Rebutting Norman Geisler

Norman Geisler has still not given up on defending Dr. Ergun Caner (link to his further defense), stating that "a number of unjustified attacks have come to my attention." He has responded with 7 points to the 9 numbered points in my previous post (link to my previous post), collapsing four of my numbered points into two of his and ignoring the last (unnumbered) point about the fact that Dr. Ergun Caner's answer on Ramadan cannot match the facts.

Dr. Geisler also states: "Not one of these charges is substantial, involving any major doctrinal or moral issue." Is speaking the truth a moral issue? If not, then I fully agree with Dr. Geisler. Who has alleged any "major doctrinal" issue?

I appreciate the fact that Dr. Geisler has taken the time to respond to my post. I offer the following comments matching the numbers of his post:

1) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Been Born in Istanbul, Turkey

Dr. Geisler somehow thinks that a person can understandably misstate their birthplace from their actual birth country (Sweden) to the homeland of their ancestors (Turkey). Dr. Geisler's justification is that "Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry."

How many people so strongly identify with their father that they claim to have been born where their father was, even if their father was born over a thousand miles away from where they were born? Is this normal behavior in Dr. Norman Geisler's book?

2) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Lived in Ankara and along the Iraqi Border

Dr. Geisler alleges that the accusation relating to Dr. Caner claiming to live in Ankara and then along the Iraqi border is - well - here are his words: "This allegation against him is a mere assumption without evidence which illustrates the desire to defame Ergun by his critics." (grammar and/or syntax errors are from Geisler's page)

In fact, however, there is evidence. Here is the mp3 (link to mp3). When you get about 10 minutes into the mp3, tell me whether you hear this:

Coming to America, the only thing that I understood, I was fifteen when we came, the only thing - or - thirteen when we came, the only thing that I understood about American culture, I got from American television. And the only television that we were allowed to watch was the television that was - that passed the conscriptions of the censors in Turkey. I lived in Ankara, but then I lived toward the east for the most fpart of my life, on the Iraqi border.

Dr. Geisler speculates thus:

Ergun traveled with his father to Turkey several times. Later, he was along the Iraqi border as he said he was. It should not be deemed strange that Ergun has spent time in Turkey. After all, he has a Turkish father and was a Turkish citizen who came to America on a Turkish passport.

Please tell me whether that matches what Dr. Caner said. Leave aside for the moment the papers from the divorce decree that (on paper) prevented Dr. Caner from traveling ("In no event and under no circumstances shall either party hereto cause or allow any of the minor children of the parties to leave or be taken from the Continental Borders of the United States of America." [1978]). After all, maybe the parties ignored that, or maybe the alleged travel to Turkey took place before that.

Instead focus on what Dr. Caner said: "I lived in Ankara, but then I lived toward the east for the most part of my life, on the Iraqi border." How would visits to Turkey, even if they happened, be the same thing as living in Ankara or living along the Iraqi border?

And even if such visits could somehow count for that, how could they be considered a legitimate justification for saying: "for the most part of my life"?

My friend Dr. White (who strongly identifies with his Scottish ancestry) sometimes travels to Scotland and England. If he said in public, "I lived in London, but then I lived toward the north for the most part of my life, on the border of Scotland and England," (based on one or more of his trips) would that be the truth? Do normal people talk that way? Or would that be an embellishment aimed at making Dr. White sound more Scottish than he actually is? It's easy to apply common sense and answer those questions.

Now, apply common sense to Dr. Caner's statement and see whether Dr. Geisler's answer holds any water.

3) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Received Misconceptions about the USA from Turkish Television Prior to Immigration to the USA

Dr. Geisler claims that the statements about watching the Dukes of Hazzard in Turkey and getting a misconception about America from them was just a joke and was always taken as such. Listen to that same mp3, for which I provided a link above. The Dukes of Hazzard bit comes right after the comment about living "for the most part of" his life in Turkey. Was the part about growing up in Turkey also supposed to be a joke? Or did the two statements that appear to be untrue statements serve to work together to create a false impression that Caner came to America at 15 (or 13) rather than at 3?

Dr. Geisler also claims that Dr. Caner has been using this anecdote for "more than a decade." I cannot speak to the truth or falsehood of Dr. Geisler's claim in this regard. He provides no evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote more than a decade ago, and I cannot seem to find any evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote before Dr. Caner started referring to himself as "Ergun Mehmet Caner" (is that his real name or is that more of Dr. Caner strongly identifying with his ancestry?). Please keep in mind that "more than a decade" would mean that Dr. Caner used this anecdote before July 6, 2000. Can Dr. Geisler substantiate this claim?

Was the context of the anecdote the same back then? Perhaps we will never know. It may be very hard to find any recordings of Dr. Caner from back then using this same anecdote.

As for whether it was meant to be taken literally, compare the lead-off story in this presentation:

"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com. Listen for when the audience begins laughing at his claim regarding getting the Andy Griffith show in Turkey and thinking that all of America was like Mayberry. What does he say - does he say "it's true"? And when he gets to the part about watching Georgia Wrestling in Istanbul, does he say, "this is a little embarrassing, but it's true" and then does he go on to claim that he would get this wrestling show every two weeks in Istanbul for two hours, even specifying the channel?

That particular version of the story about watching TV in Turkey doesn't include the Dukes of Hazzard - so it is harder (probably next to impossible) to prove that the story is not true. But does Dr. Geisler believe it? Is it a credible story? (in light of what Dr. Caner seems to now admit)

4) The Three Possible Dates of Caner's Citizenship (1978, 1982, or 1984)

On the issue of when Dr. Caner became a citizen, Dr. Geisler simply asserts "It is well known that Caner became a US citizen in 1978." Dr. Geisler, however, provides no documentation to support the claim that Dr. Caner became a citizen then.

Dr. Geisler does not explain why the biography of Dr. Caner at TrueLife.org states:

Ergun was born in Stockholm, Sweden to turkish parents and in 1979 immigrated to the United States with his parents, grandmother, and two brothers. Ergun became an American citizen in 1984 and currently resides in Lynchburg, VA with his wife and two sons.

(source)

By the way, who told the folks at TrueLife.org that Caner's parents, plural, were Turkish? Who told them that Caner immigrated in 1979?

There are many possibilities about where the data on that bio may have come from. It may have come from someone who was unaware of the "well known" data that Dr. Geisler relies upon without providing us with any documentation. Another possibility is that it came from the man in this video:

(UPDATE: TrueLife.org seems to have disabled both direct access to the video and embedding for the video. You can still view the video on TrueLife.org's website for now.)I'm talking about the man who in the video above says, "When I - uh - When I first came to America - I went to see a movie - I was a teenage boy - and I went to see a movie that had - uh - living dead as its theme ... ." And yes, that's a video one can find at TrueLife.org (link to page).

Dr. Geisler, please tell us: was Dr. Caner telling the truth in that clip or not?

Dr. Geisler further states: "No intent to deceive existed, nor has it been established by this conflation of dates." Dr. Geisler is, of course, entitled to his opinion about what the evidence of the misstatement(s?) proves.

Dr. Geisler further writes: "Since it is well known by Bible scholars that this kind of thing is found in the Scriptures (which are without error), then any Christian pressing this charge would, by the same logic, have to impugn the Bible as well (see The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 40)." The gumption involved in comparing to Caner to Scripture is shocking. In any event, the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture did not get confused about dates and did not engage in conflation. Sorry, Dr. Geisler. Dr. Caner is not comparable to the Bible on this. I hope that Dr. Geisler has a better answer to alleged Biblical contradictions than he gives with respect to the Caner scandal.

By the way, I don't doubt that Dr. Caner has naturalized and become a U.S. citizen. I don't even doubt that there is somewhere a certificate to that effect. However, I do suspect (this is just a guess on my part) that the certificate does not say "Ergun Mehmet Caner." Does Dr. Geisler think that the name on the certificate is that name? Or does Dr. Geisler think the name on the certificate is "Ergun Michael Caner"?

5) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Worn "Keffiyeh"

Dr. Geisler provides a very low resolution photo allegedly of Dr. Caner, as a boy, wearing some sort of hat at some sort of event. It's so low resolution that it is hard to make out a face, but it could be the same boy shown in these pictures (link). Saying that this hat, of whatever kind it is, is a "keffiyeh" (see also here) is about as accurate as saying it is a "kippah." After all, both are names of hats, and both seem - on their face - to have etymological connection to a linguistic root relating to the concept of covering (the former in Arabic, the latter in Hebrew).

Regardless, the hat in the photo that Dr. Geisler has provided (allegedly via Emir Caner) does not show what would appear to qualify as a keffiyeh. Furthermore, of course, one wonders whether - even if Dr. Caner had worn a keffiyeh at a party once whether he was 10 (or so) - that would justify his comments.

Let me provide some examples of the comments I'm talking about.

"Church House or Jail House?" North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (Dr. Ergun Caner speaking) afternoon of January 12, 2005 (link to audio).

Here are a few of the claims from that address:

1. at about 5:50 "came to this country in my teens"
2. at about 6:50 "I did wear keffiyeh"
3. at about 7:30 "We wore keffiyeh; we wore robes"
   
4. at 49:30 "I always lived in majority-Muslim countries and then I came to America"
5. at 49:42 "He [Caner's father] had many wives"

In that context, would Dr. Caner be vindicated if it turned out he did once wear keffiyeh? Listen to Dr. Caner's comments in context and determine whether in context, that would mean his statement conveyed truth to the listeners. (I address numbers 1, 4, and 5 in other sections of this post.)

Another example:

"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).

(23:35) We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions.

Again, would wearing keffiyeh once at a party justify that kind of comment? or does that kind of comment suggest to the reader that wearing keffiyeh was the normal, ordinary dress of Caner and his family?

6) Date of Caner's Conversion and Date of Emir's Conversion

With respect to November 4, 1982, being the alleged conversion date, Dr. Geisler states: "There is some confusion about the exact year." No kidding!

Dr. Geisler argues, "Given that Ergun was converted in 1982 (as he claims) ... " but why should we take that as a given? Why not "Given that Emir was converted in 1982 as both Ergun and Emir said in their book, Unveiling Islam?"

One other question: Dr. Caner allegedly was called to the ministry in 1982. Is that supposed to be sometime between November 4, 1982, and December 31, 1982? I note that in Dr. Geisler's response he explains away the 1982 citizenship date on the basis that: "The other date [referring to 1982] is from the period of his call to the ministry and is sometimes lumped together with the earlier date in his testimony." Anything is possible, I guess!

7) Dr. Caner's Claim that His Father had "Many Wives" and that Dr. Caner had/has "half-brothers"

Dr. Geisler claims:

Ergun’s father did have two wives, having divorced the first one. He had three sons by his first wife (Ergun and his two brothers). So, Ergun has two full brothers and two step-sisters (from his father’s second wife). While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his “half” brothers. This is hardly evidence of an attempt to embellish or deceive. After all, he had the right number of each sibling, and he didn’t claim to have ten brothers or sisters!

Dr. Geisler does not address how two wives is supposed to be "many." Also, Dr. Geisler is not painting a complete picture when he says, "While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his 'half' brothers. " I don't know what one occasion Dr. Geisler is thinking about. Here are two occasions where Dr. Caner referred to his "half-brothers" and let's see whether Dr. Caner means his actual brothers:

"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com

(around 21:26 into the sermon) "In my family, my father had many wives. My father had many half-brother and sis--- I have many half-brothers and sisters. Our family very rarely got together."

Again - is "two" considered "many"?

Another example:

"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).

(around 43:10 into the sermon) "My father had other wives. My father died in '99, never accepted Jesus. I have half-brothers and sisters who don't know Jesus."

Now, are those two instances both instances where Dr. Caner was just speaking quickly and called his brothers half-brothers? How could that be? Dr. Caner surely doesn't deny that his brothers know Jesus. And furthermore, in the first instance, Dr. Caner was correcting himself.

And what about the claim to "other wives"? Even if "many" can mean "two" (a very unusual use, I think you'll agree) how can one other wife equal "other wives"?

Conclusion

It's very saddening for me to see Dr. Geisler continue to try to defend Dr. Caner. My opinion is that Dr. Geisler is just digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. His opinion is that Dr. Caner "is a devout zealous believer who lives a life in obedience to Christ and who works diligently to extend his kingdom." That may well be true - I don't recall denying that, and yet Dr. Caner may have made a significant number of statements about his autobiography that are not completely true and that, taken together, paint a picture of his past that is not completely accurate. Was this done intentionally? People will have an opinion about that, based on drawing inferences from the number of misstatements, the theme of the misstatements, and the frequency of the misstatements.

There's one other small issue I'd like to address. Dr. Geisler writes: "a blogger-critic refuses to give his real name, using a pseudonym. This violates a moral and legal rule that one has a right to face his accusers." Dr. Geisler is misapplying this principle.

Dr. Caner has a right to confront the witnesses against him. I'm not one of the witnesses. I don't claim any special knowledge, and I have provided folks with documentation for what I have said. Everything I say without giving documentation for it should be disregarded. All of my opinions should be considered as having absolutely no weight in this matter.

Consider instead the documentation. What reasonable opinion is formed based on consideration of the evidence? Is it an opinion that Dr. Caner embellished or is it an opinion that Dr. Caner fully honored the truth on every occasion?

- TurretinFan

Biologos is Not "One of Us"

Hast thou not known?
Hast thou not heard,
That the everlasting God,
The LORD,
The Creator of the ends of the earth,
Fainteth not, neither is weary?
There is no searching of his understanding.
(Isaiah 40:28)

Lest there be any uncertainty, groups like the Biologos forum that deny the central Christian tenet of Creation are not "one of us." Their message is not the Christian message, indeed their message is contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture and is a direct attack on the fundamentals of the faith.

I realize that there can be saved people who are, for a time, deluded by various false teachers, and the men who are promoting theistic evolution at the Biologos forum are false teachers, teaching the traditions of men rather than the Word of God.

To those who do truly believe and accept the Word of God, hear this and depart from among the men of the Biologos forum!

Our gospel begins thus:

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Our Bible begins thus:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Our God declares:

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Our God made us this way:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

We labor under this curse:

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Ecclesiastes 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We pray to God with prayers like these:

Hebrew 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

He hears our Prayers:

Psalm 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

Our fourth Commandment states:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

And we preach this coming Judgment:

Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

To those at Biologos who have abandoned the truths of Scripture, be warned! The judgment of Romans 1 is at your doorstep.

Who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,
who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
(Romans 1:25)

-TurretinFan

Dearborn Evangelism Outrage Update

David Wood has a message for the Chief of Police in Dearborn, MI, where Christian evangelists were allegedly persecuted for evangelizing (link to message). I don't mean this link as an endorsement of anything or anyone. I think it is important for folks who may only have heard the Muslim side of the story to hear the side of the arrested evangelists. If the allegations are true, there is a serious problem in Dearborn.

Some Things that Dr. Geisler Overlooked

Dr. Geisler provided a number of items of response in his "defense" of Dr. Ergun Caner. I'd like to highlight a few additional items that Dr. Geisler seems to have overlooked. These are some troubling issues in addition to the many that Dr. Geisler identified. I don't know whether Dr. Geisler's "defense" of Dr. Caner intentionally omitted these, or he dealt with them and I missed it, or whether he accidentally omitted them. I suspect that the latter is the case.

I wonder whether Dr. Geisler would care to let us know how Dr. Caner is innocent of wrong-doing with respect to the following issues. Please note that I'm not trying to say that these are things that have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm saying that these are concerns that have been raised, and I haven't seen a clear answer that vindicates Dr. Caner from himself or any of his supporters with respect to any of these.

For ease of reference for those who are replying, I've avoided restarting the number of the troubling issues within each of the major sections.


I. Birth, Place, and Manner in which He Grew Up

1. Claimed to have been Born in Istanbul?

As documented here (link to documentation), Dr. Caner claimed to have been born in Istanbul. Most of the rest of the evidence that anyone has brought forward shows that Dr. Caner was born in (or around) Stockholm, Sweden. How is the statement regarding Istanbul a true statement or an honest mistake?

2. Lived in Ankara and Along Iraqi Border?

As documented here (link to documentation), Dr. Caner has claimed that he lived in Ankara and along the Iraqi border. Are those an honest mistake for some other place that Dr. Caner lived? If so, which place was he thinking of?

3. Watched Dukes of Hazzard and longed to marry Daisy Duke while growing up in Turkey?

As documented here (link to documentation) (second instance), Dr. Caner has claimed that while he was living in Turkey he got misconceptions about America by watching the Dukes of Hazzard. How is that somehow an honest mistake or simple misstatement? Please bear in mind that it is not possible that he watched the show, "The Dukes of Hazzard" before it began to show in 1979 (link to documentation).

4. Citizenship in 1978?

Dr. Geisler claims (he does not identify the source of his data) that Dr. Caner became a citizen in 1978. Why is it that at least one seemingly official biography of Caner indicates he became a citizen in 1984 - link to bio with colorful photo of Caner and Dr. Caner himself has claimed to have gained his citizenship in 1982 - see his article "Hatriotism." Which of the three stories, if any, is the truth?

Or is the citizenship-in-1978 claim just an excuse for apparently untrue comments like this one: "In 1978, his family moved to the United States so his father, an architect, could build a Mosque in Columbus, Ohio." (which STILL appears on Dr. Caner's blog as of 5 July 2010 - note that this comment appears to be an English translation of an article originally written in Korean, thus it has some really bizarre comments like: "His father was somewhat similar to an Islamic priest, a scholar of an Islamic sect called Ulima.")

5. Claims to have worn "a keffiyeh"

As documented here (first example)(second example), Dr. Caner has claimed that before his conversion he wore a "keffiyeh." The photo evidence we have of him, however, almost always shows him bareheaded (link to an amusing exception). Did he hide the keffiyeh when photos were being taken? (this example does not count)


II. Date of Conversion and Connection to Brothers' Conversions

6. November 4, 1982?

Dr. Ergun Caner has identified the date of his conversion as November 4, 1982 (example). However, his book, Unveiling Islam, gives that as the date for Emir Caner's conversion and indicates that Emir was saved "the following year" after Ergun. (Unveiling Islam, p. 19) How is this possible?

7. Relationship to Brothers' Conversions

Dr. Caner seems to have stated several accounts regarding the relationship of his conversion to that of his brothers. One account is: "that day my father disowned me, but both of my brothers accepted Christ" another is that Erdem was saved in the basement of "their home" and that "the following year" Ergun invited Emir to a revival service at which Emir was saved. Another account is that "a year later" than his own conversion, his brothers came to Christ. (link to documentation of these) In another account, his brothers get saved when Caner preaches his first sermon (see documentation here) How are these honest mistakes or somehow all reconcilable truths?


III. Claims About His Family

8. "Many Wives" of his father vs. Two Wives of his father

As documented here (link to documentation) Dr. Caner has claimed that his father had "many wives" when the evidence suggests that his father had two wives, one at a time.

9. "Half-brothers" that can't be found

As documented here (link to documentation - second source) Dr. Caner has claimed that he has half-brothers, sons presumably of those "many wives" that his father had. We can find record of two half-sisters by the the one second wife we can locate, but no half-brothers.


Conclusion

These are just a few of the issues that Dr. Geisler did not address, at least I couldn't find them addressed, in his recent "defense" of Dr. Caner. May I respectfully suggest that Dr. Geisler is simply not familiar with the troubling evidence. In view of this apparently new evidence that has come to light, is Dr. Geisler willing to say, "Upon further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Ergun Caner did indeed embellish his autobiography," or will Dr. Geisler come up with some new justification for these documented states made either by Caner himself or by seemingly official websites?

Finally, as a tenth troubling issue, let me highlight the issue of Ramadan being "forty days" long according to Dr. Caner on multiple occasions (link to documentation). Dr. Geisler has tried to say that Dr. Caner has some justification of this. I suspect that what Dr. Geisler has read is similar to the material that the "Fake Ex-Muslims" site attributes to Dr. Caner here (link to site). That documentation alleges that there are some tiny groups of Islam that do fast for 40 days. Let's take that explanation as completely 100% true without actually investigating it. Does that being true justify this comment:

"We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions." (link to documentation)

Does that claim about a couple tiny sects of Islam fasting for 40 days justify the claim that the "lunar month" of Ramadan is forty days as documented in this video clip?

Or is the attempt to find a few tiny branches of Islam an attempt to cover up the glaring error of saying that Ramadan is 40 days long, when it is actually a lunar month of 29 or 30 days long?

I'm asking the questions, because I would like to believe that the issue is simply that Dr. Geisler is only familiar with the charges and Dr. Caner's private responses to the charges, and that Dr. Geisler is not familiar with the evidence itself or with a variety of the charges for which it would appear that Dr. Caner and his supporters have no good answer. Will Dr. Geisler respond? Who knows! I would encourage my friends to give Dr. Geisler some time to consider the evidence and respond before assuming that he will simply do what other of Dr. Caner's supporters have done and attack the messenger.

-TurretinFan

Caner Petition?

An alert reader drew my attention to an on-line petition that has apparently been created to protest, as inadequate, the investigation that Liberty University undertook (link to petition). I'm not a big fan of petitions - I'm not sure what they accomplish - but I think it is interesting that someone has started one. I'm not sure if it will get many signatures, as of my posting of this, it had only one signature. (UPDATE: It's up to about 10 signatures now, many obviously joke signatures.)

Sungenis: Defending Purgatory By Attacking Limited Atonement

In my previous post (link to post) I highlighted Sungenis' admission that Roman Catholicism cannot answer with any certainty even such a basic question about Purgatory as whether it is a place or state. In the same oddly titled article (link to article), Sungenis purports to respond to Dr. White's criticism of the Roman view of Purgatory with respect to the Atonement.

The bulk of the discussion, however, is simply an attack on Limited Atonement. It includes one of the typical misrepresentations of the Reformed position (the allegation that we or Calvin held that "Christ went to hell for [the elect]." In his Institutes, Calvin explicitly ties the credal expression "descended into hell" to Christ's suffering on the cross, rejecting the idea that it refers to somewhere he went after his death and even responding to the objection that it would lead to the creed expressing the phrase out of order:

Those who — on the ground that it is absurd to put after his burial what preceded it — say that the order is reversed in this way are making a very trifling and ridiculous objection. f441 The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.

- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.16.10

The Continental Reformed likewise teach:

Question 44. Why is there added, "he descended into hell"?

Answer: That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, (a) but especially on the cross, has delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell. (b)

(a) Ps.18:5 The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. Ps.18:6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears. Ps.116:3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Matt.26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. Heb.5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Isa.53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Matt.27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (b) Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

- Heidelberg Catechism, Question/Answer 44

While the Scottish Reformed teach:

Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?

Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.

- Westminster Larger Catechism, Question/Answer 50

(see also Pastor Danny Hyde's historical discussion)

Thus, it is misrepresentation of the Reformed position (either in General or as "Calvinistic" in particular) to say that we teach that Jesus "went to hell" for our sins. As to his humanity, he suffered on the cross and he remained under the power of death for three days. That's our view, not the typical misrepresentation.

After all the criticism of the Reformed view of the atonement is complete, Sungenis remarkably offers only general characterizations of what his own view of the atonement is and no link at all between that view of the atonement and Purgatory:

The Catholic doctrine of the Atonement is the only one that answers ALL of the relevant Scripture passages. I go through them all in my book Not By Bread Alone. God predestinated, but not without man’s free will. God desires all men to be saved even though not all men will be saved. Christ’s atonement was given to the whole world, and from it all men have the potential to be saved. Christ did not go to hell to pay for man’s or the elect’s sins; rather, Christ propitiated the Father and made salvation possible for all men. All of these are taught in Scripture, and we arrive at these truths by combining ALL of what Scripture teaches.

Notice how, even in this brief paragraph, Sungenis again manages to insert his misrepresentation of the Reformed position on the atonement as a contrast to what he calls the "Catholic doctrine of the Atonement."

While I understand that he is referring to the reader to his book (where one would hope to find a more detailed explanation), it's worth noting that he simply offers a series of assertions, none of which really address the issues that Dr. White (and other Reformed critics) raise against Purgatory.

Also note the claim: "we arrive at these truths by combining ALL of what Scripture teaches." This is a comment that is obviously tailored toward a "Protestant" audience. But is it true? Does Sungenis arrive at his view of the atonement by combining all of what Scripture teaches? It seems unlikely that this is really how Sungenis arrives at his view - though it may be how the more "Arminian" listeners in the audience may have arrived at their view of the atonement.

It's easy to look at the explanation that Sungenis has provided and think that his goal is to trick Arminian hearers into thinking that the Roman Catholic view of the Atonement is essentially the same as their view of the Atonement by emphasizing certain differences between Roman theology and Reformed theology (as lampooned). I hope that's not his intention, but it is certainly a danger in his approach.

Because he has not actually presented a full and relevant discussion of the Roman Catholic view of Christ's work and its relation to the forgiveness and remission of the guilt and punishment of sins, Sungenis has not begun to answer the criticisms to which he purports to be responding in the article. In short, the article falls short of a rebuttal. Instead, some stones are thrown at a misrepresentation of the Reformed position.

-TurretinFan

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

Wrapping Up Geisler's Defense of Caner

In a first post, I introduced Dr. Geisler's latest error of judgment with respect to the Caner scandal (link to post). In a second post, I addressed the first group of "misspeaks" that Geisler identified (link to post). In a third post, I addressed the list of various charges and responses that Geisler aimed to address (link to post). In this post, I'll respond to Dr. Norman Geisler's "Concluding Thoughts" on the subject.

Dr. Geisler begins:

Reviewing these allegations reminds me of the numerous similar statements I have made in the past. I could easily be proven a liar on similar ground. For example, when ask where I was born, I have given at least three different answers over the years: In Detroit, in Warren, and in Van Dyke, Michigan. All are true. It was metropolitan Detroit (literally a half mile into the northeastern suburb). It was in a place once called Van Dyke and now called Warren.

The comparison to Dr. Caner is almost comical. While those three answers are all different, there is a real sense in which they are the same. There's no way that the answer "Stockholm, Sweden" is the same as the answer "Istanbul, Turkey" (see the documentation here). That's not similar to saying Detroit, or Warren, or Van Dyke. It's not like Stockholm is a suburb of Istanbul. Now, if the two answers were Istanbul and Constantinople, ok (see discussion here). But Stockholm vs. Istanbul is not comparable.

Geisler continues:

When asked what my father’s name was, I have said Fonse (which is what most people called him, or Alphonse, or more formally Alphonso). If one’s motives are to discredit, it would not be hard to discredit me or almost anyone with the kinds of arguments used by Caner’s critics.

I doubt Dr. Geisler has gone around claiming that he watched a show years before it came out in a country in which he never lived. (compare the discussion documented here) It's not hard to see how someone could view him negatively for making that kind of claim - it does not take "motives ... to discredit" in order to get to a negative result. I myself entered the discussion trying to discredit the Muslim critic's claims, but there are simply so many (as they have been called) self-contradictory statements of a factual nature.

Geisler continues:

If, on the other hand, one wants to be fair, then there are no real grounds to support the allegations of Caner’s critics that he is a liar and a fraud who repeatedly embellished things to support his own claims. No group authorized to investigate his statements have proclaimed any such conclusion. Nor did the Board committee at Liberty University that examined him. Rather, they said, “After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has some factual statements that are self-contradictory [as we have discussed above]. However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager…. [as his critics had charged]. Hence, The university has offered and Dr. Caner has accepted an employment contract for the 2010-2011 academic year. Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a Professor.”

No grounds? Seriously? What level of a pattern of wrong claims about his past would be necessary to be "some grounds" if the current evidence is "no grounds"? More likely, however, Dr. Geisler is simply unfamiliar with all of the evidence. He hasn't had to sit down and listen to Caner speaking for hour on end, hearing the different stories in their relevant context. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but if I am - I have to wonder how Dr. Geisler could say what he says in good conscience.

As far as "No group authorized to investigate his statements have proclaimed any such conclusion" goes, I'm not sure we will actually ever know. Do we know who the investigative committee at Liberty was? Was their report, which was given to the committee of Liberty trustees, ever released to the public? Will it be released to the public? Does Dr. Geisler have access to it? Have any other groups except that one been authorized to investigate his statements? Did Dr. Geisler's school authorize an investigation in parallel to Liberty's investigation?

Clearly, Liberty found no moral culpability or doctrinal deviation or else they would not have kept him on the faculty. One can only speculate as to why his contract as Dean was not renewed. Certainly, it could not have been because Liberty is an institution that has eschews controversy. For it could be said that the founder Jerry Falwell, whom I have greatly admired and praised, had “controversy” as his middle name! My own guess, having taught at Liberty University and knowing many of its leaders and workings quite well, is that the decision was more institutional in nature.

What does "institutional" mean? Was Dr. Caner unfairly relieved of his position at Liberty? If he was, and if someone can show that to me, I will be his most vocal advocate to get that position back.

Or does Dr. Geisler think this was just a coincidence? It's a little hard to buy that.

But if it was fair decision, doesn't it suggest some form of moral culpability was the perception of the trustees? Or was the reason a question of competence? Or something else?

The trustees certainly did not say that they found no evidence of wrong-doing on Dr. Caner's part, something we would hope to see in any announcement that also announced that Dr. Caner was not continuing as Dean, if that's what the trustees wanted to convey.

Perhaps we will never know - and we can speculate all day about what motivated the Liberty trustees. To all appearances, the Liberty trustees are not talking about this any more than they already have. All we can see is that they found that statements were made that were not true (self-contradictory), and they took negative action with respect to Dr. Caner. They confirmed what we already knew: that Dr. Caner was a Muslim who converted as a teenager.

If only Geisler were as cautious as the Liberty trustees, he would not be faced with putting himself in the position he now finds himself, as he digs himself deeper and deeper in his attempt to defend Dr. Caner. While I can certainly appreciate his obvious loyalty, I think he's making a mistake here.

Then again, perhaps there are appropriate answers to the responses I have provided above. I would like nothing better than to be shown that Dr. Ergun Caner is completely innocent of all the charges that have been placed against him. If Dr. Geisler or anyone else can do that, may God give them speed to do it quickly!

-TurretinFan

Responding to Norman Geisler's Defense of Ergun Caner - Part 2

In the previous post, we addressed a first group of "misspeaks" identified by Dr. Geisler (link to post). In this post, we'll look at some of the charges that Dr. Geisler identifies, as well as the responses he provides. I'll try to address each in turn.

The Charge that He Could Speak Arabic when He Can't. - He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non-Arabic Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergun learned enough Arabic (as most Muslims do) to read the Qur'an and speak it in prayer.

He may only claim that now. However, as documented here (link to documentation) he stated: "We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions." Similarly, as documented here (link to documentation) he stated: "Every debate I've ever had, the Muslim, 'Ah you do not understand Islam, you need to understand the Arabic,' What's next? That was my language before English."

I don't see how Dr. Geisler could possibly think that Dr. Caner was just saying he could sound out the Arabic words the way that many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims can. He claims to speak it alongside Turkish and that he understands it, with it being a language of his before English! I suspect this is simply another example of Dr. Geisler not being familiar with the evidence.

The Charges that He was not Turkish as He Claimed. --This stems from a confusion of his nationality and the country of his birth. Ergun was born in Sweden, but he was a Turkish citizen. According to Swedish law a child born in Sweden has the nationality of his father, and Ergun's father was Turkish. Indeed, he traveled to Turkey with his father to establish his Turkish citizenship. When he came to America, he came as a Turkish citizen with a Turkish passport.

First, let me note that I don't know whether Geisler's claim regarding Swedish law is even true. Likewise, I have no way of verifying that Caner traveled with his father at some point (who knows when) to establish Turkish citizenship.

However, Dr. Caner's claim was not simply to being a Turkish citizen. He claimed to be "100% Turkish." (see here, for example) I've never heard someone express citizenship that way. Have you? Has Dr. Geisler? I think, again, Dr. Geisler is just unfamiliar with the evidence.

The Charge that He was never trained in Jihad at a Muslim School. - The charges that he trained in a Sudanese or Lebanese School (Madrassa) are false and are based on wrongly assuming his statement of “Islamic youth jihad” was in reference to a specific terrorist organization. He trained in the one attached to his Mosque as all Muslim children do. And he was trained there in Jihad, as all the other children are-even those who never take up a gun.

What Caner claimed, as documented here (link to documentation) was this: "Until I was 15 years old, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad. So, until I came to America, until I found Jesus Christ as Lord, I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September, as were thousands and as are to this day, thousands." If that is a claim that all Muslim schools (madrassa can be a generic term for school) teach people to do what was done on September 11, that seems unlikely, and I'll leave it to the Muslims to specifically testify as to whether Geisler's claim in that regard is true. But otherwise, again, it seems like Geisler is probably just unfamiliar with what the evidence actually is.

The Charge that Ergun claimed he “Always Lived” in a Muslim Country before Coming to the US. - Although, the phrase “always lived” is not precise. There is no evidence of an evil intent to embellish here, as his critics say. True, Sweden was not a Muslim country, but he did live as a Muslim with a Muslim father while in Sweden. After all, Ergun's father was from a Muslim country, Ergun was a citizen of a Muslim country, and he lived as a Muslim in Sweden. It would be an embellishment saying that if he was not a Muslim and not a citizen of a Muslim country.

It looks like an embellishment saying that you lived in majority Muslim countries (plural) (see documentation), when you haven't lived in even one majority Muslim country, even if you lived with a Muslim father for many years. For example, he states: "And in every country where I had lived, we had always been in the majority. I am Sunni. About 90% of the Muslims in the world are Sunni. That includes the Wahabi, which is a subset, which is what Bin Ladin is. But I had never been around Christians." (documentation) Does Geisler really think that it is not an embellishment to say "in every country where I had lived, we had always been in majority ... I had never been around Christians" when he only apparently ever lived in Sweden (for his infancy) and Ohio for apparently, essentially his entire childhood? Once again, it looks like Dr. Geisler is not familiar with the evidence.

The Charge that He false Claims that “I Came as a Jihadist from Turkey”. - Ergun denies making this statement, and I have not seen any document refuting his claim. He does claim to have been trained in Jihad, as all Muslim children are. And he is of Turkish ancestry. The rest is apparently extrapolated by his detractors

I don't recall Dr. Caner using those exact words. Hpwever, as documented here (link to documentation) his words were this: "Until I was 15 years old, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad. So, until I came to America, until I found Jesus Christ as Lord, I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September, as were thousands and as are to this day, thousands." The original context of these words appear to be Dr. White's following comment:

8) How does he explain his often published claim to have come to the United States in 1978 or 1979? How can this be seen as anything other than a purposeful distortion necessary for his “I came as a jihadist from Turkey” rather than “I came as a son of a Muslim father and a Swedish mother to Ohio as a small child” persona?

(source) Whether or not that is an accurate characterization of the persona, I trust Dr. White is willing to let those who hear Dr. Caner's speeches decide.

The Charge that Caner Falsely Claims to have been a Devout Muslim. - Caner photos prove of his activity in the Islamic religion. He has a picture of his masallah (when circumcised at age 12); a photo of him praying in the mosque; a picture of his reading the Qur'in recitation. He also has a photo of his receiving a certificate from an Imam. His bother Emir, also a former Muslim, has vouched for the veracity of his claims.

If there are pictures of Dr. Caner's circumcision, I guess I'm glad that Dr. Geisler didn't share them.

That said, what is a "masallah"? The word "maşallah" is a Turkish word that literally means something like "God willed it" but which is an idiom for something good or wonderful (a little like the way we in English use "hallelujah" sometimes, though perhaps even a bit more secular). Perhaps Dr. Caner has an old photo with the word "masallah" on it, and he doesn't know what the word means? I'm just speculating on that here. I'd be happy to have Dr. Geisler explain what a "masallah" is, and why Dr. Caner's circumcision ritual was deferred from infancy to age 12 (see discussion here)(additional discussion here).

As for the other pictures, I haven't seen them, and Dr. Geisler doesn't provide them or provide access to them. What was the certificate for? for the circumcision? We have no idea. In any event, the few photos that theoretically exist don't seem to show much more than what one might see of a "Christian" child whose family had them go to Vacation Bible School one summer. It proves participation, not devotion, does it not?

The issue of devotion, however, is something that seems to me to be fairly subjective. It's easy to say "I was devout," and it is hard for anyone to disprove that.

The Charge that Caner Claims to have Learned “Perfect” English in Brooklyn. - Caner denies that he said his English was “perfect.” But he did learn some English while living in the old Jefferson Hotel while the family first migrated to the United States. They moved to Ohio where his English improved.

I don't know who claims that Caner claimed to have learned "perfect" English in Brooklyn. Caner does claim to have learned English there. It's interesting that Geisler claims "he did learn some English while living in the old Jefferson Hotel while the family first migrated to the United States." How long were they in the hotel? His brother Erdem was born in Sweden in 1968, and his brother Emir was born in 1970, with the family's migration to the U.S. apparently occurring in 1969. But his brother Emir was born in Ohio, apparently in a little town north of Columbus.

I can't seem to find any record of the "old Jefferson Hotel" in Brooklyn, NY. There is a famous "old Jefferson Hotel" in Richmond, VA, which is not all that far from where Dr. Caner presently resides. Perhaps he is confusing that one with something else? It would be pretty hard for a child of such tender years as Dr. Caner was to remember the name of a hotel that his family stayed at, even if they stayed there an extended period of time. Or perhaps the "old Jefferson Hotel" was simply too small to have left a trace 40 some odd years later.

In any event, a boy of two or three would be quite precocious to learn any large amount of the language. In any event, the claim that I documented (I believe there may be another claim that mentions a street name) is this: "I am an immigrant, I'm Turkish, 100% Turkish, for which I usually have to apologize, because we have horrible atrocities that Turks do, all the time, but I came to America through Brooklyn, NY and learned English at Aquinas (some Brooklyn folk? yeah!) and then moved to Ohio (I'll tell you a little bit about that later) but moved to Ohio and then became a Christian. I was a Sunni Muslim and a jahideen not a mujahideen, not a holy warrior, but I had not made it that high, but I was a jahideen when I got saved." (documentation here) And this less specific one: "Until I was 15 years old, I thought every single one of you hated me. See, I'd been taught my entire life that Christians were hateful, vengeful - that you'd have nothing from me but death - and that we were at war. We came to America through Brooklyn, NY, that's where I learned English. (laughter from crowd) Yup yup. Settled in Columbus, OH. Do you know how I found Jesus? I found Jesus while I was still a devout Muslim - devout Muslim - I was a PK [preacher's kid] for lack of a better term. I had a 'drug' problem: my father drug me to the mosque every time the doors were open." (documentation here)

The Charge that Caner could not have Offered his Muslim Prays in the School Bathroom as he said that he did. - This was neither a shameful or unacceptable practice for Muslims, as some critics claim. The Islamic Hadith allows it, and it is done by devout Muslims to this day as has been pointed out by former Muslim Hussein Wario (www.husseinwario.com).

Mr. Wario is another Muslim who, like Dr. Caner, converted at a young age. It might be advisable for Dr. Geisler not to assume that Mr. Wario is some sort of expert in Islam.

It is certainly not normal for Muslims to perform their prayers in the bathroom. There are basically two places where Muslims normally do not feel permitted to perform their prayers: bathrooms and graveyards.

Is it possible that Dr. Caner performed his prayers in the bathroom at high school? Of course it is possible. Anything is possible. But we have no good reason to believe that he did that, or that such an action would be consistent with him being a devout Muslim.

The Charge that Caner Claimed Ramadan was Forty Days Long. - Muslims claim this feast is only 30 days long, and Caner said it was forty days. Caner cites Muslim authorities to the contrary, showing it can last up to forty days. Even the Qur'an (Sura 2:51) speaks forty days of fasting.

Ramadan is the name of a month (see discussion here). Islam uses lunar months, so they are always one lunar cycle long, and the moon has never taken 40 days to cycle (normally it is 29-30 days). Ramadan is also the name of the fast during the month of Ramadan (see discussion here).

Caner may cite to Muslim authorities to the contrary, but that's really beside the point. He doesn't just claim that Ramadan is 40 days, he claims he personally fasted 40 days during Ramadan: "we fasted 40 days during Ramadan" (documented here) See also these clips:

So, while there may be some argument to be made that some tiny group of Muslims somewhere fast for forty days, that argument doesn't seem to be applicable to Caner.

As for the reference to Surah 2:51, read what it says - here are three translations:

YUSUFALI: And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.
PICKTHAL: And when We did appoint for Moses forty nights (of solitude), and then ye chose the calf, when he had gone from you, and were wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And when We appointed a time of forty nights with Musa, then you took the calf (for a god) after him and you were unjust.

And here is the Arabic:

وَإِذْ وَعَدْنَا مُوسَىٰٓ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةًۭ ثُمَّ ٱتَّخَذْتُمُ ٱلْعِجْلَ مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦ وَأَنتُمْ ظَلِمُونَ

So, yes, that verse of the Koran mentions "forty days" but it does not say that Ramadan is supposed to be forty days. This prooftexting reminds one of the prooftexting that Dr. Geisler's book, Chosen But Free was criticized for using, as Dr. White explained in The Potter's Freedom.

The Charge that Caner Confuses the Shahada with the Beginning Words in the Surat at-Fatiha. - It is alleged that no knowledgeable devout Muslim would confuse these two. But both are part of Islamic prayers that are recited many times every day. The first is the confession and the second is a recitation.

This response does not seem to make much sense. The entire point is that a devout Muslim would be familiar with both prayers. Such a person confusing the two prayers for one another does not seem to make much sense. Can you imagine a devout Roman Catholic confusing the Lord's Prayer with the Hail Mary, even in Latin in the old days? It's almost unimaginable. Both are very familiar prayers.

The Charge that His Family Did Not Disown Him When He Converted to Christianity as Caner Claimed that they Did. - It is true that after the divorce he was raised by his mother who obviously had not disowned him since she was no longer a Muslim. But his Muslim father who had remarried did disown him. This is the Muslim “family” to which he referred. This was very painful to him since he lived only a half hour away but could not even speak to him.

It may be obvious to Dr. Geisler that Caner's custodial family didn't actually disown him, but I question whether it was obvious to any of the groups to whom Caner spoke. For example, when Caner said “I had no family,” after his conversion (documentation) was the audience supposed to somehow know that Caner just meant that he didn't have the second family that lived half an hour away? Or what about when he said on the Zola Levitt show: "They won't dilute. Islam is Islam - and that was me coming to America: a fiery young man - all three of us, the three sons from our mother - all three of us devout Muslims - our father just this hero to us and when I converted - disowned by my family - completely disowned - father cut me out of the pictures - a year later both of my brothers became believers." (documentation) How does one go from "completely disowned" to simply being disowned by a non-custodial parent?

Yes, I'm sure it was painful - and there is no need to minimize or trivialize that. On the other hand, saying things like "completely disowned" or otherwise suggesting that, when his mother and grandmother with whom he lived did not disown him does sound like an embellishment, does it not? Again, I'm not sure if Dr. Geisler is really familiar with the facts.

The Charges that He was not Turkish as He Claimed to be. --This stems from a confusion of his nationality and the country of his birth. Ergun was born in Sweden, but he was a Turkish citizen. According to Swedish law a child born in Sweden has the nationality of his father, and Ergun's father was Turkish. Indeed, he traveled to Turkey with his father to establish his Turkish citizenship. When he came to America, he came as a Turkish citizen with a Turkish passport.

This is a duplicate of one that is already addressed above.

The Charge that Caner Falsely Claims that he has had more than Sixty Debates with Muslims. - Critics challenge this statement and claim it is an intentional embellishment. But they mistakenly assume that all debates are formal. Caner lists many formal debates in the last ten years or so. But he has also engaged in multiple informal debates as well. There is no evidence to deny his claim. Indeed, given his numerous encounters with Muslims, it is reasonable to assume there were at least sixty.

Caner lists many formal debates in the last ten years or so? Where? We've reviewed Dr. Caner's debating claims before (see the discussion here - we cannot seem to find these formal debates, or even any informal debates).

The Charge that no Knowledgeable Muslim Would Mis-cite the Hadith as Caner Did. - It is charged that Caner often cites the Hadith without mentioning the actual name of the collection. But, as even Muslim scholars admit, there is no “official” way to cite the Hadith. It is often cited without reference to the collection.

What Muslim scholars does Dr. Geisler have in mind? Citing a specific Hadith saying by simply saying "Hadith 3:16" is the same as saying "Bible 3:16." Maybe a person will correctly guess the book (in the case of the Bible) or the collection (in the case of the Hadith), but a citation to "Hadith 3:16" would be an incomplete citation. The wording of this answer appears to strikingly similar to Hussein Wario's claim:

I said “there is no “official” way to cite Hadith. The most authentic Hadith collection is Sahih Bukhari. Many times when it is quoted, it comes without the name because it is the most authentic and widely referenced.

(source) Is Hussein Wario supposed to be Geisler's "Muslim scholars" admitting things? I hope not! As noted above, he's a Christian who converted as a teen, like Ergun Caner (or younger, like Emir Caner). There may be Muslim scholars who would cite Sahih al-Bukhari without specifically saying so, because in their context a person would know that this is the one collection they are using. However, the Caners, in their books, do not rely only on that one collection. (more discussion of the Hadith citation issue here)

The Charge that Caner did not Debate Shabir Ally in Nebraska. - Dr. Caner has admitted that this was a mistake and has publically apologized for it. He did, however, engage another Muslim while in Lincoln, NB. No one has proven this was an intentional deception, as some critics claim.

First of all, the appropriate abbreviation for Nebraska is NE. The fact that Dr. Geisler got this wrong doesn't mean he's not a real American. Of course, it may not be that Dr. Geisler himself actually even wrote this section.

Second, who is the mystery Muslim that Ergun Caner debated in Lincoln, NE? Is his name something like Shabir Ally? Does he look anything like him? How did the two get confused if (as Geisler seems to think) this was just an honest mistake. Dr. Caner himself gave the following "apology" apparently regarding the Shabir Ally situation (the apology discussed here - alternative link for apology here):

Finally, there is a legitimate complaint which I must address, namely, referencing a Muslim scholar that I have never met. Listening to the audio, I honestly have no idea who I was referencing, but it certainly could not have been the man I referenced. For this unintentional but nevertheless horrible mistake, I repent for saying his name, and I ask the forgiveness of all those who heard it. Sin is sin, and if I am dumb enough to say something like that, I should be man enough to deal with it and aim to never make such a grievous error again. This applies to any time when I wrongly used names. I shall be more careful.

Perhaps in the interim between February and now, some new debate in Nebraska has come to Dr. Caner's mind and he has conveyed this to Dr. Geisler. If so, perhaps Dr. Geisler would be kind enough to share this information with us. It would be especially nice if it turned out that this was an actual debate and not simply that Dr. Caner happened to share the gospel with a Muslim barber while having his hair cut in Nebreska (an exceedingly unlikely scenario, I know - and let me point out that it would still be great if he shared the gospel with someone, even if it is not good that he turned that into a claim to have debated one of the leading Muslim apologists). The bottom line is that it sounds like Dr. Geisler is simply speculating that Dr. Caner may have mistakenly used the name "Shabir Ally" instead of the name of a different Muslim debater.

The Charge that Caner has Used various Names in Publications. Dr. Caner has used “E. Michael Caner” in one book while using “Ergun Mehmet Caner” in other books. Why? His mother desired that he use Michael, a name she always wished to give him, while Dr. Caner used “Mehmet” in honor of his father, especially after his father's passing in 1999. Some have even attacked his nickname, “Butch,” which he has used since moving to the South and was a name given to him by those who had difficulty pronouncing his first name.

Those sound like great explanations that would seem to be a good explanation for why a person might use various pseudonyms. But Dr. Caner has made claims about what his name is - not just used various pen names.

So what is his real name? He has claimed his real name is something that sounds like "Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovanni Caner" (example)(see longer discussion of name issues here). Is that the truth? Or is Michael the truth? Or is Mehmet the truth? Does Dr. Geisler even know?

The Charge that Caner Claims to have a Ph.D when it is Only a Th.D. - Actually, his degree is a D. Theol. But these degrees are equivalent, as even accrediting agencies attest. Many seminaries have converted the Th.D into a Ph.D program.

D. Theol. and Th.D. are the same thing. While a Ph.D. may be an equivalent to a Th.D. in terms of the work involved, the issue is not just that Dr. Caner seems to have sometimes claimed he had a Ph.D. when he did not, but that he (or others on his behalf) claimed to have it in addition to his Th.D. (discussion of the credential issue).

Perhaps in a final segment we can discuss Dr. Geisler's concluding thoughts.

- TurretinFan

Responding to Norman Geisler's Defense of Ergun Caner - Part 1

As promised in a previous post (link) this post begins to address Dr. Geisler's defense of Dr. Caner.

Dr. Geisler says "no one has proven an evil moral intent in any of them" referring, apparently, to "some factual misstatements" for which "Dr. Caner has admitted to and apologized ... ." Dr. Geisler goes on to say, "For those who have no mercy for those who make honest mistakes, I would only say: Let him who is without mistakes cast the first stone!" Dr. Geisler does not come right out and say, "All of Dr. Caner's mistakes were honest mistakes," though that appears to be his intended message.

The first cluster of "misspeaks" that Geisler identifies are the following:

"1) He said he was 18 instead of 16 which he repeatedly said he was."

If this were a one-time error by itself, folks would probably not make much of a big deal about it - at least I hope they wouldn't. Who hasn't occasionally misstated a number?

But if it is also done more than once and accompanied by things like saying that he was saved in his "senior year" of high school (link to evidence analyzed)(another example)(third example), then it begins to look different. The more times it happens, and the more times it is accompanied by related marks that are connected to it, the more it looks intentional.

There's also a further problem, if Unveiling Islam's account is correct (see discussion here), then Ergun Caner was actually 15, not 16 (as does a Turkish newspaper report). So which is it? Well, Dr. Geisler doesn't give us any new information, so we're stuck with the unresolved contradictions. Is it really 16? or is it really 15?

Dr. Caner does not seem to have studied this matter very closely, since he appears to be unaware of the evidence pointing to conversion at 15 or younger.

"2) He said Shabir Ally had died (who is alive) when he meant another Muslim (who is dead);"

I agree that this was an honest mistake. I can even venture a guess as to who Caner was trying to identify: Ahmed Deedat (who is dead, having died in 2005).

Of course, the more serious issue with respect to Shabir Ally is Dr. Caner's claim to have debated him, but that will be discussed in a later post.

"3) Ergun said they moved to America in 1969 and in another place he said it was 1978. More precisely, he got his citizenship in 1978."

First off, I have seen no evidence that Dr. Caner got his citizenship in 1978. It may be true, and I'm sure that it would have to be a public record somewhere, so presumably evidence can be found if the citizenship-in-1978 claim is true. This will have to be categorized under the "wait and see" category of claims. Who knows where Dr. Geisler got this information from - he certainly does not cite any evidence or identify the source of his information. (UPDATE: As an alert but anonymous reader pointed out, at least one biography of Caner indicates he became a citizen at age 18, in 1984 - link to bio with colorful photo of Caner and Ms. Schatz has pointed out that Dr. Caner himself has claimed to have gained his citizenship in 1982 - see his article "Hatriotism")

Secondly, even if Caner did become a citizen in 1978, is the claim that Caner meant to refer to when he became a citizen? How could that possibly be what Caner meant in the context of, for example, the Rick and Bubba Show interview? (link to discussion/analysis) Again, it appears that Dr. Geisler is not familiar with the evidence.

"4) Ergun once accidentally said Mulema instead of Ulema which is the Arabic word for scholar."

Actually, Dr. Caner may have done that several times. I've tried to always assume he's trying to say "an Ulema" although his diction often makes it sound like "a Mulema." So, while one instance of what sounds like "Mulema," it may not be the only time.

But there is a more significant aspect to this particular mistake. Ulema is the Arabic word for scholars not scholar (as discussed here). Again, Dr. Geisler is not familiar with the evidence.

"5) He mispronounces Sawm as 'Swam.'"

Sometimes it even sounds like "swan" the way Dr. Caner pronounces it. This is obviously a mistake, but I don't think even Dr. Caner's most severe critics think this is supposed to be a lie. It just goes to show that his alleged familiarity with Islam is probably not as extensive as folks might think based on his autobiographical reports.

What Dr. Geisler fails to mention is that Sawm is one of the five pillars of Islam. It's not just some obscure word that most Muslims would not know, even if Dr. Geisler himself or his expected audience is not aware of what it means. If Dr. Caner were not claiming to be an expert in Islam, I don't think anyone except his most severe critics would give a second thought to the fact that he does not pronounce it correctly. But Dr. Caner is sometimes presented as though he were some kind of expert on Islam - in that role, consistently mispronouncing one of the five pillars is somewhat more troubling.

"6) He is charged with lying because look [sic] away or crosses his legs or arms (which is symptomatic of lying)!"

I don't put a lot of stock in the body language clues for lying. This is really one of the most trivial objections - if that were all that Caner's critics had, they should be laughed at.

"7) It is charged that Ergun has shoes on in a mosque picture which is forbidden (Wrong. It is not forbidden in the outer court)."

First of all, is the claim that these photos are from the "outer court" of some mosque or mosques? (link to photos and discussion) If so, which mosque? What "outer court" in

Second, how is the outer court "in the mosque"?

Again, it doesn't look like Dr. Geisler is really familiar with the evidence.

Dr. Geisler's First Conclusion

Dr. Geisler's article looks like the work of more than one person. The first conclusion comes right above a section titled "Some Muslim Allegations against Dr. Caner" and then there is a later "Concluding Thoughts" section. We'll address the "Concluding Thoughts" later.

This conclusion is as follows:

Several things are worth noting here. First of all, none of them are morally culpable since no one has proven intentional deception or embellishment. Furthermore, when Ergun becomes aware of any mistakes, he owns it, corrects, and apologizes for it. In addition, most of these allegations range from the trivial to the ridiculous. . Finally, not one of them involves a moral or doctrinal deviation from the Faith.

There are several issues with this summary. First, if (1), (3), and (7) are true charges, they would be morally culpable, and Geisler's response is hardly adequate to clear Dr. Caner of the charges. Second, Dr. Geisler has not documented apologies for the mistakes that Dr. Caner has made, and we have trouble believing that he could document apologies for more than a very few mistakes. Perhaps he has privately apologized for others - I'm not sure what significance (if any) those private apologies would have. The idea that "most of these allegations range from the trivial to the ridiculous" is really questionable. But let's assume that he were right - the issue is really the serious charges - not the chaff. It's hardly a defense of Dr. Caner to claim that there is a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat, though it would explain why a defense is a long time coming. Finally, lying is a moral issue - and lying is what Dr. Caner has been accused of, according to Geisler's own article. I'm not sure if Dr. Geisler is trying to use "moral" as a euphemism for "sexual" or what he's trying to do. Dr. Caner's theological issues (any "doctrinal deviation from the Faith") are really an entirely different story (one is discussed here, if anyone is interested).

This is a good place to stop this particular post, leaving the remainder of Dr. Geisler's defense for another post.

- TurretinFan

Geisler Digs Yet Deeper!

Rather than apologizing for claiming that Dr. Ergun Caner's critics were engaging in libel and slander, Dr. Norman Geisler has decided to make an attempt to defend Dr. Ergun Caner (link to attempted defense). In the following series of posts, we'll examine Dr. Geisler's defense of Dr. Caner to determine whether it has any merit. The first thing I want to point out is that Dr. Geisler provides no primary source material to corroborate anything that Dr. Caner has said, with one exception. The one exception is a citation to the Koran: "Surah 2:51." We'll address that one in turn in one of the following posts. But the bottom line is this, Dr. Geisler provides no new primary source material, such that the pool of evidence is increased. Nevertheless, he provides a certain amount of commentary and reference to alleged further information, and we'll address that in the posts that follow.

-TurretinFan

Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

In a recent (2009) response to Dr. White, Robert Sungenis made some interesting admissions regarding the absence of knowledge of what Purgatory is in Roman Catholic theology:

Since the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory, and since the Church declined to make any official statements on its nature, it is only natural that people of different eras are going to come to different views of what precisely constitutes the Purgatorial experience.

... we have not settled on the nature of Purgatory ...

... the nature of Purgatory is an admitted area of unsettled knowledge in the Catholic Church ...

After we have already admitted that being in the 15% area of unsettled doctrine
the nature of Purgatory continues to be debated among “modern Roman Catholic advocates,” the truth is, it really doesn’t matter a whole lot. The fact is, Purgatory exists. It can be shown from Scripture, the Patristics, the medievals, and the Magisterium. Whether it is “days” or some other measurement is not really a make-or-break issue.

(Source: Sungenis' article oddly titled: James White, Alive but Still Struggling)

The underlying problem here, though, is that Sungenis has not fully identified the reason for the lack of common assent regarding the nature of Purgatory. While it is true that God has not revealed the nature of "Purgatory," the primary reason for the lack of common assent regarding the nature of Purgatory is that (a) Purgatory is a fiction and (b) Purgatory is a relatively new fiction. The medieval era in the West is where we really see the development of a view of Purgatory. There is no mention of any "Purgatory" in the fathers.

As Jacques Le Goff explains, "Until the end of the twelfth century the noun purgatorium did not exist: the Purgatory had not yet been born." (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, p. 3 - see also, Appendix II: "Purgatorium," the History of a Word)(emphasize is Le Goff's) There may well have been vague concepts of purgation either upon death or at the day of judgment (or the like) but the idea of a third state or place given the name "Purgatory" was a long time in development from some vague comments about purging by Augustine in the 5th century (I'll leave the debate over those comments for another post).

But there is an interesting background against which Sungenis is making his claim. Benedict XV praised Dante Alighieri's work (The Divine Comedy: Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradisio) this way:

It is thus that, according to the Divine Revelation, in this poem shines out the majesty of God One and Three, the Redemption of the human race operated by the Word of God made Man, the supreme loving-kindness and charity of Mary, Virgin and Mother, Queen of Heaven, and lastly the glory on high of Angels, Saints and men; then the terrible contrast to this, the pains of the impious in Hell; then the middle world, so to speak, between Heaven and Hell, Purgatory, the Ladder of souls destined after expiation to supreme beatitude. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design.

- Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum, Section 4, 30 April 1921

Dante Alighieri lived from about 1265 to 1321. His work on the subject of the afterlife, including Purgatory, is one whose influence in the late medieval period, particularly in Italy, is hard to overstate. He is referred to both as the Supreme Poet of Italy and the Father of the Italian language.

His work makes clear that his view of Purgatory is that it is a place like Heaven or Hell in that it is a place having space and time. It is, for Dante, a Mountain that is to be climbed. We also see a similar view of Purgatory as a definite place in the works of Thomas Aquinas:

Article 2. Whether it is the same place where souls are cleansed, and the damned punished?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not the same place where souls are cleansed and the damned punished. For the punishment of the damned is eternal, according to Matthew 25:46, "These shall go into everlasting punishment [Vulgate: 'fire']." But the fire of Purgatory is temporary, as the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 21). Therefore the former and the latter are not punished together in the same place: and consequently these places must needs be distinct.

Objection 2. The punishment of hell is called by various names, as in Psalm 10:7, "Fire and brimstone, and storms of winds," etc., whereas the punishment of Purgatory is called by one name only, namely fire. Therefore they are not punished with the same fire and in the same place.

Objection 3. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii, 16): "It is probable that they are punished in the very places where they sinned." And Gregory relates (Dial. iv, 40) that Germanus, Bishop of Capua, found Paschasius being cleansed in the baths. Therefore they are not cleansed in the same place as hell, but in this world.

On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: "Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed." Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place.

Further, the holy fathers; before the coming of Christ, were in a more worthy place than that wherein souls are now cleansed after death, since there was no pain of sense there. Yet that place was joined to hell, or the same as hell: otherwise Christ when descending into Limbo would not be said to have descended into hell. Therefore Purgatory is either close to, or the same place as, hell.

I answer that, Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the damned being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their punishment being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church.

Some say, however, that according to the common law the place of Purgatory is where man sins. This does not seem probable, since a man may be punished at the same time for sins committed in various places. And others say that according to the common law they are punished above us, because they are between us and God, as regards their state. But this is of no account, for they are not punished for being above us, but for that which is lowest in them, namely sin.

Reply to Objection 1. The fire of Purgatory is eternal in its substance, but temporary in its cleansing effect.

Reply to Objection 2. The punishment of hell is for the purpose of affliction, wherefore it is called by the names of things that are wont to afflict us here. But the chief purpose of the punishment of Purgatory is to cleanse us from the remains of sin; and consequently the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory, because fire cleanses and consumes.

Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the point of special dispensation and not that of the common law.

- Thomas Aquinas (as completed by Reginald of Piperno), Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Appendix 2, Article 2 (Although Reginald is given credit for adding this material to the Summa Theologica, the material is essentially taken word for word from Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on [Peter Lombard's] Sentences, Book IV, Distinction 21, Article 1, with some omissions of the materials found there, but no obvious insertions that affect the meaning)

Notice that in this discussion, Thomas Aquinas (lived about 1225 - 1274) suggests that Purgatory occupies two places: one place is in or below Hell - the other is at various specific times in other places for particular purposes.

Notice as well that Thomas Aquinas concedes that Scripture does not tell us about the "situation" (that is, the place where it is sited - it's location) of Purgatory. Thus, he's not willing to be dogmatic about it. However, Thomas Aquinas does believe that there were "revelations made to many" about Purgatory.

The bottom line is that, as Le Goff said, the Purgatory is something born in the 12th century. It is something that took shape as a definite place in the writings of folks like Dante and Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Yet it is something that one today hears promoted as simply a state, not a place, from sources like EWTN (example) based on comments such as the following from John Paul II:

Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.

- John Paul II, General Audience, 4 August 1999, Section 5

So, while we certainly agree with Mr. Sungenis that Rome has not received divine revelation about the nature of Purgatory, we would simply take that a step further and note that the current teachings one gets from Rome (whether from the pope or anyone else) lack the authority of divine revelation generally. Scripture does not speak of a Purgatory, and there is no good reason for accepting the changing traditions of Rome on this subject. Waving ones hands and saying that the things that are not known are not important doesn't really address the issue behind the fact that Roman Catholics cannot even tell us with certainty whether Thomas Aquinas or John Paul II is right, when it comes to Purgatory.

-TurretinFan

N.B. As an aside, Mr. Sungenis makes reference to the idea that there is a "15% area of unsettled doctrine" in his religion. He made this number up out of thin air. He has no way of knowing how much additional doctrine his church will define this century or the next, and consequently he has no way of knowing whether the real number is 15% or 0.000001%. All he can really say is that his church makes more dogmatic statements than most other churches do.