Sunday, July 04, 2010

Dr. White's Responses to Dr. Geisler

Unbeknown to me, Dr. White was similarly providing a detailed response to Dr. Geisler's comments. They may found in three parts here: (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4). It looks like we said fairly similar things at a number of points, and highlighted different issues at other points. I would normally say, "Enjoy," but there's nothing particularly enjoyable about watching this saga unfold.

- TurretinFan

3 comments:

Michael said...

Four parts. Pedantic me.

BenBerea said...

This is so sad.

I've admired Norman Geisler for many years. Back when I was a college student in the late 80s, Geisler came to my university and gave a talk. I still remember it: "The rationality of God and our existential need for Him". I thought it was a well-argued talk, but more than that I was impressed with Geisler's civility, friendliness, and professionalism. After that I hadn't heard about Geisler again until about two years ago, when I came into contact with Reformed theology, but I'd always admired the man.

It breaks my heart to see Geisler doing this current shameful nonsense. It's tragic. I imagine there's a lot of people who feel that way. Dear God, return him to his senses.

natamllc said...

Well, I just don't know how far afar a field it is here?

Let me pose this idea?

Is the issue "real" or "fake" sin that is being forgiven? When it is all said and done, will Christ forgive this whole mess of men repenting and forgiving one another for misstatements and misspeaking and embellishing one's true Godly persona"?

If it is fake sin, then it too is sin. But, can God forgive fake sin?

What do I mean?

Liberty University has rendered a judgment based on their own internal objective investigation.

Because they have closed the book on the matter there isn't any opportunity to ask them just what their decision is based on?

So, it appears the conscience is rattled more?

What's more, it does now appear that Dr. Geisler is basing his judgment purely on explanations given to him by Dr. Caner. Or at least that is how I come down on it especially when you go with Dr. White's reasoning about Dr. Geisler's repetition of Dr. Caner's use of the term Ulema; was his father an Ulema or an alim among the Ulema of the Mosque there in Ohio??

Dr. White's response[s]:

"...Notice that Geisler shows his own ignorance of the language by repeating the same error Caner did (is Geisler simply repeating Caner's excuses?)...."

"...But, you will note, Geisler did not address those issues. His hodgepodge of "factual misstatements" does not even begin to address the substantive argument that it is the core of Caner's "born and raised in Turkey, son of a Muslim scholar so my conversion is really cool" story. Is this due to ignorance on Geisler's part? Is he just believing whatever Caner tells him?..."

and

"...Where, for example, has he addressed the issue of his father as an "ulema," which would actually be an "alim," and apologized for this?..."