"Many Wives" or "Other Wives" vs. "Two Wives" - Norman Geisler's Indefensible Defense of Caner

In his so-called apology, Ergun Caner claimed "I have never intentionally misled anyone."  I don't see how to reconcile that claim with the many times (not just one or two times) that Caner has described his father as having "many wives" or "other wives."  How was that not intended to mislead the listeners?

Recall that Norman Geisler attempted to defend Ergun Caner in this way (link to defense):

7. Ergun claimed his father had many wives and two half-brothers and two half-sisters, but there is no evidence for the half-brothers.

Response: 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!

Ergun's father did have two wives - one after the other -  not many wives.  Yet Ergun repeatedly claimed his father had "other wives" besides Ergun's mother.  "Two wives" does not support that claim, even if it could somehow be used to support the "many wives" claim.  Ergun also claimed that his father immigrated with "wives."  That also does not match the two serial marriages story.

Furthermore, Ergun did not use the "half-brothers" claim only once.  He used it at Calvary Chapel Old Bridge and in two different messages at Ashburn Baptist Church.

And Ergun was not referring to his brothers when he said it.  At Calvary Chapel Old Bridge, Ergun said "I have half-brothers and sisters who don't know Jesus."  Likewise, at Ashburn Baptist on June 3 Ergun said, "And so in 1978, my father, my mother, my two brothers, my father's other wives, and my half-brothers and sisters came to this country."  And then again at Ashburn Baptist on June 5 Ergun said "I have half-brothers and half-sisters in Chicago, in New York, and in Turkey, who live here, who are still lost as geese" and again a few second later "How dare I give up! My half-brothers, my uncles, my aunts, How dare I give up!"

In short, while part of what Geisler wrote in defense of Ergun on this point is true ("two wives" and two half-sisters) much is untrue: it was not just once that he referred to "half-brothers" and he was not referring to his own brothers when he did so.  Even the true part falls short of defending the "other wives" claim or - bluntly speaking - even the "many wives" claim.

This and a number of other serious problems with Caner's autobiographical claims are documented in the Caner Affair article (link), which is mostly an index to other posts that document a lot of what Ergun Caner has said.  Currently, the list of source posts is around 54 or so (and growing), but some of those source posts deal with more than one speaking occasion.  For example, Dr. Caner has spoken multiple times at some churches, and generally those messages are grouped together in a single source post.

-TurretinFan

Rebuttal to Craig's Denial of the Historicity of the Guard Account

The Bible declares:

Matthew 27:62-66
Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."
Pilate said unto them, "Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

Matthew 28:2-4 & 11-15
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

But William Lane Craig says, in response to the question "were there guards at the tomb":

Well now this is a question that I think is probably best left out of the program, because the vast, vast majority of New Testament scholars would regard Matthew's guard story as unhistorical. I can hardly think of anybody who would defend the historicity of the guard at the tomb story. And the main reasons for that are two:
One is because it's only found in Matthew and it seems very odd that if there were a Roman guard or even a Jewish guard at the tomb that Mark wouldn't know about it and that there wouldn't be any mention of it.
The other reason is that nobody seemed to understand Jesus' resurrection predictions. The disciples - who heard them most often - had not an inkling of what he meant and yet somehow the Jewish authorities were supposed to have heard of these predictions and understood them so well that they were able to set a guard around the tomb. And again, that doesn't seem to make sense.
So, most scholars regard the guard at the tomb story as a legend or a Matthean invention that isn't really historical.
Fortunately, this is of little significance for the empty tomb of Jesus, because the guard was mainly employed in Christian apologetics to disprove the conspiracy theory that the disciples stole the body. But no modern historian or New Testament scholar would defend a conspiracy theory, because it's evident when you read the pages of the New Testament that these people sincerely believed in what they said. So, the conspiracy theory is dead, even in the absence of a guard at the tomb.
The true significance of the guard at the tomb story is that it shows that even the opponents of the earliest Christians did not deny the empty tomb, but rather involved themselves in a hopeless series of absurdities trying to explain it away by saying that the disciples had stolen the body. And that's the real significance of Matthew's guard at the tomb story.

This shows part of the soft underbelly of William Lane Craig's excessive reliance on scholarship over revelation. The text itself treats the account as historical. There are no signals in the text that the account is mythical or parabolic. Indeed, the theory that the "vast, vast majority of New Testament scholars" would be adopting here is one that says that the text has its origins in the will of man rather than in the inspiration of the Spirit.

Let's consider the two reasons that Craig gives. The first reason is Mark's omission of the account. This is hardly a compelling reason. After all, while Matthew includes the vast majority of the material found in Mark, Mark contains less than three quarters of the material found in Matthew. Mark is simply a significantly shorter gospel. The guard at the tomb story, while significant to the conspiracy story and consequently to Matthew's apparently Jewish primary audience, is not a central aspect of the resurrection account. It's not only absent from Mark but also from Luke and John.

In this way it is similar to Matthew's account of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27) that Jesus miraculously paid for himself and Peter with the help of a fish. That account likewise is not found in Mark, Luke, or John, and likewise is of particular interest to Matthew's presumably Jewish primary audience.

Moreover, while the first half of the guard at the tomb account is in an easily separable pericope, the second half of the guard at the tomb account is woven into the account of the arrival of the women at the tomb, which is part that Craig would undoubtedly consider historical. Thus, the keepers of the tomb should also be regarded as historical.

The second reason that Craig gives is that the disciples did not understand Jesus' resurrection predictions, and therefore it is unlikely that Jesus' critics would have recalled these predictions. This analysis seems contrary to our common experience. Often, one's harshest critics pay even more attention to one's words than one's own friends. Moreover, the disciples had a mistaken notion that Jesus first coming was to be like his second coming, in terms of being triumphant. They seemed not to accept his very clear predictions of his own death. By contrast, Jesus' critics mocked his prediction of his death and accused him of paranoia ("The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?" John 7:20, for example).

Thus, the disciples were quick to overlook Jesus' comments specifically predicting his resurrection. By contrast, Jesus' critics hung on his every word. ("Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him." Luke 11:54) So, when they were thinking how to eliminate this movement, they were not depressed and in despair over Jesus' death, but instead were focused on trying to stamp out the movement altogether.

Neither of Craig's reasons, therefore, provide a compelling case for rejecting the historicity of the guard at the tomb account.

The clip from the John Ankerberg show can be seen in the embedded video, below.

By the way, Geisler got on Mike Licona's case for denying the historicity of the mass Jerusalem resurrection account. Why hasn't he criticized Craig for denying the historicity of the guard at the tomb accounts? In fact, William Lane Craig's analysis of the account and its significance are significantly more harmful to the doctrine of inerrancy than Licona's treatment of the mass resurrection as apocalyptic. Where is the consistency? Is Geisler simply unaware?

-TurretinFan

What Does Norm Geisler Mean by Predetermination?

One major objection to Norman Geisler's "Chosen But Free" was Geisler's odd treatment of the relationship between God's eternal decree of providence and God's knowledge of the future. Calvinists (and even Molinists) handle this kind of issue in a relatively straightforward way.

By contrast, Geisler skirts around the issue in his book. He mentions the term "providence" a few times, but does not explain his own position using that term. Instead, he summarizes his own position in terms of the relationship between "predetermination" and "foreknowledge."

For example, Geisler claims that it is right to speak of God "knowingly determining and determinately knowing" (CBF, 3rd ed. p. 145). Dr. James White's discussion can be found here (link).

Geisler refuses to provide any logical order to knowledge and determination. One feasible explanation for this is that Geisler views them as one and the same thing.

Geisler even states:

"But if God is simply (absolutely one), then both foreknowledge and predetermination are one in Him. That is, whatever God knows, He determines. And whatever He determines, He knows. ... whatever God fore-chooses cannot be based on what He foreknows. Nor can what He foreknows be based on what He fore-chose. Both must be simultaneous, eternal, and coordinate acts of God." (pp. 145-46) (my emphasis)

Moreover, Geisler makes a similar equation in several other places:

• "The future (including free choices) is determined from the standpoint of God's foreknowledge but free from the vantage of our free will." (p. 20)
• "The story is predetermined from the standpoint of God's omniscience ..." (p. 151)
• "God knows for certain (=predetermined) precisely how we will use our freedom (= freely determined)." (p. 154)
• "there is no contradiction in claiming that God knew for sure (i.e., predetermined) ..." (p. 155)
• "Whatever God foreknows must come to pass (i.e., is predetermined)." (p. 156)
• "God's foreknowledge and foredetermination cannot be separated." (p. 159)
• "from the vantage point of His omniscience, the act is totally determined." (p. 225)

Moreover, Geisler's equation seems to be apparent in Geisler's use of distinctions from alternative views. For example, Geisler refers to "strong determinism" in this way:

"Fourth, this view is a form of strong determinism, which alleges that our moral actions are determined (caused) by another rather than self-determined (caused by ourselves)." (p. 41)

But Geisler refers to his own position this way:

"By determined here we do not mean that the act is directly caused by God. It was caused by human free choice (a self-determined act). By determined is meant that the event's inevitability was fixed in advance since God knew infallibly it would come to pass. Of course, God predetermined that it would be a self-determined action; He was the remote and primary cause. Human freedom was the immediate and secondary cause." (p. 156, n. 34)

In other words, Geisler resolves what he sees as an apparent contradiction between predetermination and freedom by effectively converting predetermination into certain foreknowledge.

For example, at pp. 156-57, Geisler uses the example of a taped football game to illustrate an example of something being both free and predetermined. In response to the objection that this is only both free and predetermined because the game happened in the past, Geisler responds (p. 157):

In response, we need only point out that if God is all-knowing (omniscient), from the standpoint of his foreknowledge the game was predetermined. He knew exactly how it was going to turn out in time, though we did not. Therefore, if God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, including our free acts, then everything that will happen in the future is predetermined, even our free acts. This does not mean these actions are not free; it simply means God knows for sure how we are going to use our freedom.

Then, only one page later (p. 158), Geisler writes: "It is determined in the one sense that God foresaw it."

A similar analysis can be made of Geisler's marriage proposal scenario at pages 146-47.

Possibly there is another explanation, but for all the world it looks like Geisler is equating (he even uses the equals sign) predetermination and certain advance knowledge. While such an approach may resolve any conflict between "predetermination" and human freedom, it doesn't resolve the apparent difficulty that Geisler himself raises against what he calls "Extreme Arminianism," at page 143.

On that page, in criticizing "Extreme" Arminianism, Geisler appears to endorse the idea that God does not simply foreknow what happens, but that God is actually in control of all that happens. But when it comes to Geisler's description of "the balanced view," the idea of "control" seems to disappear. Geisler seems to rely instead on knowledge rather than control.

If any of Geisler's fans would care to clarify things for me from Geisler's book, I'd appreciate it. But until I see a better explanation, it appears that Geisler simply is unable to escape the problem he poses for so-called "Extreme Arminians."  He's stuck basically reducing God to the position of a person who knows the future but does not control it any more than the guy watching a taped football game.  Indeed, as noted above, Geisler specifically states: "By determined is meant that the event's inevitability was fixed in advance since God knew infallibly it would come to pass."  But that does make determination logically subsequent to knowledge, despite Geisler's protests to the contrary.

-TurretinFan

Chosen But Free Reviews - Part 4

I think this will be the last of the parts of my responses to reviews of "Chosen But Free." Thus, I think I have now completed my series of responses (part 1, part 2, part 3) to reviews of Chosen But Free, with a particular emphasis on how I think the students who prepared these reviews might benefit from the rebuttal provided in Dr. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom." The numbering of the reviews picks up from the previous post.

31. THEO 202-003

This review seems to buy into the idea that Geisler has provided a "balanced" view of sovereignty and free will. As I have said many other times, I think the reviewer would be in a position to give a more balanced judgment, if he had also read Dr. White's rebuttal in "The Potter's Freedom."

32. Onomonopia

This review expresses a similar sentiment to many of the other reviews. By way of providing an example, here's how this review put it:

Ultimately, Geislers book is a great overview and relation of two opposing views that are normally seen to only be contradictory. He relates these views not just by his own knowledge but by pulling examples straight from the scripture itself.

As I have said many times, Geisler's book isn't balanced: it's one sided. Those who read it should really take the next step and read the other side.

33. Love God With All of Your Heart

This review had one surprising comment that I thought was worth addressing separately. The reviewer wrote:

I do agree with that. God does have a plan and a purpose for our life. I do agree that nothing that we do can change God mind. We not get there the way that is way that God wants us to get there. But one day we will get to the place that God wants us to be. It just may take longer.

This sounds curiously fatalistic. We can't change our destiny, but we can delay it. That's neither the Calvinist nor the Arminian view, technically speaking. We Calvinists don't hold that God simply has an end in mind for us that will somehow come to pass. We also believe that "all things work together for good" to those who are the called according to God's purposes.

34. My testimony

This review seems to reflect that the reviewer caught on to the fact that Geisler is basically promoting a version of Arminianism (the version that teaches "eternal security"). The reviewer also sets forth an argument against limited atonement. I'll respond to that argument:

1 peter 3:18 says For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit”. In Titus 2:11 it says “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men”. Lastly, in 2 Corinthians 5:15 it states “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf”. All these verses have the word ALL in them so I don’t really know how people can argue that God died for only the chosen when the verses say otherwise.

That emphasis is in the original review. A few responses:

Regarding 1 Peter 3:18, the "once for all" is actually just an idiom that means "once for all time." The KJV puts it this way:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

You will notice that "all" doesn't even appear in that translation. The point of the verse is just that Jesus suffered one time. This contrasts with often-repeated Old Testament sacrifices and the Roman Catholic mass that is repeated daily.

Regarding Titus 2:11, the "to all" there should be carefully considered. Recall that the verse as a whole is this (KJV):

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Notice that "to all men" refers to the fact that saving grace of God has appeared to all men. It doesn't mean literally ever last person, but to the fact that this is not limited to the Jews. The proclamation of the gospel is for everyone, even if it has not yet appeared to everyone. The "to all men" doesn't refer to "brings salvation." If it did, we would be universalists.

Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:15, the verse does say "all," but all of whom? All of the people in the world? Look at the context to find out (KJV):

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

As you can see from the context, the "all" refers to "us." One died for all of us.

35. honest to goodness thoughts

This review comments on the issue of free will and its relation to evil. The review argues thus:

Some, such as Jonathon Edwards might argue that sin comes from nature but Adam contradicts that because he fell in a perfect world and was created good in nature. (Geisler,39-40)

I found that interesting, because I heartily commend Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will" to everyone's reading. I am surprised to hear that the reviewer thinks that a world with a tempting serpent and a wife who has already given in to the temptation is a "perfect world," but even beyond that: doesn't the reviewer think that there will be free will and an absence of sin in heaven? The problem here is really that Edwards' position hasn't been accurately portrayed. While our fallen human nature is one reason we sin, Adam had an innocent but fallible nature. He was able to make an error and he did. He judged it better to follow his wife and the serpent than to follow God.

36. Lauren's blog

This review reflected a belief that Geisler had found a middle path between two extreme views. That's the impression that the book gives. But that impression is easily remedied by reading Dr. James White's response in "The Potter's Freedom."

37. Spit it Out

This review expresses the seemingly common (in the class) perception that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is a waste of time that would be better spent evangelizing. Evangelism is important. On the other hand, theology matters. If we are not really ready to understand free will, God's sovereignty, and their interplay, we may face difficulty when we are asked those kinds of questions by the atheists and others we run into.

38. Nursing Student on a Mission

This review raises one of Geisler's arguments against Calvinism based on the nature of Love. As expressed by the reviewer:

I agree with what Geisler says on page 140 of his book. He basically argues that love is not and cannot be irresistible. He states “God is love, and true love never forces itself on anyone, either externally or internally. Forced love is a contradiction in terms” (Geisler, 140).

Isn't the answer a little obvious? Hell is coercion. There is a "turn or burn" aspect to the gospel call. If you don't love God, you will burn in Hell forever. That should be enough to demonstrate that Geisler's analogy is fundamentally flawed. What could be a worse threat than Hell? After all, we are not to fear those who can kill the body, but Him who can place both body and soul in Hell.

39. Joey Yapp

This review, one of the few that appears to be placed on a "real" blog (although some of the other folks have a "real" blog in addition to the class blog), seems to reflect an impression that the book was good and balanced. I hope that the reviewer will take the time to review Dr. White's response in "The Potter's Freedom."

40. Theology 202: Dr. Caner

This review presented two points that I'd like to address briefly:

God came to this world to save the entire world, all sinners, not just a select few that he had chosen.

There are plenty of verses that indicate the latter. But consider the implications of the former position. If God came to save each and every person, has God mostly failed? Or is God free to save whom God wants to save? That's one of the key points of "The Potter's Freedom." It explains God's freedom to save.

One thing that I was a little disappointed with in this book was the lack of in depth scripture usage. Geisler uses tons of scripture references all throughout the entire book, but I feel like they barely scratch the surface of each topic. I mean, any person can flood a book with scripture references to make it sound like they apply to the topic at hand, but it doesn’t always mean that it proves the point that you are trying to argue. I loved the scripture he used, but I feel like he could have gone a little bit deeper with his usages.

Here's where I think the reviewer might be especially thankful for "The Potter's Freedom." It goes in-depth in its exegesis of the Scripture text. In that regard, it stands in contrast to "Chosen But Free."

41. Katie's blog

This review is similar to many of the others in terms of buying into the idea that Geisler is presenting a balanced position. That idea is undermined if one reads the rebuttal to Geisler's work, "The Potter's Freedom."

There is one comment from this review that I feel I should address:

I believe that Christ died for ALL, and ALL have the same opportunity to receive God’s gift. I believe that Christ desires for ALL to go to Heaven.

I realize that the belief that Christ died for everyone is quite popular, even though when Christ described his own sacrifice he did not say "which is shed for all" but "which is shed for many." Nevertheless, even if you will not accept that Christ died for many (rather than all) at least you must acknowledge that not all have the same opportunity. Some are born into Christian families. They grow up in a church, being brought to Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and so on. They have a lot of opportunity. Other children are born in communist China. Their opportunities are more limited. And the people of this century have more opportunities to hear the gospel than those of previous centuries. Think about the American Indians before the Europeans showed up, for example. Think about all the nations outside of Israel before Christ. These people do not all have the same opportunity, even though all have the same way of salvation: repentance and faith in Christ.

42. LU THEO 202-003 (subtitle for blog: My blog about what Dr. Caner tells me to blog about for THEO 202-003)

This review similarly accepted Geisler's claim to be taking a middle position. The review contained an interesting argument from Jonah:

God is in control but I don't think He forces people to do things. He tells us what He wants, but I've never thought He would force anyone to do it. Just look at the life of Jonah. God told Jonah that He wanted him to go to the Ninevites, but He did not force him to go. Jonah ran the other way and wound up in the belly of a big fish. Jonah had a choice to go or to run the opposite direction. Jonah then saw that God knew what He was talking about and ran to Nineveh after he was vomited out of the fish.

If I put a gun to your head, I'm "forcing" you to do what I say. God didn't put a gun to Jonah's head, but he did place Jonah in a position where Jonah had to be cast into the sea to avoid his death and the death of the men that were with him. Moreover, God threatened all of Nineveh with destruction. They repented and God spared them. But it is strange to say that God is not "forcing" them.

You can say that "they still have a choice," but I'm not sure what that gets you. Even if someone has a gun to your head, you still have a choice, yet at the same time you are being forced.

Moreover, God is able to change a person's heart. That's not at all like pointing a gun at someone, yet I suppose it would be considered "forcing" the person, according to the reviewer. What's wrong with that kind of "forcing" though?

43. mattlillis

This review was interesting for a variety of reasons. I will respond to it paragraph by paragraph:

Geisler’s discussion on whether faith is a gift only to the elect in his book, Chosen But Free, was a most intriguing section, which I found myself very much engaged. On page 237 Geisler states, “Nowhere does the Bible teach that saving faith is a special gift of God only to a select few,” and proceeds to give numerous versus such as John 11:40. Geisler makes another very pungent statement a littler further on page 240 where he is tackling the Arminian and Calvanist view of faith saying, “God is pleased with our faith, yet this is not because it adds to the work of Christ, which alone satisfies God’s justice. On the contrary, God is pleased with our faith because we know we cannot do anything to add to the work of Christ and must wholly and completely trust in Him and Him alone for our salvation.” These two extremely profound revisions of scripture seem to resonate between Calvin and Arminius’ arguments in a way that makes total sense and only validates what I have already come to know and experience about God. I totally agree with Geisler’s main argument here that we play no role in adding to the salvation that Christ offers, this being in regards to having a “faith.” His choice of words and just overall clarity of message simplified such a complex and ingenious conclusion, and created one of those take away messages that great minds seem to come up with.

Regarding the issue of saving faith being a gift of God for a select few:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Indeed, eternal life itself is the gift of God:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

As for it being "for a select few," not everyone has saving faith. If they did, all would be saved. They would all have eternal life.

Geisler's point about God being pleased with our faith is not necessarily wrong in itself (I'm sure the reviewer mean "poignant" not "pungent"), but it misses the point. It's good that Geisler doesn't try to argue that faith is meritorious. Nevertheless, Geisler's argument about faith pleasing God seems almost to treat faith as though it were a work, rather than as it being the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

Next:

Another example that Geisler gives from scripture that seems to resonate on the same frequency with his other arguments is on page 237, “Finally, the Bible describes faith as ours. It speaks of ‘your faith’, ‘his faith’, and ‘their faith’, but never of ‘God’s faith’ as a condition for receiving the gift of salvation.” This argument, although good, is not as good as the other two I previous quoted, I disagree with what he is trying to do here because he is describing what the Bible doesn’t say, over what it does say, and this can be a slippery slope into false teaching.

The faith is ours - but isn't that true of all gifts we are given? Is eternal life not ours, just because it is a gift of God? God is not the one who believes, we are. Nevertheless, faith - like life itself - is a gift of God. Surely Geisler would be willing to admit that life is a gift of God, yet God is not the one living our life.

Finally:

Norman Geisler’s overall methodology of attacking this monumental debate of free will that has been raging for centuries was overall very well communicated and easy to follow, which made the book enjoyable to read. I was not getting lost in cross references and incoherent rhetoric. One concern that turned out not to be a problem with Geisler that I had before starting the book, was I did not want to read just a conglomeration of Straw Man arguments and misguided scripture references. But Norman Geisler seems to take great caution throughout the entire book to avoid such arguments and quote scripture in a historical and contextual way that seem to validate most if not all of his conclusions. The appendices in this book though were not constructed well and I thought they should have been included in the main text, because that is where I found most of the “meat” of the text and his arguments.

I think the reviewer would really enjoy the meat contained throughout "The Potter's Freedom." The reviewer may also be surprised to discover that some of the positions that Geisler presented may be criticized as being straw men. That's part of the value in reading a rebuttal: it casts further light on the quality of the original work.

44. Chosen But Free

This review is the only post on this particular blog. I have no idea of whether the author of the blog created a new blog for each of the blogging assignments, or only recently joined the class, or what. This review contained some similar comments to those already addressed above, as well as one comment that I'll address now:

Norman Geisler states, free choice in this life means, “the ability to do otherwise” (21).

This is interesting. Does that mean that God does not have free choice, because God is unable to sin? Does that mean that in the next life, we will not have free choice - or that the very definition of free choice will change? These questions seem to undermine Geisler's point.

On top of that, "the ability to do otherwise" is an ability that is never, ever used. It seemingly exists simply to make people feel better. It's not just unused, it's unprovable. One cannot prove that one had or has the ability to do otherwise than what one does.

45. Justine's Blog

This review focuses on chapter 4 of Geisler's book. The review makes one of the robot arguments that we are used to hearing:

I believe that we need to stop putting the blame on God and taking responsibility of own actions. I believe we have a free will to do what we want and I do not think that we are God’s robots just walking around on earth doing exactly what he tells us to do. If that were the case, we would live in a perfect world because God would not tell us to sin and do wrong. God loves us and wants us to always do right but He knows that we are not perfect and that we are going to fall short sometimes. We have a merciful, forgiving Savior who dies for our wicked sins and we need to be grateful that He has done for us. Also, if we did not have a free will then we would all be followers of Chirst and everyone would be on their way to heaven. But instead, we have people who love God with all their heart, people who are backslidden, people who don’t care about religion and even people who hate God. How can somebody say that they do not have a free will, after seeing the different levels of faith that there are? If we were all God’s ‘robots’ then we would all be on fire for God but that is unfortunately not the case.

The problem with the argument is the underlying the assumption that if God ran the show, there would be no sin. We are not robots, of course. No Calvinist says we are robots. Nevertheless, if one will concede that God is omniscient (he knows everything), omnipotent (he has all power), and interested (he cares what happens), then it follows that everything that happens is - in some sense - approved by God. God could (at least) prevent anything bad from occurring, and yet God does not.

God's sovereignty, then, is higher than this reviewer gives God credit for. I would encourage this reviewer to consider reading James White's "The Potter's Freedom" to get a better picture of the sovereignty of God.

46. Theo 202

This review indicated that "one of my favorite parts" was the way that Geisler used Scripture. Considering the much greater Scriptural depth of "The Potter's Freedom," I believe that this reviewer might really benefit from Dr. James White's rebuttal to Geisler's book. "The Potter's Freedom" also rebuts Geisler's insinuation that Calvinists and Calvin had divergent viewpoints. Nevertheless, the five points (as such) are really more associated with the Synod of Dordt than they are with Calvin himself.

47. dagment

This review is another of the reviews that concludes that Geisler provides a balanced position between Calvinism and Arminianism. In "The Potter's Freedom," Dr. James White explains how Geisler has essentially just proposed an Arminian position (with respect to most points), while demonstrating from the Scripture why the Calvinist position should be accepted by those who accept the authority of Scripture.

48. alexanapier

This review can probably be well summarized by one of the lines from the review: "I enjoyed Geisler’s ability to use logic and scripture to defend the balance between free will and God’s sovereignty. " While I can understand that one might get that impression from reading Geisler's book alone, one really will get a more balanced perspective by reading the rebuttal to the book, namely Dr. James White's "The Potter's Freedom."

49. Theology II

This review presented a few interesting points drawn from Geisler. I will respond to each:

Geisler makes a distinct difference though when he states “According to this view (Calvinism), God’s predetermination is done in spite of His foreknowledge of human free acts. God operates with such unapproachable sovereignty that His choices are made with total disregard for the choices of mortal men.” Here it is supposing that God knows what free choices we will make and plan accordingly.

This simply is not an accurate view of Calvinism. According to the Scriptures, God sovereignly ordains all things including men's free choices. God's decrees, therefore, are not "in spite of" man's free choices. Instead, God's decrees frame and give purpose to man's free choices. Man's free choices have a purpose in God's plan.

The view that God knows what man will do and plans accordingly makes God reactive. It places man's free will above that of God, since God is reduced to making the best of a mess.

For, as Geisler said, “If free choices were not considered at all when God made the list of the elect, then irresistible grace on the unwilling follows; that is, man would have no say in his own salvation. Accordingly, the fact that all men do not choose to love, worship, and serve God will make no difference whatsoever to God.” If it were not for this simple choice, then there would be no point in the creation of humans.

But Scripture says:

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Isn't that the point? Man does not have a say in his own salvation. It is all of God, it is all by grace.

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The point of God's creation of men was not to leave God eternally disappointed. The point of creation was for God to glorify himself.

Romans 9:21-24
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

50. Tim's Blog

This review focused on the question of who is in charge. One interesting passage from the review is as follows:

It is an incredible, comforting, and yet scary thought to know that the God that we serve knows our every action and our every thought. Having this is mind should change our actions and our thoughts. Luke 1:37 says that “Nothing is impossible with God.” This however brings up the question: Can God make a mountain big enough for him to move? This can easily be solved by clarifying that God can do anything that doesn’t contradict itself. In other words, God cannot lie because it is against his nature. Also, God cannot make a triangle with two sides because, by definition, a triangle is a three sided figure.

Hopefully, this reviewer realizes that man's free will is not a mountain too big for God to move. With such a realization, one must realize that all things, even the free actions of human beings, are within God's sovereignty and are ordered as God wishes. Only when God is in control is God's sovereignty a comforting thought.

51. My Mind as an Open Book

This review is another review that aims to adopt Geisler's position. The review even identifies the reviewer as a "moderate Calvinist" using Geisler's categories. The review states, among other things:

I want to focus on chapter four and briefly state my opinion. Geisler’s premise was this: if God knows everything we are going to do and our free will cannot change that, then the future cannot be changed. Therefore, the conclusion is, we are not responsible for any of our actions whether good or bad. This is an extreme view of God’s sovereignty and does not take into account man’s free will.

But we cannot change the future. If we could, then we could render God's prescience of the future wrong. But God actually knows what we will do - he's not just guessing. So, that will definitely happen. If God knows we will do X, there's not the slightest chance we will not do X. We may bring about the future, but we don't "change" it.

52. Kirstin!

This review indicated an appreciation for Geisler's use of Scripture. While it is good that Geisler attempted to support his position with Scripture, Dr. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom," demonstrated that Geisler's attempted reliance on Scripture was mistaken. This review also included an argument that I thought it made sense to address here:

Geiesler also discusses the big topic of free will. In the beginning, God gave Adam and Eve a choice, proving the fact that we are given a choice, and it is up to us to choose. We as humans have the free will to do what we want. Salvation is literally given to everyone and it is our human choice to decide whether we want to accept it or not. Here on earth, we are truly free. We are truly free because we are given a choice to do what we want, and are not bound to making a decision that we don’t want to make. I like the quote on page 21, “In heaven we will be free from evil; here we are free to do evil.” We are free to choose good or evil here on earth, but once we make our choice, we are bound to it when we die. God gave us the gift of salvation, not the gift of faith (pg. 229). Faith is what we have the freedom to choose. Basically, we all have salvation, it our choice whether we want it or not.

Has the reviewer really thought about the problem of heaven? Why is it ok for humans to be free from evil in heaven, but not ok for them to be free from evil (per Geisler)? Doesn't that seem to be simply a double standard? Is there no free will in heaven? Surely no one would assert that. Therefore, free will isn't really a sufficient answer to why we sin here.

Second, salvation is not given to everyone - it is offered to everyone. It's important to distinguish between those two things. The gospel offer is universal - but the gift of salvation is given to those who believe.

Moreover, faith itself is a gift. After all the Scripture tell us:

1 Corinthians 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

A consistent Arminian would have to answer the question with "faith." But Paul's point is to make a rhetorical question: God is the one who makes one person to differ from another. We have nothing - not even faith - that we did not receive from God. Therefore, we cannot glory even in our faith.

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.

"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

Norman Geisler on Lying as a Moral/Ethical Issue

A friend of mine pointed out to me that in his book on Christian Ethics, Norman Geisler seems to call lying a moral and ethical issue (link to sample of book). On page 19, for example, lying is provided as example of an ethical issue which is decided by moral laws. So, it's not clear how Norman Geisler can justify his apparent belief now that the issue of a preacher allegedly lying is not a moral issue.

-TurretinFan

Is Lying a Moral Issue?

Dr. Norman Geisler seems to have the impression that lying is not a moral issue. Here are some verses that would suggest otherwise.

Psalm 119:163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.

Ezekiel 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?

Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Hosea 4:1-2
Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Isaiah 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:

Provers 13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.

- TurretinFan

"Living Dead" Themed Movies

My previous post included a video clip of Ergun Caner talking about an alleged experience as a teenager and new arrival to America, watching a film with the theme of the "living dead."

An alert reader pointed out to me that the video shows materials related to the film, "Return of the Living Dead," which came out in 1985. That's not when Dr. Caner came to America, even according to any of his own accounts.

There is, however, another film that did come out with the same theme, closer to when Dr. Caner came to America: "Night of the Living Dead," which came out in 1968. For those who think that Dr. Caner came to America from Turkey in the late 1970's, there's alternatively "Dawn of the Dead," which came out when Dr. Caner was nearly a teenager, in 1978.

As far as I know, Dr. Caner was not involved in producing the video clips, beyond recording himself talking. So, I'm certainly not claiming that Dr. Caner suggested the graphic art for his video or that Dr. Caner himself said he watched "Return of the Living Dead" as a new arrival.

Intead, the troubling part of the video seems to be his statement, at the very beginning:

"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 video can still be seen at TrueLife.org (link to page).

Was Dr. Caner a teenage boy when he first came to America? The sworn affidavit of Dr. Caner's mother strongly suggests a negative answer to that question. That affidavit is an affidavit dated 31 July 1975, when Dr. Ergun Caner was about eight years old. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not living in Ankara or along the Iraqi border at that time. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not getting misconceptions about the USA by watching TV in Turkey at that time. If that affidavit is true, though, how can Dr. Geisler continue to defend Ergun Caner's remarks? Who knows!

-TurretinFan

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

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

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