand.” This is a key component in thinking God’s thoughts after Him, instead of following our vain imaginations. We are also not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. The key to our thinking is not self, but Christ. As Col 2 tells us, we are to attain “to all the wealth [fn] that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.” Wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ. All wisdom and knowledge. We cannot think autonomously, from the foundation of self, and call our thinking Christian. If you are speaking, you must speak the truth in love. If you are defending the faith, it must be with both gentleness, and reverence. If you are seeking the truth, seek it through God’s word. Our brother James, and many of his friends are seeking to remove a reproach made upon the Gospel through dishonesty. Instead of joining with him, attending to the evidence which he and many others have amassed, in loving rebuke and reproof, with a public call to repentance, as Scripture demands, men are attacking the ones who have brought it to light. Listen to John 3. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” Luke 11:35 reminds us: “Then watch out that the light in you is not darkness.” Romans 13:12 challenges us: “The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.”

Eph 4 tells us: “As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ.” Do not be deceived! Instead, “if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,
that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another.” Notice that? The truth is holy. We are to speak truth, as we are all members of one another. The old self is corrupted by the lusts of deceit. Be renewed! Lay aside falsehood! Deceit is what brings disunity, brethren.

We are to put on the full armor of God, which protects us from the evil one. Stand firm! Gird your loins with TRUTH. You must do this before any of the armor will fit. I’m sure you can see the obvious application. Until we do so, none or armor will work, fit, or sit properly. We may as well be unarmored! The breastplate is of righteousness – we must be in the truth before we are acting righteously. Our feet are protected by the gospel of peace – and peace is never brought on the wings of a lie. The shield of faith will not cover us if we believe in a lie, not the truth! Faith has an object, and that object is THE Truth! Please, think about what you say, how you say it, and whether you are saying it in accord with Scripture. Be mindful of your words, knowing that you will be accountable for every idle word. Be mindful of your calling, of the high and precious Truth which we long to share – and always be mindful of opportunities to defend and confirm the faith. With truth and love, in gentleness and reverence.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I humbly submit to my brothers who defend Dr. Caner’s history despite the lies he has been shown to have told – are you really speaking in truth? Are you really giving an answer in reverent fear of the Holy Lord? Remember whom you serve. Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.

Consistency and Emotional Arguments

Hussein Wario recently added a second post to his appeal for the cessation of what he calls “attacks” on the Caners, as well as “aiding and abetting” Muslim tactics. He adds this recommendation: “We should give our brothers the benefit of the doubt before going global with what Muslims bring to our attention.”

I engaged him in the comment section shortly – those comments, and his replies are here.

However, my third comment, he refused to publish. Additionally, he has removed the links in my previous two comments, as well as the link that should show up when you mouseover my name. I’m sorry folks, but my “handle” is fairly unique. Not to mention that this post is about to jump up in the google search results when his name is googled, unfortunately. Fortunately, I have a habit of saving the comments that people refuse to publish – and since I have my own blog, it can be reproduced here for all to see.

Why are you masking your identity?

I’m not. Click the link to my site. It’s very easily available. Even if I was – what does it matter? I’m very easily contactable.

By the way, the way Dr. White deals with people who disagree with him, how arrogant he gets, that is what turns off Muslims. Muslim ministry is not about debating them, calling them “irrational” and their arguments “emotive” in order to score points.

How about saying that their arguments are emotive, irrational, or inconsistent? That is what I said. Please read more carefully next time.

I have read through your posts and it seems like you have no idea what I have been writing about.

While that is a bold assertion, it would be nice if you’d give an example for your readers, instead of merely asserting.

You could be Dr. White masquerading as some guy.

Or, you could go to the website that links from my name. It’s very simple, sir.

Mark my words. Unless Dr. White quits discussing the Caner Brothers, debasing them while exalting himself, I will continue with this endeavor.

Once again – you are presenting us with an emotive argument, devoid of factual, logical information. Please provide this.

Wait for Monday and you will see for yourself how he would need to revise his “open letter” to Liberty University and jettison some of his talking points.

I’m sure you’ll have it all over twitter yet again 😉

If you really care about the truth and Muslim ministry, you need to tell him to quit attacking these Christians of Muslim background.

Why do I need to? Again, please provide an argument for why I should so so.

Dr. White is the only apologist I know who openly criticizes people he disagrees with by name.

Can you explain why it is better to do so without naming people? Above, you were criticizing me for using a pseudonym. Is this consistent? Further, yet another assertion sans argumentation.

I am convinced that he cares less about the Caner Brothers’ repentance but score some popularity from this saga. His story keeps on changing.

Can you provide an argument to demonstrate either claim?

You also need to come out openly and reveal you identity. Why do my fellow Calvinists who are Dr. White’s sympathizers and followers commonly use pseudo names? Where is your integrity?

Sir, go to my site. Seriously. It’s all right there. Furthermore, I find it oddly inconsistent that you are criticizing others for integrity issues – in public – when your prior argument is that you must follow a “biblical pattern” in the matter of public claims. I don’t have anything in my inbox from you. Inconsistency, as Dr. White often says, is the sign of a failed argument. As Dr. White told you when you called in, a public statement can be publicly responded to – the pattern laid out that you referred to is for use in the local church.

As for you trying to tell me to quit, saying that you are concerned about my credibility because I stand with my fellow ex-Muslims who have sinned and who Dr. White and his Reformed-minded Christians have concocted ways to drive them off the face of the earth is laughable.

Can you give an argument for why this is so? This is yet another assertion, without even an attempt to demonstrate it.

You dismiss them as scholars of Islam with your shallow arguments and I stand by them because you have no clue what you have been talking about.

Can you demonstrate this?

You also dismiss them as devout ex-Muslims. Who are you to draw these conclusions when the court documents are inconclusive?

Can you demonstrate this?

You, Dr. White and the rest of his followers just pontificate, thus giving the Reformed faith a bad reputation.

Can you demonstrate this?

Dr. White cried foul saying that Liberty University had not been investigating Dr. Caner. And when Liberty decided to, he changed his tune.

Can you give any sort of factual reference for this?

All Christian leaders I have talked with who also work directly with Muslims agree with me that Dr. White has some major issues.

Argumentum ad populum. Fallacious argumentation, sir. Also given without any sort of citation. You’ve heard Dr. White in debate with people who assert “all scholars say”, or the like. What would the answer be to that assertion, Hussein?

Some of them know him personally and have intimated to me their frustration with him.

Someone’s emotional state concerning a person is hardly an argument of any sort.

If there will be any fallout, it will affect Dr. White and his ministry. So, tell him to go back to the basics and quit ruining the Dividing Line’s reputation. We might as well call it the Dissing Line because that label fits so well these days.

Ad hominem, naked assertion.

Sir, I wish you the best, but with the mass of assumptions, emotive arguments, assertions, and fallacies you’ve presented, is there any wonder that we’re not overly convinced? Please give something substantive in response. As it stands, I’m afraid that you are simply just not going to make any impression unless the standards of your discourse improve.

Sincerely,
Joshua. (It’s all on my site, Hussein. Not everyone has to be like you and use their real name as their url, okay?)

Now, while that may have hurt his feelings, did I address him or his arguments? Yet, my comment was not posted as of 8:02 pm. I posted it yesterday afternoon.

A few comments that also demonstrate inconsistency:

Dr. White is all about himself.

That was when I realized that Dr. White has an underlying problem, perhaps beyond these accusations of Dr. Caner being a liar.

I am a Reformed Christian and I am utterly ashamed of Dr. White. In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the Reformed faith—sola scriptura—because of his meddling in this matter and his disregard of the scripture. He is tacitly helping Muslims with their war against Muslim converts to Christianity.

@kai5263499 Oh my! I am glad to know I am not the only one. He is nuts. One of his accomplices just insulted me. Is it an Arizona thing? WOW

Notice – all of these are ad hominem, not ad argumentum. Against the man, not the argument. Unreal.

2 more comments have gone up since then. One from a particularly venomous character named Dianedrpenn on twitter.

A sampling of her choice invective:

I see one man, and his group of white-heads jumping up and down like a bunch of raving lunatics crying “foul!!” “unfair!!”.

James White thrives on all of this – he feeds on it like a parasite on a dead fish.

Even if Ergun Caner bowed down and did everything the pompous James White has asked him – no DEMANDED him – to do, it would not be enough to satisfy James White. James White is out to destroy Ergun and Emir Caner.

Wow – big red bull-sheizah flag on that one there Jimmie.

How delusional are you? This would be about as likely as Hitler asking Ben Stein to dinner for a “little friendly chat”.

“in your power”…..that, friends is “worship” in a statement if I ever saw it. It’s sad, It’s grotesque. It’s creepy. It’s telling of James White’s obsession, and how deep it goes.

@droakley1689 thrives on attacking @emircaner & @erguncaner like a parasite feeding on decay.

Then the finale:

link

She then tweets twice – once to a friend, providing a link – then to Dr. White – to make sure he sees it, I suppose.

@droakley1689 @bobbycapps He (james white) promotes the demon presiding over sexual abuse by perpetuating his own baggage!

I will still stand by my comment that linking to James Whites’ sister’s blog was not an attack on James White – but an observation about why he attacks Dr. Caner with such strange ferocity.

Apparently for Diane, it’s perfectly fine to spread gossip all over the internet. To assault the character of someone she has never met. To tell others to “drop it, for the sake of Christ” about Caner – in the same post she brings up shameful, untrue allegations from someone else she likewise has never met.

Folks, this is not only inconsistent – it’s unconscionable. Dr. White has addressed the subject, as distasteful as it is. A simple search on his youtube channel will show it to you. Further – this has nothing to do with the subject, whatsoever.

As for Mr. Wario – I find it utterly, appallingly inconsistent for him to allow that comment to be posted (and all of his comments are moderated) but not mine. It’s all right to allow someone to post libelous commentary about the person you are asking to stop “attacking” a brother (when in reality he is calling that brother to repentance) – but not okay for someone to point out your own inconsistencies in your comment. Additionally, I find it amazing that he attacks Dr. White himself throughout this piece, the comments, and via twitter – while trying to say that we can never publicly respond to public comments. Further, he is making public rebukes to me – while saying that we shouldn’t publicly rebuke people 😉

Just a final note to Mr. Wario – your own words.

I believe in restoration of a fallen Christian and not gossip them in public.

Note that restoration comes AFTER a man admits that he sinned, and repents. You let Diane skip right over the second part. You skip right over the Biblical pattern in your assumption that he HAS repented. You skip over the fact that Dr. Caner denies everything that we have demonstrated, through thorough research. Legal documents, that show he was there prior to the age that he claims he got here – repeatedly.

It is hardly “gossip” when the facts are demonstrable, plain, and incontrovertible. Ergun Caner has lied to a great, great many people – about where he is from, what he knows, how old he was when he converted, and a host of other things. As I told you in the comment previous:

I’d like to point something out to you. By defending Dr. Caner, you are undermining your own testimony. When you defend a man who is patently, obviously, lying to a great extent about himself, his background, and his expertise, you are damaging your OWN credibility. You are a convert from Islam. No one questioning Dr. Caner’s honesty from our side remotely questions that he is, as well. However, by defending him – from no logical basis, as far as I can tell – you are damaging your OWN credibility as a witness to Muslims. His damaged credibility will thereby attach to you.

Please, sir – for the sake of your own ministry to Muslims, and that of others of us, please stop.

The ball is in Dr. Caner’s court to repent. The ball, my friend, is also in your court to repent. Delete that shameful comment, please. I couldn’t care less if you publish mine now – it’s a bit late for that. The inconsistency you just displayed to us by allowing that one through is absolutely amazing. Go look up a bit of Wes Widner’s history with Dr. White, as well – and what he has called Dr. White, and others, in the past. Examine yourself, repent, and sin no more. You know I accurately identified your lack of logical argumentation for what it is. I have no interest in attacking you. If I wanted to attack you, I’d be @ing to everyone I know on twitter, as you seem to do with your posts. I have no interest in this being anything other than a public call to repentance – as Dr. White has issued with Dr. Caner, when he was blocked from further conversation. You do know that Dr. white attempted to resolve these matters in private, first, correct? That others of us asked Dr. Caner the same questions as well? That Dr. Caner has now blocked practically everyone who has criticized him at all, now? In a biblical model of repentance, what is the next step there? Bring it before the whole church. This has been brought to Liberty – to Dr. Caner – and now to everyone, as he has refused to repent. As I said – I have every interest in attempting to call you to repentance and restoration. Please, for the sake of the Gospel – stop what you are doing and take a good hard look at yourself, and the effect on your ministry if you continue.

~RK

(P.S. – click on “About” to the top left – my full bio is there. Most users in Dr. White’s chat channel have a “username” that they use to chat under. This is mine. It also has been my online username for almost two decades. Note that Dr. White also uses one – DrOakley1689. Is he “hiding himself”? Instead of jumping to conclusions, why don’t you ask – or look?)

Questions that deserve answers

We told you, Liberty. We told you, Dr. Caner. This wasn’t going to be swept up under the rug. This wasn’t going to go away. We knew that if the media got a whiff of this, it was going to be ugly. We begged, we pleaded, we have been praying for months that there would be something other than stonewalling and dismissive barbs coming out of Liberty, and out of Dr. Caner.

What Dr. Caner, his defenders and his employers need to realize is this:

1) There are several groups who are involved here. There is no monolithic “conspiracy”. First, there are the Muslims, and a few Christians who have indiscriminately taken up the allegations of Mr. Kahn and others, and insist that Dr. Caner is a fake ex-muslim – that he never was a Muslim. Second, there are the atheists and secular media who are out to see if a “Christian celebrity” will fall. Thirdly, there are those who are chiefly concerned with the reproach to the Gospel that this situation has become.

2) There are significant differences in method, tactics, and focus between these groups. For instance, I would be in the third group. I am a friend of Alpha and Omega’s ministry. I have participated in many discussions in our chat channel concerning Dr. Caner. Our approach, in general, is to consider these questions prayerfully, carefully, and in a balanced way. Our concern is not to “team up” with Muslims – but to be consistent in our insistence on truth – from those who are on “our side” as much as from the Muslims we converse with and witness to. We reject, and have rejected from the beginning, that Dr. Caner is a “fake ex-muslim”. Our insistence, from the first, has been on consistency and truthfulness. This means, given the evidence that has been uncovered, that we must insist that Dr. Caner WAS a Muslim, if apparently nominal. In fact, many of us have bent over backwards to correct excessive or baseless criticism on any point we encounter. We have taken heat for it, too. The central issues we have with Dr. Caner are that these fabrications are dishonest, being tied to the presentation of the Gospel, and therefore disgracing the Gospel. Shall the name of God be blasphemed because of our silence? May it never be!

3) There is nothing but hurt coming – to the Gospel, to Liberty University, and to Dr. Caner – if Dr. Caner doesn’t fess up, and fess up soon.

4) The “help” being offered to Dr. Caner by several Southern Baptist bloggers is about to be excruciatingly embarrassing – and will also result in a black eye on the Southern Baptist Convention, if not addressed soon. On the other hand, the allegations being made by many Muslims and some Christians are equally unfortunate, in that they show a lack of balance.

Here is a list of questions compiled by the indefatigable researchers who have been looking through the Caner’s statements; modified by a few of my own, and those of others. (Thank you, biglo, Jason, TurretinFan!)

Questions for Dr. Caner

Name

1) What is your full legal name?
2) Have you ever changed your legal name?
3) Why did you previously use “Michael” pre 9/11 and switch to “Mehmet” post 9/11?
4) Why did you state your name was “Giovanni”?

Ethnicity

5) You’ve claimed to be “Persian”, “Anatolian and not Persian.” Which is correct?
6) Was your father Turkish?
7) Is your mother Swedish?
8) Why do you emphasize being 100% Turkish, spanning 21 generations to the exclusion of your Swedish ancestry?
9) Do you believe you were honest and gracious in portraying yourself as 100% Turkish as well as describing “your” people as “Towel Heads”, “Sand Monkeys”, “Camel Jockeys”, and “Sand Niggers”?
10) Aren’t these Arab slurs, not Turkish?
11) Why do you tell offensive jokes in the pulpit?

Residency/Citizenship

12) Where were you born?
13) What citizenships do you or have you held?
14) Where did you live before arriving in the US? Please provide a list.
15) Have you ever lived in a country that could be deemed majority Muslim?
16) What did you mean about arriving in the US after going through Beirut/Cairo?
17) When did your family move to the US?
18) Did you arrive via Brooklyn?
19) Did you live in Brooklyn on arrival in the US?
20) How old were you when you moved to Ohio?

Languages

21) Was Swedish your first language?
22) How fluent are you in the Turkish language?
23) How fluent are you in the Arabic language?
24) Do you still maintain you had a poor grasp of English until you were married?
25) How long have you been speaking English?
26) Where did you learn English?

Father’s background

27) Did your father officially declare your mother as baggage to customs on arrival in the US?
28) When you say your father had multiple wives do you mean your father was a polygamist?
28) What do you mean when you say your father came to build mosques?
29) Do you support your website’s claim that your father was among the ulema?
30) Was your father one of a number who called the men to prayer?

Mother’s Background

31) Is your mother originally from a Lutheran background?
32) Did your mother convert to Islam in Sweden and then reject Islam in America?
33) Did your mother desert Islam for what Emir has called a hippie Universalist lifestyle?
34) Did your mother ever wear any Islamic clothing after she adopted this hippie lifestyle?

Reasons for coming to America

35) Were your family Sunni Muslims or Wahhabi?
36) Do you stand by your statement that you moved to the US in 1978 after Ayatollah Khomeini the Shia Muslim leader encouraged Muslims to do so?
37) Did you come to America to be an Islamic missionary?
38) Which madrassa did you attend?
39) What is the ‘Youth Jihad‘?
40) When and where were you a member of the Youth Jihad?
41) What were the activities of the Youth Jihad?
42) Were you ever trained as a jihadist?
43) Was there any real chance that you would have strapped a bomb to your chest if you hadn’t been converted?

Devotion to Islam

44) Did your mother ever try to prevent you from being brought up in Islam?
45) Did your mother allow you to wear Islamic dress while in her home?
46) Did you wear Islamic clothing to school?
47) Did you use a prayer mat in the high school bathrooms?
48) Why did you say Ramadan was forty days long when in fact it is a lunar month in length?
49) Why did you confuse the Shahada with the opening words of Surat al-Fatiha?
50) Given that both would have been repeated thousands of times, as a devout Muslim, how could you be confused about such a basic thing?
51) How did you attend the Mosque during the school year?

Grandmother’s Background

51) Was your grandmother from a Lutheran background?
52) Was your grandmother’s only language Swedish?
53) Was your grandmother a pluralist?
54) Did your grandmother have a significant involvement in your upbringing?

Ability to Travel Abroad

55) Were you and your brothers barred by a court from traveling abroad during the 1970s?
56) Did you or your brothers ever leave the US to travel abroad in the 1970s and if so where and when did you travel?

American Culture

57) Do you still say all you learned about American culture prior to 1978 was from the Andy Griffith show, the Dukes of Hazzard, and Wrestling?
58) Do you still claim to have watched these in Turkey prior to 1978 despite fact that the Dukes of Hazzard first aired in 1979?

Visit to Stelzer Road Baptist “revival”

59) Did you attend Stelzer Road Baptist Church to sort the Christians out, with your Father’s knowledge as you have said, or did you attend without your father’s knowledge as you have said elsewhere?
60) Did you attend there with your Quran and wearing Muslim clothing?
61) Did you interrupt the service to get saved and the pastor asked you to delay the request until the altar call?
62) Did you go with the young people to an afterglow and witness to the waitress at the place where you ate?
63) Did you eat ham for the first time on the night of your conversion or did your mother as a non-Muslim allow you to eat ham prior to this?
64) Did you really attend the mosque the next day to tell Muslims about your new found faith?
65) Were you beaten for this?

Timing of Conversions

66) Emir and yourself have both claimed Thursday Nov 4, 1982 as your conversion dates so on what date were you saved?
67) Emir and yourself have claimed Emir was converted about a year after you so on what date was Emir saved?
68) Were Emir and Erdem converted at the same time?
69) Were you preaching your first sermon when Emir and Erdem came forward to get saved or was it Pastor Clarence Miller as both Emir and your book Unveiling Islam claims?

Acar’s Reaction to Conversion

70) How do you account for your father rejecting you as his son for 17 years and rejecting Emir for 14 years if Emir was saved a year after you?
71) Did your father cut you out of all the family photographs and did he do the same for your brothers?

Monica’s Reaction

72) Did your mother have any negative reaction to your conversion that resulted in you becoming a “church orphan”?
73) Were you disowned by all of your family?
74) When did your mother became a Christian?
75) Did she continue to wear a hijab until she was baptized?

Qualifications

76) What degrees have you earned?
77) What honorary degrees do you have?
78) Have you claimed that you have a Ph.D?
79) Why, when Unveiling Islam was revised, did you continue to refer to undertaking a Ph.D?
80) You have claimed to engage in more than sixty Muslim debates. Where is the evidence of these debates?
81) Who have you debated? What are their names?
82) When and where did these debates take place?
83) In February, 2010, you said you never debated Shabir Ally. Who did you debate in Nebraska? When? On what topic?
84) You claimed to debate Abdul Saleeb, which means “servant of the cross.” Why did you claim to debate a Christian, and attribute an Islamic argument to him?
85) You have often, in talks, and in print, referred to “Hadith 9:57.” Since any meaningful citation of the hadith literature requires the use of the name of the actual collection (in this case, Sahih al-Bukhari), does this not show a fundamental ignorance of the most basic elements of scholarly inquiry into Islamic studies?
86)Do you claim to be an expert in Islam?
87) Why should these claims about your past, and your apologetic work, not be considered false advertising and fraudulent?

Fatwa

88) Were you ever under a Fatwa that kept you and your family on the road?
89) Who issued this Fatwa?
90) If you were/are under a Fatwa why do you publish your children’s names, their photos and pictures of the outside and inside of your home?

Miscellaneous

91) Is your father-in-law really from “Possum Kill” in North Carolina? You have claimed so and Emir has said that this is really so despite there being no such place officially recognized by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names database?

Censorship

92) Why did you ask Focus on the Family to remove a recording of your testimony?
93) Did you have any part in requesting Living with Joy radio to remove your testimony?
94) Did you ask John Ankerberg to take down the YouTube videos which mocked you?

Legal Documents

95) Do you agree that the documents provided by Jason Smathers are authentic documents?

Truth

96) Do you believe that you merely misspoke or would you now say you lied on the various matters in the questions above?
97) If you agree you lied why did you do so?
98) Dr. White brought up your debate claims in October of ’09. The biographical matters surfaced in February of this year. Why have you refused to answer these matters for this long?
99) Why have you blamed the investigations into your testimony on Christians colluding with Muslims?
100) Do you agree you have profited financially from false claims in your testimony?
101) Do you believe your testimony had any part in you getting your current post?
102) Why did you tweet in disparaging terms about those investigating your words?
103) Why did you quickly remove your statement of February 2010?
104) Do you believe you owe an apology to the Muslim Mohammed Khan?
105) Do you believe you owe an apology to any Christian bloggers?
106) Why did you block everyone who asked you questions about these matters?

Standing before God

107) Do you think you have honored God?
108) Have you repented to God for what you have done?

These questions are provided to emphasize and illustrate the depth and breadth of the problems that has been identified. As Dr. White said on the Thursday, May 14th Dividing Line, we would like nothing better than to see repentance and restoration occur. We are all very, very tired of this whole affair – but consistency is what drives this entire affair, and it has to be seen through. Look, this isn’t some vendetta over a debate that fell through. This isn’t some obsession we have, due to the comments he has made about us. It truly isn’t. If that was so, we would have nothing to do but obsess over critics all day, every day. That just isn’t the case. This has been front and center because Dr. Caner refuses to address the issue meaningfully. He has taken this tack from the beginning, and Liberty’s leadership has played backstop for it. Since this is so, and since the amount of evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Caner’s autobiographical claims has multiplied immensely, this has continued to develop. It’s an integrity issue.

Questions for Dr. Caner’s supporters:
1) Can you provide answers for any of the questions above?
2) Can you point me to a defense of Dr. Caner that has provided an answer for any of the questions above?
3) Can you point me to a blog that has factually answered objections to Dr. Caner?
4) Can you name a blog post defending Dr. Caner that has not resorted to ad hominem argumentation in lieu of factual defense?
5) Can you name me a blog factually defending Dr. Caner that *isn’t* one written by someone who has also expressed concerns about Dr. Caner?
6) Can you specify when and where the accusation has been leveled by any blogger related to A&O that insists that Dr. Caner is a “fake ex-Muslim,” rather than differentiating the position as “fake ex-devout Muslim”?
7) Can you specify when and where any blogger related to A&O has “collaborated” with a Muslim?
8) Is it not true that Debbie Kaufman has disagreed with every blogger related to A&O concerning the “fake-ex-muslim” claim?
9) Is it not true that Debbie Kaufman has responded negatively to any suggestion that she moderate her claims regarding Dr. Caner from other bloggers?
10) Is it not true that we have publicly noted that we disagree with Mr. Kahn’s methodology and the extent of his claims?
11) Is it not true that we have repeatedly denied that this issue has any connection to the debate debacle in 2006?
12) Have you read or heard Dr. White’s explanation of why he has engaged this issue?
13) Is it not true that we have repeatedly insisted that this is an issue of honesty and consistency – and of witness to Muslims?
14) Is it not true that Dr. White’s consistent call to Muslim debate opponents is that they be “lovers of truth”?
15) How then would Dr. White, or any of us, be consistent in turning a blind eye to what we first recognized as discrepancies in claimed debates, and then snowballed into evidence of a pattern of falsehood?
16) Have you read or heard us saying, repeatedly, that we have no desire whatsoever to “aid and abet” Muslims in claiming that Dr. Caner is a “fake ex-Muslim”?
17) Do you understand that in the eyes of Muslims, you are the ones aiding and abetting dishonesty?
18) Have you read or heard that our claim is that Dr. Caner autobiographical falsehoods are a reproach to the Gospel, and that it is on those grounds that we are going this direction?
19) Is it not plain that the response of Dr. Caner and Liberty are what has necessitated the response we have made,and the following media investigation?
20) Do you see that the attempted defenses thus far have not addressed the myriad contradictions in Dr. Caner’s biography?

Responses to objections (non-material)

1) “This is about the debate that fell through in 2006!”
– The answer to this one is easy. a) No, it isn’t. b) How do you know? c) Why do you assume we’re lying, when we’ve said, over and over, that our concern is the Gospel? d) Isn’t it hypocritical to call people liars when your defenses inevitably say that it’s somehow inappropriate to say that someone has lied?
2) “You’re obsessing about Dr. Caner!”
– Hardly. Dr. White commented on that, for himself, on Thursday’s DL. As for myself, I really have better things to do. Unfortunately, the situation calls for Dr. Caner’s brothers in Christ to call him to repentance. Therefore, we will. Let me know how many Ergun Caner posts you see on this blog. It’s been up for a while.
3) “You’re teaming up with Muslims!”
– Hardly. I have defended him from baseless accusations from Christians, yes. I have also criticized him wherever necessary, as well. Teaming up? No. I’ve never directly contacted him, and don’t plan to.
4) “You’re ignoring the Biblical pattern of calling men to repentance!”
– Which one? The one where you contact them privately first, bring a few with you next, then lay it before the whole church? a) We all did contact him privately. He blocked us. b) More people contacted him. He blocked them too. c) It’s now before the whole church. d) Isn’t that for the local church, anyway? Last I checked, none of us are members of Thomas Road.
5) “This is about Reformed theology!”
– Uh, no. This would have happened eventually. It is true, in a way. If he hadn’t shot his mouth off dozens of times about Reformed theology, he sure never would have been on our radar. Since he did, he got there – and his claims, therefore, got there. Once he got on that radar, and we saw his debate claims, it snowballed. So yes, in a way you can blame Reformed theology. In particular, his statements about it.
6) “You’re teaming up with anti-CR people!”
– Honestly? I couldn’t care less about it, and didn’t even know what it was until all of the flame wars from the CR side began. So no, don’t think that has anything do with… anyone from our side. We’re a mix of Reformed Baptists, Calvinistic SBCers, and Presbyterians. Why would we care about CR as a group?
7) “You just want Ergun Caner taken down!”
– Not at all. I just want him to admit his sin, repent and begin restoration.
8) “You just assume he’s guilty!”
– Nonsense. There is a massive, massive amount of information that has led to this conclusion. Waving it away doesn’t change that fact. There is a reason for our position, and it is rooted in Dr. Caner’s own words and inconsistencies therein.
9) “You’re just an attack blogger!”
– Once again – nonsense. Read my blog, and it’s quite obvious I’m not.
10) “You’re a sinner too!”
– Obviously. If I’m in open, repeated, unrepentant sin – please point it out and call me to repentance.
11) “You want to bring anyone down who isn’t Reformed!”
– No, or I’d never, ever do anything else.
12) “The issue was originally that he was a fake-ex-muslim! You’re changing the story!”
– Please quote where I _ever_ said that was the issue. Thanks. It’s not. It’s that Dr. Caner has been shown to be dishonest in a multitude of areas. That dishonesty has consequences, which he is now facing. Whether he sorrows over that sin and repents accordingly is yet to be seen.

Rules for commenting on this post:
I am solely interested in responses to the questions above. Limit your comments to those questions, or your comments will be deleted as irrelevant. Interaction with said responses are permissible, but should be kept to factual matters. I will be very strict on enforcing my policies on this post – and violations will be dealt with as quickly and as justly as possible. If you have questions or concerns you’d like to raise, my email is linked on the top left, as is my commenting policy.

A Snapshot of SBC Graciousness

The personal attacks range from the truth of their lives before Christ to the academic degrees they hold.

Really? In the original context it’s not clear who he’s referring to. Later on he includes Dr. White.

They drink the kool-aide pouring from the poisoned vine

Yeah, that’s gracious.

You may think that no person who calls themselves a Follower of Christ would side with a Muslim to degrade and berate a Brother in Christ. I did also until I viewed the following video.

Irony? It’s calling.

Please note that any believer that calls into question the truth of the Drs. Caner background and degrees use the research of Muslims (those who have a reason for perverting the truth) for their documentation.

Any believer. Yeah, no problems there.

Then you have those that are jealous and envious of the Drs. Caner. Those envious and jealous will use the lies for a “gotcha” moment in order to accomplish the same ends–silence the truth.

Yeah, that jealousy. Of what?

Keep taking a Muslim’s perspective that Dr. Caner is lying and push this thing as hard as you can. Or, accept that Dr. Caner has written over 20 books on Islam and had them published by reputable publishers who would have certainly done the background checks needed to verify everything that James White says is false. Or, you can accept two reputable Christian Universities that are both accredited by SACS that Dr. Caner has his degrees in order and that James White is pushing falsehood by calling all this into question.

No blatant ad hominem there. Yeah, because Dr. White said all sorts of things about his degrees. Not.

James White doesn’t even hold an accredited PhD. How, can he be a Prof at GCBTS?

Call Golden Gate. Or Grand Canyon.

I then went back to his website to view his credentials and do you know my surprise to find that his PhD is from an non-credited seminary. I went to the seminary website and found this explanation for their lack of accreditation. I am not questioning Columbia Evangelical Seminary’s,I am merely asking how one can be a prof at an accredited seminary when his PhD does not hold an accreditation.

Call Golden Gate. Or Grand Canyon.

It is overtly evident everyone is responding in this thread for one reason. They are upset that James White and Dr. Caner did not debate. Now James White has gotten what he wanted–a public call out to the Brothers Caner to debate him and he will shut up about these Muslim claims.

Yeah, that was what he was after. Okay, not really. But keep repeating it.

I appeal to you, under the title of your blog, and as a follower of Christ. Remove this post as you have placed the lives of people in jeopardy.

Please remove it.

Yeah, that makes sense. A blog post is going to put people’s lives in jeopardy.

The problem with this posting has nothing to do with someone not being truthful, neither does it have to do with disagreements of people and their various positions. The problem with this post has to do with using something that has nothing to do with sound research. This post is based on research that James White has produced and he got his research from right-wing Muslims that believe if they can do away with a Muslim that converted to Christianity they will go to heaven when they die. She has given James White a wider audience then he ever would have had.

He did? She did? I think someone needs to fact check.

Seeing you have no problem placing the lives of people in jeopardy, I now see the reason you were censored by the IMB.

~Tim Rogers

Yeah, that wasn’t a cheap shot.

Hyper-Calvinist James White has whined the very same line for the last 4 years: Ergun Caner is a coward because Ergun Caner won’t debate me. For him, apparently little matters in doctrinal engagement outside public, formal debate, debate concerning which the reader is tortuously reminded about every 28 words–give or take a breathe or two–just how good he (White) is at it.

It’s drudgery to listen to such unmitigated gloating. Sorry.

Gracious as always, Peter.

Though you did not ask me, if I may, one clear reason I think Tim brings this up is White’s relentless, non-stop infatuation with the Caners (esp. Ergun).

For White, it is not enough to disagree with Dr. Caner. Instead, he must attempt to torture his name with perpetual castigation of “lying”, “dishonesty,” “cowardly,” “fraudulent,” etc.

So, in turn, we make the same allegations, except with an extra helping of snark. Sure.

Dr. David Allen demonstrates sufficiently White’s theological leanings toward hyper-Calvinism.

Uh. Here, here, here. From AOMin here.

Particularly, two influential blogging Calvinists appear to have made it a life-mission to smear Ergun Caner’s life and ministry in the mud-hole of deception: Tom Ascol, Southern Baptist pastor and Executive Director of Founders Ministries, and James White, Primitive Baptist preacher and Reformed Baptist apologist from Phoenix, Az.

Life mission? Primitive Baptist? Ridiculous.

At least that’s the sense I get when I read White boast of his many rhetorical victories and the cowards who will not face him in open exchange (more on White later).

Yeah.

This may be one of the lowest, most outrageous incidents yet illustrating the viciousness of some strict Calvinists toward non-Calvinist brothers.

You know – viciousness. By what standard?

For example, let’s say someone wanted to question the authenticity of James White’s so-called “academic” doctoral” degree (And, understand:  it perhaps needs to be questioned if White is going to insist on gloating about all his academic accomplishments). So, if one wanted to question his doctoral degree’s worth, perhaps we could link to this , this , this, and this.

See the top tab – “Common Objections.”

James White may be the whiniest kid on the block

Not as whiny as Peter Lumpkins – that’s for sure.

Interesting Elder White should bring that up. Surf over to White’s church’s eldership and one finds just what “under the authority of the eldership” means to James White. The eldership appears to be a board of two: James White and the pastor.

Note: PRBC used to have three elders, including Dr. White. Donald Cross passed away several years previously.

Since James White insists on calling Ergun Caner coward for not debating him, what does that make White when he refuses to debate somebody? Apparently, after agreeing to debate a Muslim critic, James White backed out. We know this is so because the Muslim says so himself on his website!

You see, according to White’s “code of behavior,” there’s no reason to suspect Muslim attack sites’ objectivity, and therefore “evidence” cannot be disregarded on that basis. At least, that was his reasoning when he “exposed” Dr. Caner as a “fake Muslim” using a source which carries demonstrable hate for Dr. Caner.

Yes, that was the source, and that was the topic. Not.

Heck, you may even be kicked out of the JWFC (i.e. James White Fan Club for the uninitiated).

No, I’m not only the president – I’m also a client.

“No thanks, “Dr” White. You and your community are much too cantankerous for me”

Yes, and you’re the model of humility and grace. Gag me with a Buick, please.

And, perhaps even more indefensible is stooping to defend their godless tearing down of another brother being logged by some here. Where is shame?

Well, the last I saw, it was being trampled over there in your corner of the SBC. I may be mistaken, though. The correct term may be “violently pummeled”. In a hypothetical situation, of course.

Dr. Ergun Caner has been unrighteously butchered by two men in the post.

Yeah, if he was being righteously butchered, they’d get the choicest portion.

Was or was not Ascol & White loving their neighbor as themselves when they cited a Muslim hate-site?

Was or was not Peter Lumpkins loving his neighbor as himself when he went off on an invective-filled screed?

I think it’s very telling that absolutely no one wants to tackle whether or not the sources are valid pertaining to “Dr” White’s “academic” degree.

Probably because it’s not only asinine, but infantile. Hypothetically.

White’s choir boys have already sung that tune to death, were one to ask me

~Peter Lumpkins

They tell me I have a fine voice, but I wasn’t notified that I made the choir! Sweet!

Or if one is obsessed with issues they can’t get beyond for some reason–Maybe because of a problematic pathological nature– Maybe they wanted or “needed” something to give their lives meaning–And maybe they are just angry because another person denied them that which gives them their source of self-worth–Maybe it could be just anything for such a person–Maybe something simple or actually meaningless–Maybe like a debate that did not occur back as far as 2006–Who Knows?–Maybe.

Maybe, just maybe we should wonder why someone can’t let something from 2006 go–Unless, maybe, of course he who cannot let something go from 2006 is either antagonistic or obsessed–or maybe even both. Yeah–maybe so.

Yeah, Dr. White just doesn’t have enough time for ministry, with all this Caner stalking. I mean, he hasn’t done any debates, books, or anything! Hint: do a search on the blog, and see how many times Dr. Caner has been mentioned on aomin since the debate debacle wound down. It might be illuminating.

And then there is the fellow who has made a name and gathered a following for himself by chasing Caner around since 2006 because he did not debate him.

Yes, because Caner made him famous AND wealthy! That’s why he has the presidency of a seminary, and drives an Expedition. Oh, wait…

I think this post is one that could bring more hardship on those guys families. I would not go so far as to say this post depicts depraved indifference, but I would say there it depicts a great degree of thoughtless. Yeah, that’s it, not heartlessness, but most certainly thoughtlessness.

Uh, yeah. Red Herring, anyone? I hear it’s delightful.

Some people talk about the primacy of the gospel and some people share the gospel with a lost and dying world. I will cast my lot with those who do.

Because, you know, Dr. White never talks about the Gospel. Ever. Do a quick blog search – you know – actually *try* to look into what you accuse of, sight-unseen.

Ergun Caner may never be able to give a meaningful, effective gospel witness to this young man due to the strong differences between them at this time. But, I assure you, if this young man were on his death bed looking into the flames of hell, he would not ask Debbie to share the gospel with him, not after this. That opportunity is gone and it is now probably gone for any of us.

So let me ask all those warriors who have launched their Christian version of jihad in defense of their Evangelical Superstar: do you have any idea how many obstacles you have placed in the way of this young Muslim ever hearing the gospel in honesty? Did that thought ever once cross your mind before you in your abject ignorance blithely accused him of falsehood? Where is all your vaunted concern for evangelism now, I wonder? ~James White

This situation has gotten to the place that Debbie had such tunnel vision as to call in a twenty-two year old Muslim young man to make her case before the world about something that is really old news and was fueled by one Christian’s beef with another about the canceling of a silly debate that really amounts to less than a hill of beans anyway.

Next, I would like to refute the oft-repeated falsehood floating about amongst the “touch not the Lord’s anointed” crowd today: I had hardly given Ergun Caner a thought over the past few years. I have no interest in this fight right now. I have work to do, chapters and books to write, debates to prepare for. Outside of noting an odd statement by Caner on Twitter last summer sometime, I have had little interest in his activities. Rogers and Lumpkins have both falsely attributed to me intentions and desires I do not have. They seem to think I absolutely MUST debate Ergun Caner. I would surely like to do so—but only for the benefit of those who have been misled by Caner in the area of the freedom of God in salvation. But I already know of so many who have seen through his bluster on the topic and come to embrace God’s kingly freedom in the gospel that if such an encounter never happened, I would continue to rejoice in the Lord’s kind providence. Ironically, right as this current situation began to evolve, I was contacted by folks in Lynchburg asking me to come there in the fall sometime to speak on the atonement and, as a part of the trip, invite Ergun Caner to debate. I would still love to see that happen, as would many, many others (the cancellation of that debate, which was documented to be the result of the dishonest behavior of the Caner brothers, disappointed many), but even here, I have been contacted by others and asked to participate. I was not the one even looking for such an opportunity. ~James White

Let me ask you a question. Do you not think it somewhat obsessive for a pastor to chase after a guy since 2006 about a debate that did not happen? There comes a point wherein, if you are going to remain emotionally healthy, you have to get over any specific disappointment and go on with your life.

Disappointment is part of life and so is getting over it. To become fixated on such for this period of time is not healthy.

What, then, has brought about this current interest? Simple: Ergun Caner claims to do what I do in reality. He claims to be a leading figure in Islamic apologetics. He claims to have debated “leaders” in a wide spectrum of religious beliefs in more than a dozen countries and more than half of the United States. But the fact is, I haven’t been able to find a single Muslim apologist or leader who has ever debated the man. He has redefined the term “debate” so that he can include every conversation he has ever had with anyone who is not a Christian. Why redefine the language? Because he needs to bring students to his school, evidently, and so his self-promotional language has caught him in a number of falsehoods. But my involvement here, as repulsive as I find it to be (I detest politics and would much rather be working on my next article on the Qur’an’s view of “three” and the Trinity) is forced upon me by the fact that simple integrity demands it. Unlike Ergun Caner, I actually have interaction with Shabir Ally and the wide range of Islamic apologists active in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and elsewhere. I have to look them in the eye when I shake hands with them after a debate. And I therefore have to answer to a higher standard of truth than the “Circle the Wagons” mentality of Pastor Tim Rogers and Peter Lumpkins. I have to be consistent. I have sharply, and rightly, criticized “former Christians” who have become Muslims for their obvious ignorance of the Christian faith (Yusuf Estes, for example). So if a self-proclaimed former Muslim makes false claims about his activities (claiming to debate people he has never met, for example), am I to keep my mouth shut out of “team loyalty”? How can I do this? It is hypocrisy, plain and simple. ~James White
~CB Scott

a third source that actually has a strange derangement with trying to trap a brother in Christ into a debate. The loss of such an event is obviously wearing thin on this brother and the applied pressure grows weekly. Of the most sad and unthinkable in this process is the fact that a brother in Christ would use Muslim attack sites to go after another brother. No excuse on this earth or in heaven can justify this – NEVER.

This is beyond reasonable thought. A guy who claims to be a Christian goes and uses material produced by Muslims to attack another Christian?????? For Mr. White to do that is beyond comprehension. Not to mention the fact that the Muslims have sent (and this verified)death threats to his entire family detailing the acts they will commit.

Why not ask Mr. White how many Muslims he has led to Lord? Why not ask him why as a Christian he would use material of Muslims to attack his brother in Christ? All of this over a debate and a desire to get a debate?

This is horrible and proves the point that blogging has become the real Jerry Springer show in America.

I am shocked that no one is questioning a Christian using Muslim media and propaganda against another Christian???

And all to have a silly debate.

have you thought about his family? They are threatened routinely by the garbage you are getting off of White’s web site.

Christiams should act better than this. Stop feeding the true evil people this fuel to their fire. Have more class than Mr White has!

Checking out Mr White is reading propaganda. Please hear what CB is saying. This no SBC stuff. This is real life and death stuff and one man who cares more his PR than he does a fellow Chriatian and his family.

You are giving credibility to a Muslim… Will you question anything because some nut puts something up on the internet? I would hope you would not because I think you are smarter than that.

I have been in brief correspondence with the young Muslim here in London who posted the clips from Ergun Caner. He contacted me when he saw me asking, back in October/November, for help in finding any of these dozens of debates (61 with Muslims alone according to one 2006 newspaper interview). Up to that time I had not even considered the possibility that there was a wider problem with Ergun Caner’s claims. This young Muslim has been the object of unmitigated hatred by many self-proclaimed “Christians” of late, and for what? He didn’t make up Ergun Caner’s self-contradictory claims. He did not force Ergun to tell one group of people he was born in Istanbul, a “sand monkey” (a grossly offensive term unworthy of anyone standing in a pulpit) and another group he was born in Sweden. He did not force Ergun to confuse Shabir Ally with Ahmed Deedat nor did he make Ergun confuse the shahada with the opening words of Surah Al Fatiha. Nor did he make Ergun claim the Muslims believe in a prophet they’ve never heard of, and then have the tapes edited to remove the mistake. To blame this young man for Ergun Caner’s errors is absolutely, positively reprehensible for anyone who names the name of Jesus Christ, who identified Himself as the very embodiment of truth itself. ~James White

Also, I note that Peter Lumpkins deleted the Muslim’s respectful comment off his comment section.

While you are researching I have a thought – check out the validity of Mr. Whites PhD. You will not believe the campus of the school he graduated from.

Why don’t you check out Mr. White? There are major issues there! That is extremely relevant!

White has gone after Ergun with a passion I wish people would possess in leading people to Jesus. The debate issue is really absurd. Do you know how many different ways “debate” is used?

See the above tab – “Common Objections”.

Ask Mr. White how many he has led to the Lord from his debates?

~Tim Guthrie
A “for instance” post about the reason for debate.

Saddest about this episode you “expose” here is not White — I have long expected this uncharitable, unChristian nonsense from he and his kind… I suppose the bottom line remains that, if a “theological movement” or a “historical/religious system” has to resort to such unreliable sources, dishonest means and unbiblical tactics to achieve their goals and “win” their debates, just how “Christian” can they be?

~J. Dale Weaver

Notice the subjectivism and ad hominem.

With both you and Tim, it appears that the hyper-calvinists among us practice the fine art of shooting the messengers. How dare you offer critical analysis of such boorish behavior of their Sainted Dortian Warriors.

This is nothing more than an attempt to make the argument about the person rather than substance. This also seems to me that “Dr.” White is equally, if not more guilty of the same tactics.

~Ron Phillips Sr.

No irony here at all.

Look, folks. Look at the issues *actually brought up* by Dr. White. Read his post, here.

This sort of behavior and jumping to conclusions is absolutely amazing. Reprehensible, really. Boorish, to be kind.

My comment: “God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature.”

CMP: No, wrath is a response of another attribute, namely righteousness. But that is not really the point of this post.

Jugulum: I actually agree w/him on “wrath”. Wrath isn’t an attr. because God’s wouldn’t be wrathful if he hadn’t created. God was/is/will-be eternally holy/righteous, which includes the trait, “I will be wrathful toward sin”. You might call that a “attr. of wrath”, but I think that was the distinction CMP was making. Similarly, God wasn’t eternally merciful, apart from a sinful creation. Mercy & wrath are expressions of his eternal attributes.

Recall this post: Divine Simplicity and Malformed Arguments.

This is another good example of why we must keep ALL of God’s attributes in mind, when formulating our theology – even on the internet. What does this point of view entail? First, that God changed. That He is not immutable. In this view, God began to be wrathful (or merciful). In this view, God’s wrath is not eternal, toward sin, nor is His mercy towards sinners eternal. Did God enter the temporal realm at a certain point in time, and thereby become successive, changeable, and non-eternal? If not, this view does not, and cannot, hold water. Similarly to when we say, as Athanasius said contra the Arians, that “there was never a time when the Son was not” – we must say that there was a never a time God’s wrath was not. God is not temporal, folks. God is not changeable, and God “is not a man, that He should change His mind”.

Hear me – I understand the distinction being made by CMP and Jugulum. However – the consequences of this view are utterly unacceptable. What God does, He eternally purposed to do. God’s righteousness is eternal, yes – but His wrath, since He is Eternal, is necessarily eternal wrath. Jer 10:10 – “But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.” Or take this – Deu 32:40-41 – “Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever, If I sharpen My flashing sword, And My hand takes hold on justice, I will render vengeance on My adversaries, And I will repay those who hate Me.”

As Charnock says, and as I used in my class for our 1st-6th graders recently – “Though God be least in their thoughts, and is made light of in the world, yet the thoughts of God’s eternity, when he comes to judge the world, shall make the slighters of him tremble. That the Judge and punisher lives forever, is the greatest grievance to a soul in misery, and adds an inconceivable weight to it, above what the infiniteness of God’s executive power could do without that duration. His eternity makes the punishment more dreadful than his power; his power makes it sharp, but his eternity renders it perpetual; ever to endure, is the sting at the end of every lash. And how sad is it to think that God lays his eternity as a security for the punishment of obstinate sinners… a reward proportioned to the greatness of their offences, and the glory of an eternal God!”

As to mercy, think on this – “And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,” – Rom 9:23. We’re all Calvinists here, right? Are not God’s decrees eternal? This is an eternal decree of mercy, folks. Not to mention Rom 9:22 – “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?” Now, I’m aware of CMP’s comments in this vein – but I’m not convinced there is anything different in the “timing” of the preparation, there. God’s decrees are eternal. You do notice, I hope, that it undermines Jugulum’s idea that mercy is also a reaction to man’s actions. As Calvinists, we must be careful not to think that God’s eternal decrees are subject to the actions of men – or consequent to them. If God is Sovereign, He is utterly Sovereign.

I’m not really concerned with commenting on CMP’s main article – TurretinFan already did so, much more ably than I could have. I was concerned with the explanation offered by CMP, and then Jugulum for the wrath of God; and Jugulum’s further extrapolation to mercy. If God is eternal, than His attributes are necessarily eternal. To say otherwise brings about serious exegetical and apologetic issues.

The Unknown God?

“The design of every false scheme and system of religion is to depict the character of God in such a way that it is agreeable to the tastes of the carnal heart, acceptable to depraved human nature. And that can only be done by a species of misrepresentation: the ignoring of those of His prerogatives and perfections which are objectionable, and the disproportionate emphasizing of those of His attributes which appeal to their selfishness—such as His love, mercy, and long-sufferance. But let the character of God be faithfully presented as it is actually portrayed in the Scriptures—in the Old Testament as well as the New—and nine out of every ten of church-goers will frankly state that they find it impossible to love Him.” The plain fact is, dear reader, that to the present generation the Most High of Holy Writ is “the unknown God.”

—A. W. Pink (1886–1952)

That quote brings Paul’s Areopagus sermon to mind. “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.”

When our friend Steve writes:

Taking the blog post and video together, we can say that White believes the following:

* God loves all men, though God’s love is not monolithic
* God’s will (his revealed will) is that all men obey his commands to repent and believe the gospel
* In that context (revealed will and command) we can say that God desires the salvation of all men

Having made those statements, much of what I (and others) have written in criticism of White as a hyper-Calvinist is no longer cogent. In my view, White has effectively exonerated himself from the charge.

I feel quite certain that White will take the position that this is nothing new for him — this has been his position all along. That may be the case, but this is new as far as his statements on the record. I know of no other place in White’s work where he has made these kinds of statements. I haven’t read all of his work, and I freely admit that he may have held this position all along while I suffered under a cloud of ignorance. But I doubt it. Citations anyone?

Citation 1

In response to the question quoted above, who denied God’s omnibenevolence? Evidently, our writer assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love. We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love. I do not love my cat as I love my children (and I think anyone who does is simply wacked). I have and properly express all different kinds of “love,” from loving my wireless laser mouse to loving my Tablet PC to loving my Felt F65 road bike—but none of those kinds of love come close to my love for God’s truth, God’s people, my family, my friends. If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger. I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God’s own actions. The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact. All the “God loves you!” smiley face t-shirts do not change revelational reality.
Hence, I reject the assertion that omnibenevolence equals unibenevolence, i.e., having one equal, undifferentiated, indiscriminate warm fuzzy. There is no biblical basis for thinking otherwise.
Now, our writer expresses a very common human failing in these words: “When you claim that God only wants some people to be saved, you are really claiming that God is only partially loving.” Notice the unstated assumption: love = extension of redemptive grace. What is the only logical conclusion to be derived from such thinking? Either 1) God’s love demands God’s failure; i.e., God will be unhappy and unfulfilled throughout eternity because He tried, but failed, to save those He loved (more than one theologian has held this position); or, 2) universalism. God will conquer all in the end, all will be saved. But in neither case can God show redemptive, saving love to undeserving sinners while, at the same time, expressing His just wrath and anger against the rest. By insisting upon this concept, our writer robs God of His freedom, let alone His ability to freely chose to love redemptively. The false dilemma is clearly seen: by denying the difference between the love God shows to all of creation in providence in the merciful suspension of His immediate and just judgment upon all sinners, and the special redemptive love He freely bestows on vessels of mercy, our writer creates a false unibenevolence and on that basis says God is only “partially loving.” That makes as much sense as noting that I love my wife in a way I do not love a woman in Bosnia and saying I am “partially loving” as a result. I am not supposed to love the woman in Bosnia in that way, and God is under no compulsion whatsoever to love redemptively (which involves the extension of mercy and grace). To say otherwise is to say that redemption can be demanded of God, that grace is not free, but can be demanded at His hand. That is, in essence, the sum of this kind of objection.
And so we see that the rest of the objection bears no weight and has no merit for it is based upon a misuse of terms.

Next, it is asserted that the “any” and “all” are “called to repent.” Actually, the text says that God wills (11) for the “all” to come to repentance, and of course, this is quite true. And since God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-25), God’s purpose will be accomplished, and is accomplished in the elect. They all, as a group, do repent. Why anyone would wish to say “It is God’s will that every single individual repent, but, alas, His will is constantly thwarted and refuted by the will of the creature” is hard to say.” CBF misses the point when it asserts that this cannot be the “beloved” because they have already repented. The point of the passage is that God will bring the elect to repentance throughout the time period prior to the parousia, the coming of Christ. At the point of Peter’s writing, the repentance of every single individual reading this book was yet future.

Next Dr. Geisler confuses the prescriptive will of God found in His law, which commands all men everywhere to repent, with the gift of repentance given to the elect in regeneration. It does not follow that if it is God’s will to bring the elect to repentance that the law does not command repentance of ev-eryone. This is a common error in Arminian argumentation.

~ The Potter’s Freedom, pages 149,150

The reference for (11) is as follows – “We do not here refer to the revealed will of God found in His law which commands all men everywhere to repent: we speak of His saving will that all the elct come to repentance, and His ability to perform that will.”

The first problem is that you are attempting to make someone’s use of your terminology to describe something (which is more precisely defined by the terminology he uses) the sine non qua of orthodoxy. He made it plain, by using your terminology to describe what it is he means by what he does say. In Dr. White’s terminology, the prescriptive will of God – His revealed will – is a command to obey the gospel. To repent and believe. When we offer the gospel, there is no distinction, and there can be no distinction, because God uses us as the means by which the gospel is proclaimed, offered, and commanded to all men. As long as I’ve been listening to, watching, and reading Dr. White, this has been what he says. In that sense God wills – commands – all men to repent, and believe – and thereby be saved. Not all men do so – for repentance and faith are both gifts of God.

The second problem is that you simply don’t know these men, and haven’t read enough of their work to be able to recognize what you seem to think they haven’t spoken about. I’m glad you recognize the possibility of your ignorance, but that doesn’t jive with your stubborn insistence upon their guiltiness, and the fact that even though you’ve been repudiated in your objections, you still “worry”. That, coupled with your insistence that somehow Phil has “gutted” his primer by very properly distinguishing between high and hyper calvinism (which he does in the primer itself!), he has rendered it practically useless. Sir, I’m sorry, but simply assuming your consequent just doesn’t work as an argument. If all of the people in question differ, most emphatically, with Byrne et al’s insistence that high calvinism they dislike = hyper-calvinism, that does not necessitate that the Primer is now gutted”to the point of uselessness.” Thsi is not a new definition, my friend. This is a historical definition, and Johnson explicitly warns about those who would attempt to “unthinkingly slap the label “hyper” on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to.” I second that warning, and really wish that folks would just stop and think about what they write.

Further, he says the following:

Another important consequence is that Phil Johnson has gutted his hyper-Calvinism primer to the point of uselessness. Johnson (quite unnecessarily as it turned out) said in defense of White that Dr. Allen had misinterpreted his Primer. Now that is not exactly what Johnson said, but that is the way his statements are being interpreted (by both White and Tom Ascol, and presumably many others).

Johnson, who is normally careful with his words, began muddying the waters — for the sake of his friend White — by introducing qualifications about optative expressions, and alleging his personal knowledge of White’s orthodoxy, and asserting the apparent misunderstanding of both by Dr. Allen. I deny that Allen misunderstood Phil’s Primer … he clearly understood it all too well. And White’s statements up until recently put him solidly in the hyper-Calvinist camp, whatever Phil may say about “misunderstanding his primer.”

As a consequence of Johnson’s defense of White, other people have begun seriously to misunderstand it, and now Tom Ascol, for example, is saying that Steve Camp is not a hyper-Calvinist because Allen misunderstands Johnson’s primer. Oh really!? Johnson would never (one hopes) say such a thing, but his sloppiness in recent weeks has given others a good deal of room to make these kinds of statements. The usefulness of his Primer as a benchmark has been eviscerated. And given Phil’s qualifications on “optative” language, his primer as a teaching tool has been eviscerated as well. I would never, given his recent qualifying statements about optative expressions, point anyone to that Primer. I will point people to Tony Byrne for real instruction on the point from this time forward. (Byrne will point us to Curt Daniel and Iain Murray … who presumably won’t be issuing “clarifications” that arise out of personal motives and result in more confusion.)

Now, as I read statements such as this, it reminds me of why the internet is not always a great tool for precise communication – especially when folks consider themselves experts on people whom they do not sufficiently understand, and have not read enough of.

To Steve’s first accusation concerning of Johnson, I can only point out that this isn’t his first use of “optative”, and not in this context, either.

What God has decreed isn’t a valid gauge for measuring what He “desires.”

Optative expressions (language describing a wish or a desire) pose a whole set of problems when applied to God. (That’s true for Arminians and Calvinists alike. The only system I know of that avoids this problem is Open Theism’s notion of a non-sovereign god for whom the future remains an unsettled mystery.)

However (granting an anthropopathic use of the expression “desire”), I think it’s a serious mistake to assume that God’s decrees and His “desires” are equipollent.

Now, isn’t this almost the exact same usage? Same context? Guess what? Dr. White is nowhere to be found.

As to Steve’s second accusation, take a look at this:

Nevertheless, Dr. Allen’s “defense” demonstrates conclusively that he doesn’t understand my definition of hyper-Calvinism. He relentlessly ascribes to me a position I have frequently refuted.

Now, isn’t that exactly what he said?

Now, there’s your citations. As I’ve said in my last two posts, the problem is not Dr. White’s, Dr. Ascol’s, or Phil Johnson’s understanding of hyper-calvinism, or inconsistency. It is the lack of understanding on the part of those who are quite evidently new to the subject, in the case of Dr. Allen, or yourself – or unbalanced in their approach, as are Tony Byrne and David Ponter. When you don’t know what you are talking about, or you have a long history of imbalance, (as well as the redefinition of terms, as do Byrne and Ponter), it becomes quite clear that the issue is not with those accused – who have a long history of opposing hyper-calvinism, in it’s various forms. The problem lies with those who haven’t a historical, balanced view of hyper-calvinism, and are, frankly, late-comers and/or axe-grinders.

As Dr. Ascol has said, with all due respect; “When I read Dr. Allen’s words that ‘it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism’ I want to laugh and say, ‘Welcome to the party, I am sorry it took you so long to get here.'”

Hosted by: Dreamhost