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.

Pastor Camp,
Well sir, I do appreciate you answering my questions, even though I don’t believe they fully answered the questions I brought up.

I would like to address a few things, if I may:

1) When you are making an objection, I would offer that the burden of proof lies on you to state your case, and then argue it. As it appears to me, you have stated a general principle, told us that certain men violated that principle, and then assumed it from that point forward. When asked concerning specifics, the response has been restatements of that principle. I understand that this is what you believe – but only in a very general way, and not with precision in your definition.

2) When you are responding, you seem to be reading past a good many things that give context to the statements I, at least, am making.

For instance: if what we’re getting from your position is what you’re really saying seems to taken as “this is what you said”. If you notice, I carefully worded it so as to give you a chance to explain where you are coming from. Most of my questions were designed in order to give you that opportunity. Instead, I am being informed of what the Word says re: preaching. I’m well aware of what it says. My questions had to do with what else a pastor does. You seem to be begging the question in this regard.

Secondly, I’d like to point out that I have some small familiarity with presuppositional apologetics. However, practicing apologetics, first, learning apologetics, second, teaching apologetics, third, cannot be done solely in an expositional manner. I am able to exposit passages to teach the general principles of the method – but teaching the method itself _cannot_ be expositional – neither can practicing it. I know for a fact that Bahnsen exposited Acts 17 to demonstrate this – but exposition of a specific text was not what he did to teach it.

Additionally, I find it rather strange that you would resort to comments like “nice try”. Sir, I quite understand that you are quite a bit older than I am. I would appreciate it if you would at least respect the fact that I cared enough to ask you these questions, however. Recall, sir, that we are to respond with gentleness and reverence. Humility as well as boldness. I haven’t said anything similar to you, and I’ve attempted to be irenic in my interaction.

I’ve asked some specific questions, with context provided for them just in case I was being unclear. The context I gave seems to have been passed over, in many respects. When I give specific situations that are the concern of myself and other brothers, only small excerpts are addressed, and the most general comments, rather than the most specific. What we’re asking for is specificity in your objection. I’m aware of what the general objection is. I would like to know what, precisely, you objected to, and from what standard you do so.

For instance – do you object to Dr. Duncan teaching the assembled pastors about the history of the church? That is not exposition, and seems to fall under your objection. What, precisely, do you object to? Whose talks do you object to? What about what they said is objectionable? Why is this objectionable? How do you get this objection from Scripture? As the objector, it would be eminently helpful to detail what you objected to – so as to know what we have to either answer, or agree with – as I’ve said previously. I understand the general gist of your objection – just not:
1) The extent to which you object (how far does the objection that exposition is required go? In every situation whatsoever?)
2) The object of your objection (Who, and what – and please be specific)
3) The grounds of your objection – specifically. We’re all aware of the Biblical injunction to preach the Word in and out of season, of course. However, on what Biblical warrant do you ground your objection that you provide the extent of, above? Please be specific.

I know that you’re making these comments on your own blog – I fully understand that. However, when you make a serious objection – calling what was done, sin – it would be eminently helpful to let us know *what* was sin. Which is why I’m now addressing this on mine. I gather that you don’t consider me to be lucid – I can accept that. I’m often not. However, I’m afraid that I would also consider your objections thus far to be lacking in clarity. I’m still wondering what, precisely, was considered sinful? Is a lecture sinful, if not expositional? Is teaching on historical subjects sinful, if not expositional? Is teaching on other, antithetical worldviews sinful, if not expositional – such as what Dr. White, or I do in our apologetics conferences or classes? How are you defining “expositional” in this context, if any of the above are rightly your assertions? I’m really, really not trying to be difficult. I’m not. I just really do not know what you are objecting to, and what, precisely, your objection is meant to consist of.

When I’ve asked you about these specific things, I haven’t received specific answers. While this can be frustrating, and it has been, I really want to know – because I think the answers will reveal what the presuppositions you are operating from are, and can thereby be addressed – perhaps I’ll even discover I shouldn’t have been disagreeing with you after all!

However, when what you are saying seems to be (and there are no few that have come to this conclusion thus far – perhaps we’re all poor readers) that whenever a pastor opens his mouth, under any circumstances, it must be expositional preaching, I’m left with a dilemma. Who in the history of the church has ever done this? Where in Scripture is this commanded? Please, disabuse me of this impression, because that is what I have gathered from your answers thus far – and why I am seeking to gain clarity that I may be lacking.

Before we answer your objections – or your questions – we need to know what ground you’re standing on to make those objections, or ask those questions. I’m sure you know that particular element of presuppositionalism, and I’m sure you see how that applies here. We need to know what *exactly* you’re objecting to, from what standard you are objecting from (how do you define the extent of the command to Timothy you brought up earlier, for example?), and the like.

Understand, however – I am asking these questions for the sake of clarity, and because I am concerned about the unintended consequences of what I believe your position to be from what you have said thus far – and whether it is based in Scripture or not. As with another recent discussion we had, my concern is also whether there is a lack of balance in your position – of adequately addressing the whole counsel of Scripture concerning this subject. Understand, I’m not attacking – I’m asking. I genuinely want to know, as I may not have read you correctly.

Grace and Peace,
~RK

When I was listening to Phil Johnson’s sermon “Marching Orders” earlier, I found myself convicted of something.

I have to confess – the recent controversy swirling around Dr. White and Dr. Caner has caught me up in something I must repent of. It’s something very simple, but not often thought of by those who engage in contention for the faith.

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus [and] with [it] eternal glory. It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. Remind [them] of these things, and solemnly charge [them] in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless [and leads] to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly [and] empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, [men] who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.” Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these [things], he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love [and] peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses [and escape] from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Tim 2:10-26, NASB)

So, to explain my repentance, I figure this is a good time to explain why I should, as it will perhaps be helpful to others. First, let’s address the overview of the chapter. Paul is encouraging and instructing his son in the faith, Timothy, in the office of elder/overseer. In this chapter, he gives practical instruction concerning what an elder must do. Now, for full disclosure purposes, I am not an elder. However, I am a teacher, and as such, am held to a higher standard.

In verse 10, Paul gives his own philosophy of ministry – also explicated in Philippians 2 – of service and suffering for the sake of the elect. He endures, because he will reign with Christ – to deny Him is to have Christ deny us. Even if we are faithless – He still remains faithful – for He cannot deny Himself! He charges Timothy to remind his flock of these things, and to remind them not to quarrel over trifling matters. This is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. On the contrary – be diligent – be a workman who is not ashamed. Rightly handle the Word of Truth. Avoid worldly, empty chatter – it spreads like gangrene! However, note that Paul is not afraid to name names, as he does elsewhere, of people who stray from the truth. The firm foundation, however, is of God – and stands still. God is who prepares the appropriate vessels for the appropriate work.

Flee from youthful lusts – but pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace – with those who call on the Lord with a pure heart. Notice here – peace is always with those of God. If you have peace with the world, you’re doing something wrong. But on we go!

Refuse foolish and ignorant speculations – they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bondservant, however, is NOT quarrelsome – not given to quarreling, for the sake of quarreling. But, and this is where we get to where my problem lies:

He must be: kind to all – am I kind to all? No, I’m not – and I repent of that, and ask forgiveness.

able to teach – I pray that I at least fulfill this duty faithfully.

patient when wronged – the ESV renders this as “patiently enduring evil”. Now, what is interesting about this is that I definitely am a violator of this. I am not only impatient with evil, but I rebel at enduring it – for the sake of God, the elect, or anyone else. It means “patient of ills and wrongs, forbearing” – I have been failing miserably at forbearance in this regard. It doesn’t matter what the wrong is – or whether it is directed at another. This ties in with the next consideration.

…with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses [and escape] from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

I am fond of quoting Bahnsen, and Schaeffer – their “humble boldness” and “truth in love” are dear to my heart. I must confess, however, that I am often ungentle in my correction. I nuke when I should use a scalpel, and I use a club when I should be using a careful razor’s edge to shave away the layers of falsity.

I have kept this name to remind myself to do just that – but I’ve failed in my task, and I ask your forgiveness for this fault. Especially, I ask the forgiveness of Mr. Lumpkins. While I do not minimize the depth of his error in the libel in which he has lately engaged, I’m very sorry for not patiently enduring it, and correcting gently. It doesn’t matter how deep the wound that is made is – or how loyal I strive to be to a friend and a dear brother. I am still called to – and held to – the standard of Scripture in dealing with error – and I haven’t met it. I also ask the forgiveness of anyone else whom I’ve lately been ungentle with – or have talked about impatiently out of their hearing. It is not the standard to which I’ve been called.

It’s something I need to work on, and once again, I repent of it.

I appreciate you taking the time to write your statement earlier today, as well as the irenic spirit you assayed in it. I want you to know that I appreciate that you did so, as a Southern Baptist – and that I do appreciate the work you do, despite our disagreement in many matters.

While I am appreciative, I think it may be useful – for you, and for the brethren, to clarify a few matters.

Item 1): The “motive”, to borrow your own phrase, was not to question your conversion. In fact, your conversion, as far as I know, was never referenced or questioned in the vast majority of the *Christian* articles/blogs that negatively referenced your comments on The Pastor’s Perspective, the discrepancies in your testimonials, or your recollections of life as a Muslim. I, for instance, do not question at all that you were raised Muslim, or that you converted to Christianity. What was rendered suspect was whether you were a *devout* Muslim – especially the discrepancy noted with the Shahada.

Item 2): To most of us, the pronunciation issues were a minor head-scratcher, but nothing more. In fact, one of the team bloggers at AOMin.org – TurretinFan – publicly defended you on those allegations on the most public Christian post leveled at that topic. As you may know, Muslims, Roman Catholics, atheists, and others often tout their conversions from “Protestantism,” and often inflate their level of devotion and knowledge – we call it “conversion story syndrome”. Yusuf Estes, Tim Staples, and Dan Barker are good examples of this tendency. While this may not be the case for you – there were many of the hallmarks of similar cases implied by the discrepancies noted – and it caused concern.

Item 3): You state: “Being called a “liar,” however, is a serious charge, especially when it is made by Christians. That would indicate that (1) the accusers can know the motives of the accused person’s heart, and (2) the accused person intentionally misled people.”

With all due respect, by those standards, no man can ever be called a liar, save by God. Also with due respect, by any objective standard, I would hold forth the following statements: “Calvinists are worse than Muslims” and “Formal debates have been taken over a lot by myopic Reformed guys, uh, they try to turn it into these little, uh, show ponies, it’s like the Jerry Springer Show, basically, and there’s really not any real discussion going on, there’s rolling of eyes, its huffing and passive/aggressive garbage.” Dr. Caner, both of these statements may be your opinion – but they are hardly the truth. Since they are not the truth, what else may we call them? Couple that with your statements on hyper-calvinism, and we can take nothing out of that series of comments but that we are being systematically misrepresented.

I do not offer these criticisms lightly, nor do I offer them glibly. I’m honestly commenting with the intent that it may be evident that I offer them to further your understanding of why you are being criticized by those who hold to Reformed doctrines and a Reformed apologetic method. Above all, we seek to be consistent – theologically, and apologetically. If we do not question the facts presented by those on our side as we do those opposing us, we cannot help but be inconsistent, and rightly criticized by our opponents on that basis. While I understand that you appear to fully belief what you state about Calvinists – understand that what you criticize as “hyper-calvinism” is simple, historic Reformed belief. What is recently called “moderate” Calvinism by folks like Dr. Geisler is nothing like the historic Calvinism of ANY of the Reformed branches.

I am “Reformed” – one of the group you criticized – and I’ve had one moderated debate – whether it was “formal” is debatable, as it was online. Nonetheless, Dr. White, and other Reformed debaters are being classified as engaging in nothing but “passive-aggressive garbage”, “no real discussion”, and “the Jerry Springer Show”. I’m sorry, but I’ve watched a great many debates – and debates like Dr. White’s with Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, or Shabir Ally were anything but “no real discussion”, or “huffing”! I don’t think I was engaging in “eye rolling” or “no real discussion” when I engaged a young atheist man on the topic of “The Triune God of Scripture is the grounds for all knowledge” – as is clearly stated in Col 2:3!

Enough criticism, however. So that you can know that there are areas of agreement – I completely agree with your position concerning the CAMEL method. For nearly identical reasons. I support you 100% in your statement of opposition to it, and thank you for your public statement concerning it’s dangers. I appreciate many things about your ministry, and service, despite our theological differences.

In closing – let me again thank you for your statement, and the attempt to mend a breach. It IS appreciated, despite the criticisms offered above, and I don’t want to detract from that. My earnest desire is that this is taken constructively, and that there might be an honest attempt to mend fences with your Reformed brethren in the SBC and without. You aren’t going to change our mind about the glorious doctrines of God’s sovereign grace – but please be aware – we aren’t questioning your salvation, or your conversion by questioning your consistency. We’re as likely to question one of our own on those grounds as we are anyone else. We do not do so to cast aspersions on their character – but to safeguard the reputation of the God we serve and love – as, I believe, do you, however mistaken we believe you to be concerning what you defend at times.

For your edification, I’d encourage you to look at the following: “Open Letter to Ergun Caner.”

I’m going to include the transcript of a discussion I had (along with several others) with a Middle Knowledge proponent that frequents AOMin’s chat channel. The reason I do so is in order to give an example of how the argument I advanced recently functions in an actual discussion.

The discussion was fairly wide-ranging, but I think demonstrates the ability of a consistent return to the nature of God as the foundation of a reply to the assertions advanced by proponents of MK and other similar philosophical systems, over against the Biblical conception of God’s nature and the modal collapse I feel this outlook necessitates.

Discussion linked below.
Read the rest of this entry

If the Lord intended that he should, and [he] by his death did, procure pardon of sin and reconciliation with God for all and every one, to be actually enjoyed upon condition that they do believe, then ought this good-will and intention of God, with this purchase in their behalf by Jesus Christ, to be made known to them by the word, that they might believe; “for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. x. 17: for if these things be not made known and revealed to all and every one that is concerned in them, namely, to whom the Lord intends, and for whom he hath procured so great a good, then one of these things will follow; — either, first, That they may be saved without faith in, and the knowledge of, Christ (which they cannot have unless he be revealed to them), which is false, and proved so; or else, secondly, That this good-will of God, and this purchase made by Jesus Christ, is plainly in vain, and frustrate in respect of them, yea, a plain mocking of them, that will neither do them any good to help them out of misery, nor serve the justice of God to leave them inexcusable, for what blame can redound to them for not embracing and well using a benefit which they never heard of in their lives? Doth it become the wisdom of God to send Christ to die for men that they might be saved, and never cause these men to hear of any such thing; and yet to purpose and declare that unless they do hear of it and believe it, they shall never be saved? What wise man would pay a ransom for the delivery of those captives which he is sure shall never come to the knowledge of any such payment made, and so never be the better for it? Is it answerable to the goodness of God, to deal thus with his poor creatures? to hold out towards them all in pretence the most intense love imaginable, beyond all compare and illustration, — as his love in sending his Son is set forth to be, — and yet never let them know of any such thing, but in the end to damn them for not believing it? Is it answerable to the love and kindness of Christ to us, to assign unto him at his death 239such a resolution as this:— “I will now, by the oblation of myself, obtain for all and every one peace and reconciliation with God, redemption and everlasting salvation, eternal glory in the high heavens, even for all those poor, miserable, wretched worms, condemned caitiffs, that every hour ought to expect the sentence of condemnation; and all these shall truly and really be communicated to them if they will believe. But yet, withal, I will so order things that innumerable souls shall never hear one word of all this that I have done for them, never be persuaded to believe, nor have the object of faith that is to be believed proposed to them, whereby they might indeed possibly partake of these things?” Was this the mind and will, this the design and purpose, of our merciful high priest? God forbid. It is all one as if a prince should say and proclaim, that whereas there be a number of captives held in sore bondage in such a place, and he hath a full treasure, he is resolved to redeem them every one, so that every one of them shall come out of prison that will thank him for his good-will, and in the meantime never take care to let these poor captives know his mind and pleasure; and yet be fully assured that unless he effect it himself it will never be done. Would not this be conceived a vain and ostentatious flourish, without any good intent indeed towards the poor captives? Or as if a physician should say that he hath a medicine that will cure all diseases, and he intends to cure the diseases of all, but lets but very few know his mind, or any thing of his medicine; and yet is assured that without his relation and particular information it will be known to very few. And shall he be supposed to desire, intend, or aim at the recovery of all?

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ – Book III, Chapter 1 – John Owen

It is sad to find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology, or at least they wish there were no such thing. While some would not go so far as to openly admit that they consider it a blemish on the Divine character, yet they are far from regarding it with delight, they like not to think about it, and they rarely hear it mentioned without a secret resentment rising up in their hearts against it. Even with those who are more sober in their judgment, not a few seem to imagine that there is a severity about the Divine wrath which is too terrifying to form a theme for profitable contemplation. Others harbor the delusion that God’s wrath is not consistent with His goodness, and so seek to banish it from their thoughts.

Yes, many there are who turn away from a vision of God’s wrath as though they were called to look upon some blotch in the Divine character, or some blot upon the Divine government. But what saith the Scriptures? As we turn to them we find that God has made no attempt to conceal the fact of His wrath. He is not ashamed to make it known that vengeance and fury belong unto Him. His own challenge is, “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand. For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, I live forever, If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies, and will reward them that hate Me” (Deut. 32:39-41). A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; And because He hates all sin, His anger burns against the sinner: Psalm 7:11.

Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if “wrath” were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who hates it not is a moral leper. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His “severity” (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes Hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite as Heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.

The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No; while God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive.

That Divine wrath is one of the perfections of God is not only evident from the considerations presented above, but is also clearly established by the express declarations of His own Word. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” (Rom. 1:18).

Again; that the wrath of God is a Divine perfection is plainly demonstrated by what we read of in Psalm 95:11, “Unto whom I sware in My wrath.” There are two occasions of God “swearing”: in making promises (Gen. 22:16), and in denouncing threatening (Deut. 1:34). In the former, He swares in mercy to His children; in the latter, He swares to terrify the wicked. An oath is for solemn confirmation: Hebrews 6:16. In Genesis 22:16 God said, “By Myself have I sworn.” In Psalm 89:35 He declares, “Once have I sworn by My holiness.” While in Psalm 95:11 He affirmed, “I swear in My wrath.” Thus the great Jehovah Himself appeals to His “wrath” as a perfection equal to His “holiness”: He swares by the one as much as by the other! Again; as in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and as all the Divine perfections are illustriously displayed by Him (John 1:18), therefore do we read of “the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16).

The wrath of God is a perfection of the Divine character upon which we need to frequently meditate. First, that our hearts may be duly impressed by God’s detestation of sin. We are ever prone to regard sin lightly, to gloss over its hideousness, to make excuses for it. But the more we study and ponder God’s abhorrence of sin and His frightful vengeance upon it, the more likely are we to realize its heinousness. Second, to beget a true fear in our souls for God: “Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28,29). We cannot serve Him “acceptably” unless there is due “reverence” for His awful Majesty and “godly fear” of His righteous anger, and these are best promoted by frequently calling to mind that “our God is a consuming fire.” Third, to draw out our souls in fervent praise for having delivered us from “the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).

~ A.W. Pink – The Attributes of God – 16 – The Wrath of God.

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 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 we examine the “all possible worlds” idea, we find that this conception fails to properly address God’s meticulous, exhaustive sovereignty over all of His creation. It also fails to properly address God’s timelessness in His exercise of exhaustive sovereignty.

It seems to me that this desire to hold to *true* counterfactuals is grounded in an assumption of the *ability* for autonomy. In reality, we find no such grounds in Scripture. “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” Or, “The king’s heart is {like} channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes. “. We have a desire to further our illusory goal of autonomy, and thereby project our finitude on God’s ordination – and from that ordination, on His thoughts concerning it. Yet, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. This is not a matter of *degree*, but of *category*. God is not “less finite” in His thoughts and actions, but *infinite*. Thus, God’s thoughts concerning His creation are not *less finite*, but *infinite*. Since they are timeless thoughts, there is no linearity, and there is no “progression” to them. To say that this is so, is to misunderstand the nature of the thoughts possessed by an eternal, immutable, infinite God.

To say that, for instance, it is *possible* that one of our Lord’s bones would be broken, is to overthrow the purposes of God’s sovereign ordination. The very idea of counter-factuals necessitates that they be *counter-possible*. That is the contention I’m trying to convey, despite my inferiority of language.

If: God has decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass.
Then: Nothing that God has NOT decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, CAN come to pass.

In other word, God’s decree fixes, without one possible iota of deviation, that which CAN come to pass. Alternate possibilities are thereby utterly, definitionally, *impossible*.

Take this argument:
God is necessary in all possible worlds. God is necessarily immutable in all possible worlds. God’s decree is immutable in all possible worlds. All possible worlds are identical. Modal collapse results – there is one possible world.

Does that make it plainer, what I’m saying? Unless you want to strip out the *rest* of God’s attributes, “all possible worlds” is incoherent. There are no “counter-factuals” if you really hold to God’s absolute sovereignty. Only those who wish to posit a will in man independent from the ordination of God can seek to preserve this idea.

While we can *conceive* of a world in which counter-factuals are “true” – this does not mean such a world is possible. It only means that we are finite, and think in finite terms. For “…the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” “Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned [it, surely] I will do it.”

To say it is *possible* that God NOT do as He has eternally decreed – or that it is *possible* that God decreed things otherwise, is to so badly maul the doctrine of God as to leave it an unrecognisably mangled heap! God in his immutable perfection (wanting nothing to complete Him, lacking nothing, without fault) timelessly ordained all that He pleased to bring about.

The wonder and majesty of this conception, I fear, has been badly impugned by this idea of “all possible worlds”. While I am a rather weak vessel to attempt to do so, I feel that it must be answered.