Ergun Caner on Issues Etc.

I've tried to go through the episodes of Issues Etc. on which Dr. Ergun Caner appeared, and tried to review them in light of statements related to Caner's autobiography and other issues that have swirled around him of late.

April 16, 2003, Hour 3 (last two-thirds, 12:00 onward) "Islamic Sects" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer)(link to wma version)

(17:31) Myself, I am Turkish, twenty generations back Muslim, you know I'm the first Christian - I converted to Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and God, you know, when I was a senior in high school.

• If Caner converted on November 4, 1982, as he has said a number of times, he was in the first half of his junior year.

(18:40) And we saw, just a few days ago, a Shi'ite imam hacked to death - actually he was an ulima, a scholar - hacked to death because he was seen to be complicitous with Saddam Hussein.

• The word "ulima" is a plural noun, not a singular noun.

(33:30) Yeah, this is difficult for me, because of course I was not born in this country. I was a m- You know, my father being a muezzin, we came to this country as Islamic missionaries, to use an Americanized term. And I began to see the panopy (?) - I began to see the landscape of Islam. I would say the vast majority of Muslims here in America - perhaps 85% are Sunni. I teach here in Texas, I will be teaching at Liberty University starting this fall. I think you will run into maybe - most - the vast majority of the Muslims you run into are Sunni, the rest are divided among Shi'ite, Suffi on the West Coast, and Nation of Islam, which I never - I never saw a Nation of Islam 'till I came to America.

• Obviously, if Caner was only a toddler when he came to America, he is using the term "we" to simply refer to his family in general. However, on other occasions he has said that his family came to build mosques. Building mosques is not quite the same thing as engaging in da`wah (the Arabic term for calling folks to Islam).
• If Caner came to America when he was a toddler, how would he even remember whether he saw a Nation of Islam member before then? This is one of those kinds of statements that is probably true (there are not a lot of Swedish Nation of Islam folks) but might still give someone a very wrong impression (much like saying, "I've never had such tasty Swedish meatballs before" when it is your first time trying the dish).

(44:55) This is something I only hear here in America. If you would have said to me when I was Muslim, and I was a Muslim until I was almost twenty, if you would have said to me when I was a Muslim that Allah and Jehovah-God of the Bible are the same god, I would have been offended. As a Christian, I find it blasphemous. There is no comparison. There is - This is only something that we learned in America, because they want us all to be religious - they want us all to be - basically - all of us are seeking the same god.

• If Caner converted on November 4, 1982, he was barely (by less than a week) 16. If he converted earlier than that, as his book Unveiling Islam, suggests, he was even younger.
• The statement about this being "only something that we learned in America" is almost certainly true (it's hard to imagine a toddler learning any significant amount) but also tends to give an impression that is wrong.

(48:26) Let me tell you great news, Willis, the Lutheran Hour not only here in America - but you have on your mission work, something that spreads into the middle east. And please do not think - for all those who say, "Well, we give our money and want to know, you know, is it being of any effect?" Speaking on behalf of all immigrants, I heard the gospel before I came to America. I heard it because of your transmissions, because of your work, because of the fact that you gave your money. Continue to do so, because you will never know what a profound effect it has on the lives of those -- I was in Islam! I was the son of a muezzin - the one who does the call to prayer - and yet I heard the gospel because of such moves as the Lutheran Hour and others. You got into our lives, because you got into our radios - you got into our televisions - and now, because of satellite, you have an incredible opportunity. This is a time for the church to rise up. For the Lutheran church to rise up, for the various denominations that preach Jesus Christ as the only savior to rise up. Man, this is our chance.

• If Caner came to America as a toddler, it is hard to imagine that he heard the gospel in a particularly meaningful way before then.
• There seem to be other places in Caner's speeches where he claims that everything he knew about Christianity was what he learned in his mosque. Was it that way, or was it this way, where he heard the gospel via Lutheran (or some similar) radio?

July 14, 2003, Hour 3, "Muslim Beliefs about Jesus & Christianity" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to wma version)

(10:27) Anyone reading the Koran, and I encourage Christians - to reach my people, you must read the Koran - you must, you know, get to see what the Koran is about. Anybody, reading the Koran, will run across an amazing number of allusions to Scripture. But they are not correct allusions to Scripture, they are - things are charged. For instance, Abrahim at the top of Mount Moriah (Abraham) sacrifices his son in the Koran - he sacrifices Ishma'il.

• Actually, the Koran does not name the son (link to English translations of the passage).

(11:05) But until I became a Christian, in my late teens, I thought Abraham sacrificed Ishmael, his oldest son.

• 15-16 is not really "late teens" is it?
• He may have thought that, as Muslims do teach that - but not because of what the Koran says.

(22:09) And, of course, one of the arguments we used, and the most famous one I used, in London was: "So you're telling me," I said to the imam, "You're telling me that the Old Testament was perfect and then corrupted?" "Yes." I said, "So then you tell me that the New Testament was perfect and then corrupted?" He said, "Yes." And I said, "So then why should I trust if Allah could not preserve the first two, why would he preserve the third?" And it elicited boos from the Muslims, but it's a valid point, and it won the debate for us.

• Does anyone have a recording of this supposed debate? What was the name of the Imam?
• Incidentally, that is a good question to ask your Muslim friends. I have asked a similar question before, and received not much of an answer back.
  

(23:23) They believe that all the prophets of the Old and New Testaments, some of the ones we wouldn't even consider prophets, like Barak - Deborah and Barak - not Deborah, but Barak himself. David, Noah, they believe these to be prophets.

• But Barak is not one of the 25 prophets of Islam (link to discussion - text may need to be highlighted to be read in some browsers)
• And, of course, Christians believe David, Deborah, and Noah to be prophets.

(30:44) Interviewer: Does the average Muslim know his own book -- know the Koran? And does the average Muslim know the Christian Scriptures? Caner: No, he doesn't. The average - you're talking about the average Muslim here in America, the answer of course is "no." I am the son of an ulima - that is one who is a scholar of the Koran - and that is the only explanation why we knew the Koran the way we did. Now, a Muslim may read it, but he is told that, unless he reads it in the original Arabic, he is not reading the true Koran. The equivalent of King James Only Christians - those that say there is only one version of the Scripture that is true. They say that only the Arabic is correct. Well, most Muslims don't even read the Arabic. Only 20% of the Muslim world understands Arabic. So they will read it in a language they don't understand.

• I have seen no evidence, aside from Caner's claims, that his father was one of the ulima.
• Ulima is a plural noun, not a singular noun.
• There's no evidence that Caner reads Arabic any better than the 80% that he seems to write off in his comment.

(35:30) And, from the moment we are born, there is a reckoning, that is a good and a bad. You are taught that there is a jinn - it's hard to explain what a jinn is - it is somewhat like a spirit-being, not an angel though, it's not an angel, but it's somewhat like an angel. A jinn sits on your right shoulder and a jinn sits on your left shoulder. And they write down - the one on your right shoulder all the good that you do - the one on your left shoulder writes down all the bad that you do.

• What is interesting about this clip is that here Caner seems to know the right word - jinn, as opposed to other places where he makes the serious error of referring to the jinn as the injeel (Gospel). He also seems to understand the concepts correctly, though perhaps a Muslim reader would disagree with me.
  

(37:39) And what we have in the Wahabi is the doctrine of the female jihadeen, which is - if a woman dies, she does not go to paradise for - you know the virgins who are waiting for and the pomegranates. Instead, she - if she dies as a suicide bomber - is allowed to pick who she wants to go with her to paradise.

• What Caner probably means is "mujihad" (singular) or "mujahideen" (plural). While there may be a word "jihadeen" it would not appear to fit in Caner's sentence.

November 6, 2003, Hour 2 (first half), "A U.S. News & World Report Story on Women in Islam" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to mp3 version)(link to wma version)

(2:25) We didn't know - of course, you know, I was raised Muslim and then we came to this country - We didn't know that it was oppressive. You know, we never thought, "Oh, I'm being oppressed," this is all we ever knew, was the wearing of the chador or the wearing of the niqab, or - of course - the most germane one is the burkah. But this was all we ever knew.

• The statement that he was raised as a Muslim and then came to America suggests to the average person something different than that he came to America as a toddler.
• Likewise "this was all we ever knew" tends to suggest more than the first 2-3 years of a person's life experience.

(5:52) I have lived under socialism, and fascism, and of course Islamic sharia law and in democracy and I would say, as an immigrant, this is far superior, but it is also riskier.

• Let's grant that Sweden, which is really a democracy, can count as socialism. Socialism isn't really a form of government - so the grouping is bad - but whatever.
• When did Caner supposedly live under fascism? Is he making a joke at the late Jerry Fallwell's expense? That doesn't seem to fit the context. It looks like he is claiming to have lived under a fascist regime in Turkey.
• When did Caner live under "of course" Islamic sharia law? Turkey does not have sharia law (even if he supposedly lived there). So, how is this claim to "of course" have lived under sharia law anything resembling the truth?

(7:05) It's been thirteen hundred years since Mohamed died in 632, as women have been seen as half - you know - hell is full of two-thirds women. The teachings of Mohamed about a husband being able to have four wives, and a woman being only able to have one husband at a time. This inequity continues. And its down to the core - it's endemic. My mother was one of many wives for my father - and it was just passed along culturally like this.

• Notice that in this context, Caner's oft-repeated claim that his father had "many wives" is specifically linked to polygamous practices.

(9:45) The Muslim will say, "This is the revealed will of Allah. This was received from Allah, beginning on Mohamed's fortieth birthday. ..."

• No, Islam does not claim that Mohamed's fortieth birthday was the date of the first revelation. He was - they claim - forty years old at the time, but it was not on his birthday.

(17:34) Well, when I as Muslim, we had a madrass. Madrasses are now very famous, because they are the places where the jihadeen are training. But one of the things we do in a madrass is that we learn about Christianity. If the Muslims are so adamant about their work, to try to learn about Christianity, why do we not, as Christians who have the truth, and the peace, and the grace - why do we not learn about their culture - learn about their religions - use it as a bridge to build into their lives. My mother did not hear the gospel, as much as we tried, my mother did not hear the gospel 'till nine years after my brothers and I were disowned. And thankfully, from the bottom of my heart, thankfully one woman - one Christian woman - broke through the barrier - and broke through the distrust and reached my mother for the gospel.

• "Madrass" is not the singular form of "Madrasses." Instead, Madrasah is the singular form with Madrassas as a Latinized plural (Madaris is the real plural).
• "Jihadeen" is not the right word. The right would would be "mujahideen" as noted above.
• Caner's presentation does not say that his mother was a Muslim woman reached for Christ by a Christian woman, but it certainly gives the listener that impression.

April 14, 2004, Hour 1 (1st half), "The Islamic Holy City of Najaf & Islam & Democracy" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to wma version)

(13:09) Let's just use a comparison here. I happen to be a baptist, I was saved Black Baptist, a national baptist, I am now Southern Baptist. Presbyterians and I worship differently, but I believe Presbyterians are going to heaven. They believe in Jesus Christ and so do I. In Islam it is different. In Islam, Sunni declare that Shia are Gulat - Cult. In every mosque I lived in, before I came to America, the mosque was defined by whether it was Shia or Sunni or Suffi - Suffi the third, it's a minor sect. And so, they do not believe that - Sunni do not believe that Shia are going to be in paradise, and Shia do not believe that Sunnit are going to be in paradise - at least the theologians don't.

• Jerry Tackett, who allegedly led Dr. Caner to Christ was a white guy. Of course, there could be a white guy in a black church.
• I have seen no evidence that Steltzer Road Baptist church was actually in the National Baptist conference.
• The statement about "every mosque I lived in, before I came to America" implies that Caner lived in more than one mosque before coming to America. Leaving aside the issue of people living in mosques, is there any evidence that Caner was in more than one mosque before coming to America?

June 24, 2004, Hour 3 (2nd half), "The Crusades" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to wma version)

(29:22) Interviewer: 1) The escalating violence in Iraq. As a former Muslim and as a former resident of that area of the country - of the world - how do you see that escalating violence? Caner: I see it as the natural progression. I mean, this is something that - we were just asked about this in Washington, DC, and I said, "if I was a betting man, I'm not, but if I was a betting man I would guess that there will be even more, after we made the initial exchange of power."

• Notice that the interviewer is under the impression that Caner was a resident of the Middle East, and that Caner does not do anything to say, "Well, I was born in Sweden, and raised in Ohio ..." or anything of that kind.

(41:39) We chose to convert by the sword, just like the Muslims do. Exactly like my people, like I was trained to do, as a young man. We were trained that Allah will be glorified when every country becomes an Islamic land and Sharia law holds forth. They just said this on the news, not more than an hour ago, my wife comes running down with the press report, and it says that, that you know, here the al-Zawahiri has made the statement that "we will not stop 'till the world is Islamic again." That's the way I was raised, that's my world.

• Notice Caner's claims to be involved in radical Islam. He not only claims that he was trained to convert by the sword, but even that he was raised in the way of al-Qaeda leader, al-Zawahiri.

May 3, 2005, Hour 2 (first half), "An Associated Press Story about a Muslim Convert to Christianity" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to mp3 version)(link to wma version)

• I didn't notice any particular items worthy of note in this one. I also included the link here to be fair to Caner. I'm not trying to pick on only select interviews, sermons, and lectures.

August 13, 2006, Hour 1, "Islam" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to mp3 version)

(2:16) Interviewer: If you had five minutes, alone with President Bush, to talk about Islam, what would you say to him, Dr. Caner? Caner: I would tell him that this is not political - I think that's the biggest mistake we can make, is to assume that this is a political issue. This is theological, for Muslims. This is eschatological. This is their desire. This is what we were trained from birth - that this is the holy war. And I think that the President has to be aware that this constant advice that he's receiving that this is just a political thing is just - it underestimates our enemy. It underestimates those who want to do us serious harm. I think the second thing I would tell him is that they are not terrorists, they are devout. In thirteen hundred years of history - thirteen hundred - I would ask him, "Can you name one period of time where Islam has coexisted peacefully in any country?" The answer, of course, is "no."

• Notice the claim that Caner was trained "from birth" (understandable hyperbole) for holy war. Are we really to believe that Caner was trained to do what Muslim terrorists do?

(4:45) To a Muslim, a Sunni (myself) does not consider a Shi'ite to be a good Muslim. In fact, he does not consider him to be a Muslim at all.

• That's interesting, because it appears that the Sunni Muslims who don't permit non-Muslims in Mecca do permit Shi'ite Muslims there. Also, Caner's own "Islamic Foundation" appears to have held events of some kind that were also attended by the Shi'ite family of Jamal Jivanjee (in fact, the families apparently even had dinner together).

(33:42) Jesus strapped himself to a cross, so that I wouldn't have to strap a bomb to myself.

• There does not appear to be any evidence that Ergun was in any way planning to strap himself to a bomb.

(UPDATE: the item below added thanks to Fredericka, who pointed this out in the comment box)
(42:57) There are contradictions. Of course, any man-made book will have contradictions. And so there are any number of contradictions in the Qur'an that seem to fight against each other. Surah 19 is one of them, where it talks about the birth of Mary, I mean the birth of Jesus in Mary, and it makes some amazing claims. They come from the Gospel of Barnabas, which was a book that came centuries after our Lord and the other gospels. And in those teachings they teach some things that even Muslims cannot espouse.

• Caner notes that there seems to be a relationship between the "Gospel of Barnabas" and the Koran. The relationship, however, appears to be the reverse of what Caner has stated. It's generally thought that the Gospel of Barnabas was written around the 14th century. It is a fairly obvious forgery (see the discussion at this link, for example), written - to all appearances - by a Muslim forger of European extraction (the work uses lines and thought gleaned from Dante Alegheri's Divine Comedy).

August 17, 2009 "Islamic Sects" (link to mp3)(Todd Wilken, Interviewer)

(03:24) I have on-going debates with Muslims who are from different sub-sects of Islam, and they will say, "we have never done this," or "we don't face this direction," or "our Ramadan is only thirty days" etc. And I quickly add that - you know - that Sunni Islam is, as you said, it's like - it's as divided as Christianity is, in that they have four major schools - if you will - sects. But from those four major schools, there are myriad of different denominations, if you will.

• What debates? Can Dr. Caner document the debates that were on-going in August of 2009?
• The issue of Ramadan being thirty days is not really a "sub-sect" issue. Ramadan is either 29 or 30 days long (since it is a lunar month, it can go either way).

(22:39) They are the ones who controlled Mecca, they are the largest theological school, they do most of the training for the imams who come to America, the training that takes place overseas, in places like my city, Istanbul.

• That's not exactly the same as saying "I was born in Istanbul," but it does suggest to the listener that Caner is from that city, which Caner is not (as far as we can tell).

(30:16) Catholics have Lent, Muslims have Ramadan. Catholics have the rosary, and in Islam we have "masallah" which is the - which are the beads - you count the ninety-nine names of Allah - it looks exactly like a rosary.

• I suppose that Caner means misbaha, which is one name for Muslim prayer beads.
• "Masallah" sounds like the Turkish word for "congratulations" or "cheers".
• I had previously speculated that Dr. Caner got his wrong idea that Ramadan is 40 days long from conflation with Romanism. This quotation doesn't prove that, but it does suggest that it may be the reason.

- TurretinFan

Second Incarnational Defense of Idols Rebutted

Subsequent to my last post, Frank Turk (aka Centuri0n) has submitted a new argument into the comment box of his his own post (link to post). Frank Turk argues:

One of the pillars of Tom's argumentation is that any image of Jesus is necessarily, by definition, a "false image" of Jesus. And the reason for this is that the Law in Israel says explicitly that Israel was [a] not to make graven images to worship, and [b] not to seek to represent the invisible YHVH with visible objects.

Tom's view relies heavily on continuity between Israel and the Church, and between Old Covenant and New Covenant. The problem is that, becuase of Christ as incarnation, there is a significant discontinuity between OT and NT.

There is some discontinuity and some continuity between the old and new administrations of God's grace. There is not discontinuity on this point. We see that a few ways.

I. Old Testament Prophecy

Micah 5:13 Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.

Micah points forward to the coming time, and specifically identifies the issue of idols as one of the points of continuity/reform to God's word.

II. End-Times Prophecy

Revelation 9:20-21
And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

The use of idols is listed among the things that the wicked do, among the serious crimes like murder, sorcery, fornication, and theft.

III. Paul's Ministry

Acts 17:24-31
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

This is part of Paul's famous sermon on Mar's hill. Notice that there is a discontinuity - the Gentiles are now called to serve God, whereas before only the Jews were called. All men every where are commanded to repent. But Paul does not say "Jesus doesn't look like that, he looks like this (holding up a little icon or statue)." No, Paul specifically teaches the Greeks that God is not worshiped with the works of man's hands, nor is he properly represented even by such elevated metals as gold and silver.

IV. Paul's Epistles

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice that while Paul acknowledges Jesus as Lord, without a doubt, he still refers to his King as invisible. Paul did not have a flannel-graph Jesus that he carried around with him. He preached Jesus, not pictures. Before I get too much more into Paul's epistles, let me provide some more of Frank Turk's argument. He writes:

Consider it:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. [NASB]

Right? Heb 1:1-4, with a special emphasis on this phrase: "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature". That Greek word under "exact representation" ("χαρακτήρ"), ironically, is a word used to describe the engraving in a coin -- it is specifically an engraving term.

This speaks to us about the nature of the incarnation, doesn't it? Somehow, because Jesus was exactly like God, there's a discontinuity between the OT demand that there are no created images which can represent God and the NT fact that Jesus, conceived in Mary's womb as a man in the form of a servant, is actually God.

Let me provide the KJV for the passage that Frank Turk quoted:

Hebrews 1:1-4
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

What does it mean that Jesus is "the express image of his person" (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ) It means that Jesus is God. It means that Jesus and the Father are of one and the same divine being. It does not mean that Jesus is a picture of what God looks like. Jesus flesh and blood, his humanity, is not a representation of God, nor was that the intent. Jesus took on flesh, not to represent God, but - as a man - to represent men!

Yes, there was a discontinuity, God became flesh and dwelt among us. But there was not a discontinuity with respect to make representations of God.

Thus, for example, we see Paul use a similar expression in Colossians.

Colossians 1:12-17 ... giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Notice that here it calls Jesus the "image of the invisible God" (εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου) that first word in the Greek is the root for our word "icon." It would be absurd to read that literally, as though Jesus were a literal icon of something that is invisible. What it means instead is that Jesus is God. He is of the same substance with the Father.

Notice how in both the Colossians passage and the Hebrews passage, this likeness to the Father is contextually connected with power: "upholding all things by the word of his power" and "by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Going back to Hebrews, we see that the author of Hebrews recognizes the invisibility of God, but provides this interesting metaphorical language:

Hebrews 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

How is it that we see our invisible God? It's not by painting pictures - it's by faith. It's trusting in the promises of God like Moses and the other witnesses of Hebrews 11.

Furthermore, in what should be a very interesting twist for Frank Turk, we see that the Scriptures teach that we can see the invisible things of God through the visible creation.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Of course, we are not seeing the power and Godhead of God itself, we're seeing their effects in the Creation. We're seeing what God made, and consequently seeing Him through that - not a purported similitude, but an illustration and demonstration of His power.

- TurretinFan

Tim Guthrie - Highly Offended at Being Wrongly Linked to Ergun Caner

According to Tim Guthrie: "never before tonight has a Christian or lost person so misrepresented and bore false witness" (source).

The charge? Dr. White allegedly inappropriately linked Guthrie and Caner.

This website (link to website) as of July 30, 2010, has the following list of board members:

Board Members

* Dr. Robert Stewart ([removed e-mail address to avoid spammers])
* James Walker
* Ergun Caner
* Tim Guthrie
* Jerry Holbrook
* Bob Anderson
* Jeff McLean
* Alice Pitchford
* Laura Arnn
* David Henke

But there is no wrath in Tim Guthrie's post against the website for placing him and Caner next to one another. All of Guthrie's fury is directed against Dr. White for jumping to the conclusion that Guthrie and Caner serve on the board together.

Guthrie, in a fit of indignation, went so far as to make the absolutely ludicrous claim: "Mr. White fabricated the whole connection thing."

Really? Did Dr. White hack the Watchmen website so that Guthrie's name spuriously appeared next to Dr. Caner's? If Guthrie is going to be upset at someone for linking him to Dr. Caner, he should be upset with the Watchman organization.

- TurretinFan

UPDATE: Dr. White's hacking skillz update:

Apparently, to create this massive fiction that Tim Guthrie was on the board of Watchman with Ergun Caner, Dr. White not only hacked the current page, but also managed to go back in time and hack the pages for the last few years:

2008 Archive page

2007 Archive page

2006 Archive page

First Archive page I could find showing Guthrie and Caner as on the board at Watchman

Smoke and Fire Icons?

During the recent discussion on images of God, I have heard a couple of folks suggest that God portrayed himself as being a pillar of cloud and fire.

A more careful reading of the text shows that while the pillar of cloud/fire was a sign of the presence of God, it was not supposed to represent God. Instead God was "in" the pillar:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

It was something that God provided to the people of Israel:

Exodus 13:22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

Psa 105:39 He spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night.

When God stirred up the Egyptians he is described as doing so "through the pillar," as though God were within the pillar, hidden.

Exodus 14:24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,

As an aside, we may note that the same distinction exists with respect to the burning bush. The angel of the Lord was not the burning bush, but spoke out of it.

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

When the tabernacle was built, this special manifestation of God's presence was placed on the tabernacle itself:

Numbers 9:15-16
And on the day that the tabernacle was reared up the cloud covered the tabernacle, namely, the tent of the testimony: and at even there was upon the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until the morning. So it was alway: the cloud covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night.

Exodus 40:38 For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.

And when God led the people he led them with the pillar:

Deuteronomy 1:33 Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.

Psalm 78:14 In the daytime also he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire.

Nehemiah 9:19 Yet thou in thy manifold mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go.

The pillar of fire and smoke became a renowned sign among the Canaanites, much like the story of the Exodus.

Numbers 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.

It's worth noting that when God specifically disclaims the fire as a similitude of himself (as if the distinctions we had drawn above were not enough):

Deuteronomy 4:12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.

And likewise, by connection with the other manifestations (by connection) we can infer that they were also not intended as similitudes:

Deuteronomy 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

That ought to pretty much close the case against the pillar and cloud being representations of God. Since the pillar of cloud and fire are not representations of God, Christian artists should not feel concerned about drawing the imagined pillar.

As an interesting aside, the pillar of cloud and fire makes one additional appearance in the Old Testament. Pointing toward the new covenant, Isaiah describes this sign of God's presence as being upon every dwelling place of mount Zion (i.e. the individual believers and their households), and the assemblies (congregations or churches).

Isaiah 4:5 And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence.

There is not, of course, a literal smoke and cloud pillar that goes up from our houses and churches, but God is present invisibly with us. If we wish to be wise we will worship God not with the works of men's hands, but in Spirit and Truth, as it is written:

John 4:23-24
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

-TurretinFan

Response to Argument for Idols from the Incarnation

In the course of the comments on a previous post (link to post), I had asked:

What about the prohibition on picturing God? -- Why does that prohibition not apply to pictures of Jesus?

The response I got from one of my Eastern Orthodox readers was this:

"Because on Sinai we saw no image. In the Incarnation, we did."

This is sort of a standard response from the Eastern Orthodox, and I had tried to anticipate it somewhat in the post, although I wasn't dealing with an Eastern Orthodox person in the post. There are several responses:

1) There were theophanies before the Incarnation.

There were theophanies, appearances of God, prior to the Incarnation. Those theophanies were around both before Moses (see where the Lord visits Abraham in Genesis 18), and after Moses (see where the Lord appears in the fiery furnace with Daniel's three friends in Daniel 3).

So, the significance of the absence of the image on Sinai is not that no one ever saw God in a form before the Incarnation. There was no form shown to the people of Israel on Sinai, but there were other forms shown. Even closer to Moses, both Jacob (wrestled with the Lord in Genesis 32) and Joshua (who met with the Lord, see Joshua 5) saw God in human form.

2) We have not seen Jesus.

Jesus is presently in heaven. The apostles, other disciples, and even the unbelieving Jews saw Jesus. We did not. There are no detailed explanations of what Jesus looked like in the Scriptures, and while some Eastern Orthodox seem to think they have access to some kind of authentic tradition of what Jesus looked like, those stories are not credible.

3) There is greater significance to "for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire" than just that they did not know what God looked like

I am referring specifically to this:

Deuteronomy 4:15-19
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Notice that there are two things prohibited - making something that is supposed to be a likeness of God, and worshiping/serving anything other than God (even the sun, moon, and stars).

I'd like to suggest that the point about not seeing God's form, is that what is significant is that there was no form seen when God was explaining how He is to be honored. Thus, creating a form of God would be an example of something that adds to the law of God.

There are two Sola Scriptura verses in Deuteronomy that specifically provide for a limitation on innovation.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Keep in mind that the context of each of those passages supports the point I'm making.

In the first instance:

Deuteronomy 4:1-8
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Basically, in context, God is saying "do exactly what I say, neither more nor less." Furthermore, Deuteronomy 4:2 is in the context of the prohibition on images that we're discussing. Specifically, the linking verses are verses 9-14:

Deuteronomy 4:9-14
Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons; specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

Notice that in this context, of solemnly insisting that the people keep God's law, God reminds them of the particular day on which the law was given. That day is the day that is then referred to when it comes to the question of making representations of God.

Just as there was no image of God shown to the people so that they would have a pattern after which to illustrate him on the day of Horeb, so also we are not given an image of God (of any person of the Godhead) that is to serve as an illustration so that we may try to show a likeness of God today.

We see no similitude, only words, just as the people of Israel saw no similitude, they only received words.

The same sort of thing is true with respect to the other passage from Deuteronomy 12.

Deuteronomy 12:28-32
Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Again, God is commanding that people do exactly what he commands, not adding to it or taking away from it. In particular, here, he forbids innovation in the form syncretism or borrowing. In other words, God explicitly tells people not to model their religious life after that of the nations around them, but simply to follow the word of God.

We are not given a portrait of Jesus in the Bible, just as the Jews were not given an image of God on the day the law was given. The same principle that applied then, applies now, notwithstanding the Incarnation.

-TurretinFan

Misstatements vs. Lies - Dr. James White and Dr. Ergun Caner in Contrast

Dr. James White exposes and admits his own misstatement made over a length of time, and contrasts his situation with that of Dr. Ergun Caner.

The video includes a direct personal appeal to Dr. Caner. I hope he will listen to it and take heed to it.

-TurretinFan

Response to John H. Armstrong on the Caner Situation

Mr. Armstrong writes:

The board of Liberty University, which no one would rightly suggest had any reason to cover up the facts if they found them worthy of letting him go, has retained Dr. Caner on the Liberty faculty. I think fair-minded and gracious Christians should leave it there. It is none of their business to engage in this dialog any further when proper channels of authority were followed and a process justly concluded that said the charges against Dr. Caner were not sufficient to warrant dismissal.

(source - link in original)

Since Mr. Armstrong seems to have a few misconceptions, I hope he will allow me to clarify matters.

1) I am certainly not calling for the dismissal of Ergun Caner. I am glad that he has not been dismissed from Liberty University. My objective is his restoration, not his punishment or condemnation. I realize not everyone who is critical of Caner shares my sentiments in this regard, but that's fine.

2) In light of (1), I am willing to hope that those at Liberty who know Dr. Caner personally care even more about him than I do. As such, I don't see why they would need to dismiss him in order to acknowledge the legitimacy of the criticisms leveled against him.

3) Stated more clearly, there's more than one action that the Liberty Board could take if they found evidence that the charges against Dr. Caner were mostly true. It does not come down to simply firing Dr. Caner if the charges are true or retaining him if they are false.

4) As to (3), we have actually seen folks note this with respect to Dr. Caner's removal as president. Some folks who are critical of Dr. Caner were quick to note that this negative action by the Board with respect to Dr. Caner proves that the Liberty board found culpable wrongdoing on Dr. Caner's part. However, as Caner's defenders were quick to reply, the Liberty board could be taking that action for other reasons, such as simply to avoid controversy or distraction.

5) The sum of (1)-(4) is that Liberty's personnel decisions are not necessarily guided in any direct way by the strength of the charges against Dr. Caner. That principle applies to the favorable action of continuing to list Dr. Caner as a professor, although we cannot seem to locate any classes he will be teaching in the fall semester. That principle likewise applies the negative actions of not continuing to permit Dr. Caner to serve as president of the seminary, and not listing Dr. Caner as professor for any classes.

6) As to possible reasons why Liberty might cover up unfavorable facts, there are - of course - innumerable possibilities. The following are just possibilities, not facts or certainties. They are speculation, but Mr. Armstrong's statements calls for speculation by stating: "... no one would rightly suggest [that the Liberty Board] had any reason to cover up the facts ... ." Here are some possible reasons:

a) To save face

Elmer Towns (one of Liberty's founders) made statements before the investigation to the effect that the charges against Dr. Caner would never stand up in court. It would be embarrassing to Towns for Liberty's Board to highlight any true charges against Dr. Caner.

b) To avoid getting sued

I have no idea what Dr. Ergun Caner's views on suing other Christians or Christian organizations is, so I'm not trying to suggest that Dr. Caner would actually take other Christians to court. However, as a general principle, when employers fire employees they have the risk that the fired employee will sue them. So, it's certainly reasonable to imagine that Liberty, as an employer, would be cautious as a matter of organizational policy.

c) Out of love

Dr. Ergun Caner is a very likable guy. I know this from hearing him speak, listening to how churches and other crowds react to him, and seeing the blog responses from those who consider themselves his friends. One would hope that the Board of Liberty would have a personal relationship with the president of the seminary. If that's the case, it would be hard on them to publicly release findings of the investigation that are negative with respect to such a nice guy as Dr. Caner. Out of love (whether misplaced or not), it is easy to imagine Liberty's board covering sins of one of their friends. Christians serve a merciful God, and it is easy to imagine a Christian board showing mercy.

7) Further to (6), the Liberty Board did not actually release the results of the investigation. They did not make the negative facts that came to their attention known beyond extremely general characterizations. Whether their reason was one of the reasons in (6) or some other reason, we may never know. Because ...

8) Further to (7), Liberty's Board is refusing to discuss this matter further. So, they are continuing to conceal any information that they may have received during the investigation. I'm not suggesting that they are not entitled to do this. They are free to conduct their own investigation of their employee however they like. However, it is clear that Liberty's Board is not being transparent with the public regarding the investigation. That lack of transparency should limit the scope of inferences that we draw from their extremely brief comments on the matter.

For the final points, recall that Armstrong wrote: "a process justly concluded that said the charges against Dr. Caner were not sufficient to warrant dismissal" (link in original)

9) Processes don't do things, people do things. The Board took action, reached conclusions, and so forth. It may seem a little pedantic for me to point this out, but the reason for doing so is to highlight that this is not an impartial machine at work, but living, breathing folks who (as far as we can reasonable determine) have worked with and know Dr. Caner personally.

10) Whether or not the conclusion of the process is just (whether there was procedural justice), is something that Mr. Armstrong cannot know without some sort of inside information. I don't believe that Mr. Armstrong is claiming to have inside information. Without such information, however, we cannot know whether the process used by the board was a just process or one that was unjust. There is, as I noted above, no transparency to Liberty's decision. That is a two-edged sword, by the way. Without Liberty releasing the details of its investigation, we can no more say that Caner was justly removed from being president than we can say that Caner was justly retained as professor.

11) The Board did not officially state that there were "not sufficient reasons to warrant dismissal." The Board's action was not immediately dismissal, but the Board did not explain its decisions. As noted above, the Board's actions were not transparent, and there is no expectation that they will clarified.

With all due respect to Mr. Armstrong, Liberty's decision did not settle the matter either for or against Dr. Caner. Those who wish to be fair minded both to Dr. Caner and to those who have criticized Dr. Caner should consider the facts, investigate the evidence for themselves, and not rely on second-hand reports - whether from bloggers or boards.

-TurretinFan

Response to Steve Hays on the Second Commandment

This is not a full rebuttal to what Steve Hays wrote on the second commandment (link to Steve's post). Instead, it is a heavily short-handed rebuttal, written with his high level of understanding of Scripture and theology in mind. The goal is to persuade him, not to respond to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox errors on this subject (themselves differing from one another).

Steve makes an argument that is similar to the argument that John of Damascus used to justify the making of images of Jesus. The argument boiled down is that the absolute prohibition on making representations of God was limited to the time before the incarnation.

There is one critical flaw in this argumentation: Theophanies. Whether or not Moses saw something capable of depiction, other men did. Those men lived before Moses, such as Abraham, and after Moses, such as Joshua saw the Lord in human form.

Consider this:

Deuteronomy 4:15-19
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Rather than treating the comment "for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire" as being the reason why the commandment was imposed, may I suggest to Steve that a better way to understand it is in reverse. To avoid fanning the idolatrous temptations of the Israelites, God did not reveal Himself to them in any form. The formless revelation of God, therefore, is an object lesson to how He wishes to be honored: without images made by man.

Finally, let me provide the second counter-example. For whatever reason, Christ when resurrected concealed himself from being recognized by his appearance. Thus, Mary Magdalene does not immediately recognize him, nor do the disciples on the road to Emmaus, though evidently Jesus did look the same - even down to the scars whose inspection by Thomas Christ welcomed.

God has nowhere indicated any desire to be honored through man-made images of Him. I realize that many "Protestants" as well as some others who profess to follow Christ make or use purported[Fn1] images of Him without intending to use them as part of "worship." Nevertheless, the only obvious reason for depicting Jesus Christ is because he is God. It's not for a group photo of Nazareth high school, nor is it a booking photo at the Sanhedrin detention center. The point for Christians that makes Jesus Christ of any interest is the fact that He is the Son of God.

Now, there are sometimes other reasons to have images purporting to be of Christ. For example, one might provide a display of such images simply to show the foolishness and self-contradiction of attempts to image Christ, who is in heaven.

But if you wish to see an image of God, do not give up hope. Men (humans) are made in the image of God, and particularly husbands are in God's image:

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

For those who wish to see Christ imaged - there is one divinely sanctioned representation:

1 Corinthians 11:24-26
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

So, let's view Christ that way - through the non-likeness of the bread and wine, worshiping and reverencing God in the way in which He wishes to be worshiped, not with our own imagination, but according to His Word.

- TurretinFan

A Second Anathema Against Biologos

Another - and independent - reason that I do not consider Biologos "one of us," (see the first anathema here) is its policy of permitting and promoting articles that deny inerrancy, such as the work of Kenton Sparks. Again, I realize that true believers can be misled by false teachers, but it is a serious departure from the fundamentals of the faith to deny that Scripture - in the original autographs - is inerrant. To deny that is, in effect, to reject the Word of God.

Sparks goes so far as to say:

The factual contradictions within Scripture or between Scripture and extrabiblical sources cited in my previous blog are not, in my view, the most serious difficulties that Christians face in the Bible. More troublesome are those cases where a biblical text espouses ethical values that not only contradict other biblical texts but strike us as down-right sinister or evil.

(source)

The idea that there are true factual contradictions within Scripture (in the original autographs) is a serious error. Many folks, however, who hold to such an opinion stop there. They allege that there are trivial factual errors and nothing more. This is still a serious error: Scripture is the Word of God, and God does not make even trivial factual errors.

Scripture tells us that the hairs of our head are numbered.

Matthew 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Luke 12:7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

God does not just have infinite cognitive power, he's attentive to details.

And that also extends to the Word of God:

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Likewise, and perhaps most critically, God's word cannot be broken, thus we can rely on it:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Similarly we see that God's word is pure:

Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Psalm 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

In that last verse, "tried," has the sense of "refined," something without any impurities.

Nevertheless, while claims that there were trivial factual errors (to be clear, things like using round numbers are not errors) in the original is a serious error, to allege that the original Scriptures contradict one another with respect to moral teaching is essentially heretical.

Scripture itself plainly teaches:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sparks concludes the portion of his article to which I've linked above with the claim: "Even more in our day than his, it is clear that Biblicistic inerrancy is an intellectual disaster." May I respectfully but strenuously insist that it is clear that the rejection of inerrancy is a spiritual disaster.

I also don't agree with Sparks that inerrancy is an intellectual disaster. I'm not one of those people who say, in tones that sound pious, that we must sacrifice the intellect to maintain the faith. The use of the intellect is perfectly compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy. In fact, on the contrary, the attitude that Sparks displays in his article of refusing to let "Evangelicals" explain why apparent contradictions are only apparent contradictions, and not actual contradictions, is one of intellectual laziness - a true intellectual disaster. The result is that Sparks is making shipwreck both of the faith he apparently professes and of his own intellect.

-TurretinFan

John Piper on Sermon Preparation

John Piper has an interesting video (with transcript for those who prefer to read) on how he prepares his sermons (link). Obviously, his approach will work better for some ministers than for others. It is interesting, nevertheless, to hear how he does it. In my own opinion (for what little that is worth), I've always thought of Piper as a preacher first and foremost, so it was very interesting for me to hear how it is that he prepares to preach.

-TurretinFan

Rebuttal to Argument from Exhaustive Guidance ...

One of the Roman Catholic arguments that is popular is the argument that Scriptures alone are insufficient as our rule of faith and life, because they do not explicitly (or perhaps even implicitly) address issues that allegedly did not exist at the time Scripture was written. Usually topics like birth control are broached as the issue to be addressed.

Steve Hays has provided an excellent, if somewhat amusing, rebuttal by pointing to Islam as an example of a religion that seeks to regulate a much deeper amount of people's lives than even Catholicism (link to rebuttal). One way to apply the rebuttal is that if Catholicism is supposed to be an exhaustive rule is by showing that there are many questions it does not answer, such as whether it is appropriate for a woman to be alone in the same elevator with a man who is not part of her immediate family.

If Scripture's alleged failure to answer the question of stem cell research is a problem, why isn't the failure of Catholicism to tell us which side of our body to lie on at night a problem for Catholicism?

And there is really no need to limit ourselves to the extremes of the Muslims or Jews - where is Catholicism's answer as to whether I should buy Pepsi or Coke? And if I find myself in an elevator that is playing music by Britney Spears, am I permitted to stay on the elevator as long as I don't allow myself to enjoy it?

-TurretinFan

Campus Church - 2008

Campus Church - 2008

2008.08.27 Diary of a Slacker - Part 1

(0:50) What Skinny - what McKinney and the guys just did was tame compared to what we end up doing throughout the semester. We like to sort of slowly marinate you into industrial goth. Before we're done, you'll be doing Skillet and Archetype.

(6:38) And for a guy like me, it makes total sense. I wasn't raised in the church, I didn't enter a church until I was almost in college. I was not only a skeptic and a critic, I was a vociferous antagonist against the church.

(6:53) I hated you. I didn't like Christians. I was raised as a Muslim, and I assumed you were going to hell, and I assumed you wanted to send me to hell.

(9:00) I am a towel-head. I am a sand-monkey. I am a camel jockey. I am olive-skinned. Now if those words offend you "that's just wrong" Shut up!

(10:01) I'm not saved 'cause I'm Baptist. I happen to be Baptist. I was saved Independent Baptist. I was in a church where if I'd come in dressed like this, they'd have given me a gospel tract.

(10:26) But then I joined a missionary baptist church, a black baptist church. I was the - Black Baptists? got some of y'all Missionary Baptists, National Baptist Alliance? I wasn't the only white guy in the church - there were a couple of white girls who were in the choir. Every black church has a couple of white girls in the choir, who are dating some of the guys. And, ironically, the white girls talk more black than the regular black people around them. They all sound like Bon Qui-qui. You're looking at them, and they're going "uh-huh let me tell you sumthin'" and you're like, "you're from Amherst, where'd you get that accent from?"

(20:27) Ergun M. Caner: What is your favorite part about playing football? Braxton Paige Caner (9 years old): Hitting and hurting people. (laughter from EMC and crowd) EMC: (in fake voice) See that's just not Christian. (regular voice) But we're Christians, Braxton! BPC: Oh, and then I'll pray for 'em. (laughter from EMC and crowd) EMC: Who do you want to play for when you get in college? BPC: Liberty EMC: (over some applause from the Liberty students) Yeah, seriously? That's cool. Didn't mean to embarrass you by bringing you out here. Anything you want to - you got a shot - I'll give you the mic - what do you want to say? BPC: If there's any hotties, call me. (lots of applause from the Liberty students) EMC: I'm gonna get fired. How do you recover from that? Who told you to say that? Did somebody tell you to say that? Was that Johnny Ray?

(23:26) Now, I didn't start well. I mean, I started as a Sunni Muslim, and lived until I was seventeen and a half - but once I got saved, I have tripped into everything I've ever gotten. I'm an accidental, whatever-I-am.

2008.09.17 Diary of a Slacker - Part 3

(5:09) This list comes from 1988, which was my first senior year. Do the math. I started Cumberland College in 1984, didn't graduate 'til '89. Yeah, I squeezed four years of college into five years.

I didn't bring this up because it is false, but because I think it is true. He graduated from high school in 1984, which is why he started at Cumberland in 1984.

Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology

Nick Norelli has posted a review of Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology (link to review). The upshot of his review is that he feels he wasted $75 on the set (retails is apparently about $165). I'm sure that Dr. Geisler especially won't like that Norelli ends up suggesting that Grudem's single volume (very hefty, but bound as a single volume) Systematic Theology is better.

An Odds Rebuttal

Not an odd rebuttal - a clever rebuttal - but one that deals with the question of odds (link to rebuttal). The explanation is important: it shows the silliness of simply assuming that a large number of alternatives (for example, the large number of alternatives to the the truth that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God) is an argument against the truth of a proposition.

The fact that there are 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 false religions is of no more significance than the infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2.

-TurretinFan

"Debate" with Norman Geisler Regarding Ergun Caner - Index

Given the wide latitude that Dr. Norman Geisler has given Dr. Ergun Caner in using the word "debate," I don't think that Dr. Geisler can reasonably complain if I now claim to have "debated" Norman Geisler on the topic of Ergun Caner. It's not a real debate, and I'm not claiming it is, but there was some interaction. Here's an index of the interaction.

1) (Geisler) Norman Geisler's Alleged Comments
2) (TurretinFan) Response to Norman Geisler's Coments
3) (TurretinFan) When can We Expect our Apology?
4) (Geisler) Further Comments from Geisler
5) (TurretinFan) Dr. Norman Geisler Digs Himself a Deeper Hole
6) (Geisler) In Defense of Ergun Caner
7) (TurretinFan) Intro to Response to Geisler
8) (TurretinFan) Response to Geisler Regarding Caner Part 1
9) (TurretinFan) Response to Geisler Regarding Caner Part 2
10) (TurretinFan) Response to Geisler Regarding Caner Part 3
11) (TurretinFan) What Dr. Geisler Overlooked
12) (Geisler) In Further Defense of Ergun Caner
13) (TurretinFan) Rebutting Norman Geisler
14) (TurretinFan) Is Lying a Moral Issue?
15) (TurretinFan) Has Norman Geisler Acknowledged that Lying is a Moral/Ethical Issue?

Although, of course, there was a lot of work that went into this interaction with Norman Geisler (from both sides, I imagine), I think it would be unwise and misleading to go around saying that I "have debated Norman Geisler" (or for Dr. Geisler to say the same about me). That's why I have "debate" in quotation marks in the title of this post.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner Faith and Family Interviews

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "More than a Prophet - I" August 27, 2007, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(3:48) We were the equivalent of PKs in that we were in the church - so to speak - in the mosque every time the doors were opened. And this was our background.

• Is this an accurate statement? I guess it is hard to know for sure, but it gives the impression of a rather high level of devotion.

(4:19) Interviewer: Now, Ergun you and your brothers were in Islamic Youth Jihad in Ohio, is that right? Ergun: Yes, sir, of course - but also before that in Turkey. The youth teachings - the youth groups are - take on various folds - different works that you do. Ours happened to be that of jihad, and so the jihadeen, up until I became a Christian when I was almost 18 years old.

• Notice how in this instance, the interviewer gives Caner the opportunity to limit his claim about being in the Islamic Youth Jihad to Ohio. Caner, however, insists that "before that" (not "sometimes, during that") he was in the Islamic Youth Jihad in Turkey.
• Also notice Caner's use of the apparently made up word "jihadeen."
• Notice further Caner's claim that he was "almost 18 years old" rather than "15" or "16," which would appear to be more accurate, based on his book Unveiling Islam.
• Additionally, notice that Caner is suggesting that there are a variety of different kinds of Islamic youth groups, and that his just happened to be one focused on jihad.

(12:41) One of the number one lines that Shabir Ally, the Muslim apologist, gave me at the debate which took place in Nebraska was "Why does one man have to die for me? What does one man's death have to do with my life?"

• While Ergun Caner and Norman Geisler appear to have conceded that this claim is not true, they insist that Caner was not intentionally misleading anyone. It's hard to understand such a claim, unless Caner was maybe debating someone else with a similar name or appearance in Nebraska. Can Caner or Geisler identify the mystery Nebraskan debater for us?

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "More than a Prophet - II" August 28, 2007, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(2:04) Jesus is one of the twenty-five major prophets, along with Baruch and Ibrahim and Ishma'il.

• I have no idea where Dr. Caner got "Baruch" as one of Islam's prophets from. This just looks (to me) like a mistake - not a lie. But this mistake suggests that Caner may not be as familiar with Islam as the claim that he was a essentially a PK would make one think.

(3:00) My father was invested in the jihadeen, trained in the madra - the Islamic training schools. We came to America to build mosques. And while here in America I came to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and God. And subsequent to that, of course, I was disowned by my family. And in the years that followed, both of my brothers accepted Jesus, my mother became a Christian, and my grandmother became a Christian. So that, even though I'd lost all my family - slowly - through the testimony of one young man, a friend of mine - that my family came to faith in Jesus Christ.

• There's that word "jihadeen" again. There is nothing to indicate that this is a word that means anything that would fit Caner's usage of it.
• Likewise, "madra" doesn't appear to be a real word, although possibly "madra" is an aborted attempt to say "madrasa."
• Notice the claim to have have been disowned by his family. Notice also that in the immediate context, he talks about getting his family back through the conversion of his mother and grandmother. However, as far as we can tell, his mother and grandmother did not disown him.

(3:58) And we always challenge them, in the Arabic or in English, to take us on.

• I don't think, at this point, that anyone believes that Caner can do a debate in Arabic.

(7:44) Religious freedom is defined as, I believe, and I would fight for, and I would die for a Muslim's right to build a mosque in my home town. To build a mosque here in Virginia and to worship Allah. I believe this because religious freedom means you have a right to be religious, or irreligious, or anti-religious. But it also means I have right to stand in front of that mosque and tell them that Jesus Christ loves them.

• I just included this one, because I think it is interesting. I don't share Dr. Caner's views on religious freedom, but I think that it is important for Muslim readers to see that he is willing to stand up for what he perceives to be their rights.

(17:28) Absolutely. Hadith, volume 9, number 50, says that a person cannot be killed - that a Muslim cannot be killed for killing an infidel.

• This is just an example of Dr. Caner citing the Hadith without providing the name of the collection - sort of an equivalent of citing the Bible without identifying the book of the Bible.

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" January 14, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" October 2, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run - again - as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" June 19, 2009, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(1:37) I was raised as a Sunni Muslim, more specifically, a Sunni with a Wahabi mother. And - uh - came to America in our teenage years to become - uh - missionaries. The term we use is different, masjidatos. But the masjid is the building of the mosques. And we built mosques in Toledo, Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, and it was while I was here in America that I was - uh - a teenage boy and became a believer in Jesus Christ, he would not let go of me - for three years he was relentless in not taking no for an answer. And became a Christian, and lost my family of course, my father - my mother - and my church became my family. It was from there that I started to preach, and brought me on this journey eventually up to Liberty.

• The claim that his mother was a "Wahabi Muslim" seems unlikely. I wonder if Caner would try to defend that claim today?
• Notice that he claims to have come to America in his "teenage years." If he came in 1969, he came in something closer to his "toddler years."
• Notice the claim that he was evangelized for three years.
• Notice that he again claims to have lost his family, and specifies not only his father, but also his mother.

(4:13) The only two things we've ever given was we have this Turkish coffee which is you eat the grounds. You marinate the grounds in water and that's what I was raised with. I mean its in our baby bottles. And so I come to America and its like this is colored water. And so, yes. I order my coffee and I get it very strong. My wife hates it - she says it peels the paint off of cars. The second thing is that my mother being - from her background - is that the Sufis in Turkey believe that if you lose your mind, you come into union with Allah. It's sort of mysticism, Buddhist concept in Islam. And so we brought to America, the hookah, which is the bong. And so one of my earliest memories is my mom with the munchies, you know, smoking the pipe. Between the two things, I'd rather drink the coffee. That's the short of it.

• Just a few minutes before he was claiming his mother was Wahabi. Now she's a Sufi?

(6:46) Well, my brothers and I - we all three were saved - our father had many wives, but father and my mother, they had three sons, all three of us got saved - and of course we leave Islam, immediately. And don't know where to go. All three of us became ministers of the gospel.

• One of many times that Ergun Caner has claimed his father had "many wives," and by "many" I don't mean "two" which is apparently the number of wives Caner's father had, one at a time.

(9:46) They say, "Oh, you know, jihad is not found in the Koran," hey - I'll give you 500 verses. They say, "You don't know the Arabic," well no - actually I do - let's dance.

• In another clip, I thought he used the expression "let's dance" but it could have been "what's next," so I flip-flopped in my transcription. Here, I'm pretty sure it is "let's dance."
• Being able to read Arabic phonetically, without understanding its meaning, is not knowing Arabic, certainly not for the purposes of debating a Muslim.

(9:59) They're not 'insurgents,' they're 'jihadeen.'

• There's that "jihadeen" word again. Can anyone find that word as a plural noun meaning anything like "warriors" in any Arabic dictionary?

(21:05) I tell people, "I fear no man," I feared my grandmother. Five foot tall, never learned English, you know - little Muslim woman coming to America and lived here - and she could never - toward the end of her life - she could never forgive those that hard hurt her.

• What's this stuff about his grandmother being Muslim? Wasn't she Swedish Lutheran?
• She may not have learned to speak English well, but her language was Swedish, was it not?

(22:05) You know the hardest thing for me was to forgive my father. Being disowned - and he cut me out of all his pictures - he would send - I would write him five times a year: I'd write him on Father's Day, his birthday, Christmas and Easter, and then one random time - and they'd always get sent back. You know - it's hard. My grandmother taught me to shave. Being Turkish kids you have to shave - you have a time when you learn how to shave your face, and then your eyebrows, and your back and so she taught me by showing how she used to hold the razor - and so I cut my face into ribbons, and the whole time thinking, "If I had a father, I wouldn't have to do this." But God can - But there was only so far that God could take me until I learned how to forgive - because even if he would never speak to me, me forgiving him was not contingent on him hearing it - it's contingent on me voluntarily releasing him.

• Individually, all these stories may be true. Being disowned was doubtless something very hard to forgive. I believe his story that his father returned mail that Ergun sent. I also believe the story about the grandmother teaching him to shave, etc.
• What Caner suggests, however, is that the grandmother's aid was needed as a result of the disowning. This shows, of course, that Caner was not a virtual orphan that was disowned by his entire family.
• More to the point, however, based on other things we have seen (here for example), it appears that the grandmother's raising of her grandsons is something that took place as a result of the divorce between Caner's parents, not the result of Caner's father disowning him. I have no idea whether Caner had already hit puberty by the age of 15 or 16, but one would expect it.

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - II" January 15, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" October 3, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(2:34) When I went to Bible College, I had been saved eight months.

• I don't see how this claim could possibly fit with Caner being saved when his book, Unveiling Islam, says he was saved.
• I also don't see how this claim could possibly fit with Caner being saved on November 4, 1982, since Caner didn't graduate high school until Spring 1984.

(2:49) Interviewer: There were liberals at Criswell College? Ergun: No - there - no sir, I went to another college before. Interviewer: Oh, I was going to say - I can't imagine we had any liberals at Criswell College. Ergun: No, we had - um - We had - uh - We had issues we had to deal with at the college I was going to beforehand.

• This is the first time I've ever heard about some Bible college that Ergun Caner went to before Criswell College. Can Ergun identify it for us? I wonder if he means Cumberland College, which is where he got his B.A.
  

(18:06) But for your listeners, so I can be clear, I am an immigrant, I am Turkish, English wasn't my first or my second language, and I can say this, and if they don't like it - tough - I don't care.

• As far as we can tell, Ergun Caner came to America as a young child. Even if he wants to claim that English was his third language (after what - Swedish and Turkish?), he clearly speaks English natively, and apparently does not speak Turkish fluently (I'm not sure about his Swedish - perhaps it's excellent).

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - I" January 31, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner and Jill Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - I" March 23, 2009, with Dr. Ergun Caner and Jill Caner (link to mp3)

(8:26) I'll give you a great "for instance." When we came to America and came through New York we were stopped at the border because my father had listed my mother as property.

• I would love to see some documentation of this claim. I'm not sure we can ever disprove it, but are we really to believe that a guy who had been to school in Sweden, Acar, would list his wife as "property" on a custom's manifest?
  

(9:31) In my family, being the classic Muslim orthodox family, that is, we followed the Koran and the Hadith, my Father had multiple wives, and when the men sat at the table, the women stood. And then only after the men were done, even the youngest boys were done, we got up from the table, then the women could eat.

• In context does "multiple wives" mean "two, one after the other" or does it suggest that Caner's father was a polygamist?
• Again, what "women" are intended here? Is Caner speaking of his mother and grandmother or of these supposed "multiple wives" that his father allegedly had?

(16:04) I still have in my collection of things that I had as a child those evil eyes that my mother was told to put around my neck as a child - the fig that my father rubbed on the inside of my mouth to ward of the evil - they're called the injeel - you know the demons - the followers of al-ajal - who are supposed to be following you all through your life - you ward them off with these superstitions.

• One normally tries to ward off "evil eyes" - not wear them (evidence). A nazar is what one might use to try to ward them off, as an alternative to trusting in God (link to discussion of nazars). I don't doubt Caner has some nazars from his childhood, whether or not he knows what they are called.
• The term injeel is the term for the gospel - not the term for evil spirits.
• I have no idea where Caner is going with his "followers of al-ajal" - al-ajal apparently means "hasten" (link to evidence).

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - II" February 1, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner and Jill Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - II" March 24, 2009, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(0:0) She had three sons who were believers in Jesus, three sons in the gospel ministry. Do you know what reached my mother for the gospel of Christ? Not one of us - it was a woman - a Christian woman. We forget the fact that if it is not the Christian woman who reaches the Muslim woman, it will not get done.

• This appears to simply be a montage of comments that were later made in the show. I present it here simply as evidence of the effect that Caner's words had on the producer of the show. I submit that the impression given was that Caner's mother was a Muslim woman who was evangelized out of Islam by a Christian woman.
  

(14:58) If I could say this as clearly as I can, without becoming emotional: I became a Christian in 1982. My brothers became Christians in 1983. But our mother did not become a Christian until 1991. She had three sons who were believers in Jesus, three sons in the gospel ministry. But she remained a woman behind the veil. She remained a woman in the chador. Do you know what reached my mother for the gospel of Christ? Not one of us - it was a woman - a Christian woman.

• Unveiling Islam clearly states that Caner's brother Emir got saved in 1982.
• There is good reason, from court documents, to believe that Caner's mother was not a practicing Muslim woman. Caner has provided at least one photo of her, and she was not wearing a chador in the photo.

(19:26) Jesus strapped a cross to his back, so I don't have to strap a bomb to mine.

• This is one of Caner's favorite catchphrases. However, there does not appear to be any evidence that he was on the verge of doing something precipitous, as the catchphrase suggests.

-TurretinFan

California Christian Apologetics Conference, 2006, Ergun Caner

Stand for Truth Ministries, California Christian Apologetics Conference, September 22, 2006 (link to partial video)

(referring to the time stamps in the partial video)

(0:10) I cannot be President. I came in 1978, when I was getting ready to go to college.

• Did he mean to say that he came in 1969, when he was getting ready for preschool?
• Did he mean to say, "I became a citizen in 1978, when I was getting ready to go to college"?
• Caner was about 11-12 years old in 1978. Was he getting ready to
  

(0:58) I live in the country now, but I have - my entire life - lived in the cement jungle, I've been an inner city person.

• From what we can tell, he grew up in Gahanna, Ohio. Does Gahanna even have an inner city? (See its website, noting that it was considered in 2007 to be one of the best places in America to live.)

(1:06) I learned English on Sesame Street. Held back a year from school, so I could learn English, so I could follow along better.

• Sesame Street began airing on November 10, 1969 (documentation), so it is possible that he did start learning English as a 3-year-old on Sesame Street. It's even remotely possible that he was held back a year from entering school so he could learn English better. However, he graduated high school at age 17, so if he was held back a year, it seems he found a way to catch up.

(2:35) I hated you. That may be harsh, but as Dr. Hayes told you, my madrasa - my training center - was in Beirut before I came to America. We came as missionaries to you.

• When did Caner study in a training center in Beirut? What year approximately?
• If we assume Caner did not in fact ever train in Beirut, is his statement an understandable, innocent misstatement?
  
• What Islamic missionary activity was the Acar Caner family ever involved with?

(2:59) [speaking of his father] Five times a day he would climb to the top of a minaret.

• What minaret? There's no visible minaret at the Islamic foundation building on Broad St. that apparently served in place of a mosque for the Caner family.

View Larger Map

(3:18) And so we came to America - it was '78.

• Again, is he just misspeaking "1969" as "1978"?

(4:03) I was the oldest. My father brought his wives with him. Yes, polygamous Muslims do come to America. We call it the Abraham lie. They say, "This is my wife, and this is my sister."

• This seems to pretty clearly state that Ergun Caner's father was a polygamist, who had more than one wife at once. Is that true? The evidence seems to suggest that Acar Caner had only two wives, one at a time.
• If it is not true, is this just a misstatement?
  

(5:11) So I, as a high school boy, moved to Gahanna, Ohio.

• Again, is he just misspeaking "high school" for "pre-school"?

(6:49) And I walked in to the Stelzer Road Missionary Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio in full gear - full keffiyeh - and a Koran.

• We have yet to see him wearing any true keffiyeh - and it may be that Caner does not even really understand what the term keffiyeh is, since he seems to think it means an entire outfit.

(7:21) I went home and told my father, "Abi, Isa Messiah" - Jesus is the Messiah. And my father faced Mecca and prayed the prayer of disownment. And it was done - it was the last I saw my father.

• "Abi" is the Turkish word for "older brother." (evidence) That seems like a strange thing for someone to call his father.
• The Koran repeatedly calls Jesus "the Messiah." (link to discussion)
• What is this "prayer of disownment"? Can Caner provide it to us? Can anyone even find a transcription of such a prayer on the Internet?
• Does the Sunni version of Sharia law even permit the disownment of children? Perhaps someone more well versed in Sharia law can tell me.
• Caner saw his father again, at the end of his father's life, according to his own testimony elsewhere.

(7:41) (speaking of his mother) She got saved and in the baptistry took off her keffiyeh - took of her chador. She's a church planter in Elephant Butte, New Mexico.

• Notice again that Caner seems to use the term "keffiyeh" now to refer to other Islamic clothing - in this case an chador.
• From what we can tell from the court records, Caner's mother was not a practicing Muslim during his youth. Was she wearing the chador in the baptistry just for dramatic effect?
• And why would she need to take off a chador except symbolically? The Scriptures not only permit but encourage women to cover their heads, and women in most Christian churches did, until the last 100 years.

- TurretinFan