Who is Dr. Ergun Caner?

So, what is the real story with Dr. Ergun Caner? He has claimed that "We wore keffiyeh; we wore robes" (discussed here) before his conversion. He has claimed this in connection with illustrating how devoted a Muslim he was "as devout as it gets." But the real Ergun Caner is harder to document.

With the assistance of a friend (whose identity will be concealed for now, for his own protection - some of Caner's supporters have been quite unkind), I was able to get access to Dr. Caner's high school yearbooks (don't worry - not his personal copy) from Dr. Caner's high school in Gahanna, OH (named for America's 16th president).

Based on the activities list provided by Dr. Caner's senior yearbook, we find an interesting picture of Dr. Caner's high school years (the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 correspond respectively to the year of high school, with 4 being final year):

A'Cappella 2,3,4
Children's Theatre 4
Chorale 4
Cast member in:

• "The Homecoming"
• "Father of the Bride" (one other activity supporting this play)

French Club 1,2,3
Freshman Choir
Intramurals 1,2,3
Soccer 1,2
Tennis 1,2
Thespians 4
Varsity Varieties

• Cast Member 2,3,4
• Varsity Varieties (Usher) 2
• Varsity Varieties (Stage Crew) 1

As far as I can determine, there was no involvement in any Christian group (Fellowship of Christian Athletes existed and Jerry Tackett who apparently led Dr. Caner to Christ was connected with that group). There was, of course, no Islamic group in the high school at that time. An important caveat is that yearbook summaries are sometimes only as good as the yearbook editors. So, we have no absolute guarantee that Dr. Caner didn't join in other groups or fail to join in some of the groups listed above.

The picture that Caner's high school activities provide for us is a picture of a young man who is very interested in acting. He also does singing, and some sports in his first two years.

What about his appearance? We have some evidence of that. We can see Dr. Caner's yearbook photos from 1981-84, which appear to show a normal, western attired youth:

Uniforms were not required for the photos, but perhaps there was a specific, western dress code for the photos. We don't know. They don't support his claims about dressing like a foreigner, but it is hard to speak definitively based on such limited evidence.

On the other hand, on one day when his keffiyeh would have been permitted, "Hat Day," Ergun Caner wore rather different head gear:

That may have been after his conversion, but it was his sophomore year. There are similar photos from his junior and senior years outside of the yearbook photos, never with a robe, never with any Muslim hats of any kind. There is one exception, he wears a robe in one context:

Of course, you'll recognize that what is shown there is a choir robe. The rest of the students are wearing the same.

In short, here is my understanding of Dr. Ergun Caner: he is an actor.

Within my understanding of Dr. Caner, as an actor, his stage name is "Ergun Mehmet Caner" (his Father's real middle name is Mehmet, but we cannot seem to find any legal documents with "Ergun Mehmet Caner") and the role he is playing is that of a converted Muslim extremist. To this end, he adds a little color here and there to his actual autobiography.

I don't think Dr. Caner meant any harm in this. I think he believed it added a little spice to a life story of growing up in a suburb of Columbus. The story "Ergun Mehmet Caner" has at its core the true life story of Ergun Michael Caner, whose father was a devout Muslim man who enjoyed sports - especially soccer.

Along the way, Dr. Caner seems to (note that it is hard to definitively say) have added a variety of details to his autobiography, such as the suggestion that he got saved later and later in life, and that he came to America later and later as well.

Indeed, despite the evidence we have that strongly suggests Caner was in the U.S. from around 1970 until he completed high school, there are (of course) some gaps.

His mother swore (literally swore an official oath) that Ergun's father had resided in the U.S. for "six years" (as of July 31, 1975), which suggests that the Caner family was in the U.S. at least from 1969 (after Ergun's birth and Erdem's birth and before Emir's birth) to at least the middle of 1975 (copy of her affidavit)(property records corroborate at least part of this). Furthermore, on April 14, 1978, his mother was awarded permanent physical custody of him at a specific address in a suburb of Columbus, OH (copy of divorce decree), and the separation agreement filed on that same date prohibited anyone from removing the children from the local county in Ohio for two years (link to separation agreement). The only gap there is mid-1975 to early 1978. That's about two and a half years. At the very beginning of that gap we have a restraining order dated August 22, 1975, preventing anyone from removing the children from the country and awarding primary custody to the children's mother (link to restraining order). Is it possible that during that two year gap the Mr. Caner somehow took his kids to Turkey and then brought them back? Of course, there are many possibilities, but the evidence doesn't suggest that - on the contrary the evidence suggests that boys lived in Ohio during the interim, since the property on Gertrude St. remained in the Caners' ownership until mid-1978 (link to official property records). Additionally, the dispute over custody and child supported continued into 1976 (link to order from February 1976). However, it appears that Caner's mother prevailed, because the divorce decree makes reference to the fact that custody was awarded to the Caners' mother after a hearing, which again confirms that their residence was with her (the divorce decree appears to be referring to a March 11, 1976 order)(see the docket sheet for the Caner divorce, which appears to confirm that it is the March 11, 1976 order that is in view). Did they vacation to Turkey at some point? I suppose it possible - but it does not appear that they grew up there. All the evidence suggests they grew up in Franklin County, Ohio.

But the story about coming to America in 1978 or 1979 adds a lot of color, and it isn't really the main point (perhaps they even made some little vacation to Turkey during that time period - it doesn't appear probable, but who can disprove it without more evidence?). I'm not defending him for making those kinds of comments, but I don't think people should assume that his intentions were particularly nefarious. I think charity suggests that we should assume that Dr. Caner got caught up in the character of "Ergun Mehmet Caner" that he had created, and decided to make the character more interesting for audience. In that regard it worked, but at the price of a great deal of his own credibility. What is truly sad is that some of his supporters continue to suggest that additional proof is needed before we can reach the conclusion that it appears that Dr. Caner embellished his autobiography.

May I respectfully encourage his supporters to exhort him to come clean - clear away the erroneous impressions that he has given people with his very colorful stories, and give God the glory for saving him, even without all the added color. It's by no means a drab testimony when God saves a perfectly ordinary boy from Ohio. There's plenty of color in that, and praise God that Dr. Caner professes the name of Christ!

- TurretinFan

Ergun Caner, Sri Lanka, and an Embellished Autobiography

One of the many errors attributed to Dr. Ergun Caner is an error that he made with respect to Sri Lanka. At the 2009 Value Voters Summit Dr. Ergun Caner spoke (scroll down through the videos at this link to find his near the bottom). During this conference he stated (at 15 minutes into the presentation): "In 36 countries around the globe, including Sri Lanka, it is a punishable offense by death for a Muslim to convert." And then again at around 19 minutes into the presentation, "Sri Lanka puts my people to death. We are Murtad - we are converts."

Here are the problems:

1. Sri Lanka is not a majority Muslim nation. The vast majority are Buddhists, with a sizable Hindu minority. Muslims and professing Christians each make up less than ten percent, and are groups that are about the same size. There appear to be about forty-eight majority Muslim nations in the world, about thirty-seven of which appear to have some form of Sharia.
2. Sri Lanka has some religious persecution, from what I've found. However, sites like "Voice of the Martyrs" report a small number of killings there, and those killings are murders.
3. Specifically, Sri Lanka does not have Sharia law and does not punish conversion (although it does punish those who force others to convert, a provision sometimes apparently applied wrongly against Christians). Apostasy is an offense punishable by death under the most literal form of Sharia, but Sri Lanka does not have Sharia.
4. While Sri Lanka does have capital punishment on the books (for crimes like murder, rape, and drug trafficking), from what I can tell their last official execution was in 1976 (although there are allegations of war crimes that Sri Lanka denies).

So, it seems clear that Dr. Caner made a mistake. This mistake was made in connection with concern that Dr. Caner had for another ex-Muslim, Rifqa Bary. His concern was well-intentioned but apparently misinformed. Frankly, we have no reason to think that this error was a lie, and I hope none of my readers will come away saying that I said Dr. Caner lied about Sri Lanka. He made a mistake. He apparently made a mistake as well about the number of majority Muslim nations.

The root of the problem may simply be that Dr. Caner is not really an expert in Islam. Growing up having a Muslim father gives one more of a background in Islam than not growing up with a Muslim father, all things being equal, but the same is true of having a Christian father. Simply having a Christian father and even growing up in a church doesn't make one an expert on Christianity.

Undoubtedly Dr. Caner has more knowledge of Islam than the typical evangelical, but unfortunately he's being presented as though he were an expert. And sadly Dr. Caner is contributing to this by apparently exaggerating or embellishing his Muslim background.

In the same speech, he also made a number of troubling autobiographical statements:

1. at 3:30 "My father was an ulima in the Mosque" (questionable: there is no evidence that his father was actually an ulima, sometimes Dr. Caner claims that his father was a muezzin, sometimes an ulima, sometimes both)
2. at about 3:50 "My father had other wives" (questionable: the evidence is that his father had one other wife, a woman he married after he and Ergun's mother were divorced)
3. at 4:00 "We were devout Muslims" (questionable: there is little evidence that suggests that the Caner boys were devout Muslims - there is strong evidence that their Mother, who had their primary custody, was not a devout Muslim)
4. at 4:10 "We were devout, keffiyeh-wearing Muslims." (doubtful: There is no evidence of either Ergun or his Father or brothers ever wearing a keffiyeh. There are photos of them not wearing a keffiyeh, however.)
5. at 4:45 "As a freshman, devout Muslim kid" (questionable: There is no evidence that Ergun was a devout Muslim in high school.)
6. at 5:50 "going to the Mosque on Jumu'ah" (doubtful: there is no evidence that Ergun went to the mosque for prayer every noon on Friday - that would have required him leaving school during the day, and remaining out of school for the length of the prayers - ten minutes or more - plus the ten minute drive each direction - it's possible, but since there is evidence that his custodial parent, his mother, did not support his being raised in Islam, it seems unlikely that this happened)
7. at 6:50 "it was as devout as it gets" (doubtful: see above)
8. at 9:20 "Jerry Tackett started in our freshman year and he kept coming for four years" (false/misleading: from what we can tell, Dr. Caner was converted either in his Junior or Sophomore year, perhaps earlier - from what we can tell, Jerry did graduate with Dr. Caner, but the impression given is that it was four years of witnessing that lead to Dr. Caner's conversion)
9. at 9:50 "Going into my senior year I finally decided to challenge him" (false: from what we can tell, Dr. Caner was converted before his senior year - also see below where he claims he was converted in 1982, which is either the first part of his junior year or the latter part of his sophomore year, assuming he's stating the right date)
10. at 15:00 "That night I went home and I told my father, 'Baba, I'm a born again Christian,' and my father disowned me, 1982." (questionable/misleading: Dr. Caner lived with his mother throughout the school year on school days - and while he may have told his father immediately, there is some evidence from his other that he did not, there is also reason to doubt that the year was 1982, it appears it may have been 1981 - it is true that his father disowned him)

From the evidence that we've seen, it appears that some of the statements Dr. Caner made about his autobiography are false. There are also a significant number of statements that he made that are doubtful or questionable. In some cases it is hard to say with any certainty whether they are false. I am sure that for some of Dr. Caner's supporters, this is good news: it's hard to prove that Dr. Caner wasn't a devout Muslim (isn't devotion somewhat of a subjective, internal matter, to least to some extent?), and it may even be challenging to prove that he was not one who was "as devout as it gets," since it is hard to quantify devotion, even in Islam.

It's hard to prove he didn't get excused from school every Friday for a half hour or more to attend prayers at the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. It's also hard to prove that Caner and his family did not wear headscarves. It's hard to definitely prove that Dr. Caner's father was not an ulima.

I realize that some will read the examples above and think that perhaps he was just having a bad day, or perhaps I've isolated statements that are not representative of his speeches. The good news is that some of his speeches have relatively few of these sorts of remarks, others have more.

Here are some examples:

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

We'll skip over the issues in the introduction, since that's not Dr. Caner himself speaking, although there are some incorrect statements and Dr. Caner does not take the time to correct them.

1. at about 5:50 "came to this country in my teens" (false - he came to America as a toddler, as shown by his mother's affidavit)
2. at about 6:50 "I did wear keffiyeh" (questionable: see above)
3. at about 7:20 "Our father was a muezzin in the mosque and an ulima" (questionable: see above)
4. at about 7:30 "We wore keffiyeh; we wore robes" (questionable: except that they may have once or twice worn robes - see this photo (link to photo) note that Dr. Caner's website had identified this as being a photo of Ergun and his father, though the man in the photo looks much older than Dr. Caner's father.)
5. at about 8:20 "Somewhere around fifty times a year my brother and I do debates with Muslims, Baha'i, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, on college campuses" (questionable: see my previous discussion of Dr. Caner's debates)
6. at 15:50 "He is from Johnston County, NC, from a city entitled, and this is the name of the town, 'Possum Kill'" (joke/idiom - I've included this one simply because others have raised this an objection - see discussion here)
7. at 17:10 "I said [to his father-in-law], 'There's no cotton in sand, Dad.'" (He may have said this, but he doesn't appear ever to have lived in a sandy desert area.)
8. at 49:30 "I always lived in majority-Muslim countries and then I came to America" (false: he was born in Sweden which has never been a majority-Muslim nation, and there is no evidence that he lived in any other nations besides that (for 2-3 of his first years) and the U.S. for the remainder.)
9. at 49:42 "He [Caner's father] had many wives" (doubtful: We can only identify Dr. Caner's mother and the woman to whom Caner's father got remarried. In his will, Dr. Caner's father lists as offspring only the children from those two marriages.)
10. at 49:50 "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." (false/questionable/doubtful: Arabic was not his language before English. He was born in Sweden, but came to the U.S. apparently at 2-3 years old. His family may have spoken Swedish and/or Turkish, but they do not appear to have used Arabic, aside from the rote prayers. Finally, in the email exchange that Dr. Caner had with Nadir Ahmed, the closest thing to a debate with a Muslim that we can document Dr. Caner having - see here for more discussion of Dr. Caner's debate, dialogs, and discussion - Nadir did not raise the issue of Arabic language knowledge, although I have heard Muslims make similar claims in debating Dr. White.)
11. at 55:00 "I kept telling him, 'No,' for three years" (doubtful/misleading: Notice that above Dr. Caner had claimed 4 years. If the 1982 date that Dr. Caner has claimed is correct, and if Jerry Tackett started to talking to Dr. Caner in Caner's freshman year, then the actual time was a little under two and a half years. However, there are reasons to think that the real year was 1981, which would make it a little under one and a half years (According to page 19 of their book, Unveiling Islam, Ergun invited Emir to a revival service "the following year" and Emir was born again on "November 4, 1982").
12. at 1:03:15 "I went home and told my father. I said, 'Abi, I am born again - I'm saved." It was November the 4th, 1982, and it was the last day I saw my father. " (false/questionable/doubtful: It was not the last day he saw his father. When his father was dying, he saw him again. There is really no way he could forget about seeing his father on his father's deathbed (his father died in 1999). Additionally, the date is questionable. That date is also alleged, as noted above, to be the date of Emir Caner's conversion, but his conversion was allegedly a year later than Ergun Caner's. Also, as noted above, the evidence suggests that Dr. Caner lived with his mother, not his father.)
13. at 1:04:00 "My father disowned me as an act of mercy. Church became my family. You know those kids who show up who don't smell really nice - don't look good - got two different kind of shoes - back in the day of wally baby and the bus ministries - if it weren't for the bus driver I wouldn't be here - if it weren't for for an 80 year old Sunday school teacher that for some reason wanted to teach high school boys - I wouldn't be here. I was a church orphan. A year later both my brothers got saved. All three of us born again." (questionable/misleading: It may well be that Dr. Caner's mother did not support his conversion to Christianity, but his father disowning him did not leave him an orphan. His mother had primary physical custody of him according to the court records we have. Note, however, that he maintains the idea that his brothers got saved a year later. This is consistent with what his book says, although it would mean either that he got saved in 1981 or his brothers got saved in 1983. What is truly remarkable is that I have yet to see any account from his or his brothers where they give any date for conversion other than November 1982, yet they continue to mention that they were saved one year apart.)
14. at 1:05:20 "In 1991, my mama got saved. In the baptistry took off her hijab." (doubtful/misleading: We know that in the 70's Dr. Caner's mother was opposed to a motion from Dr. Caner's father that would have required Dr. Caner to be raised a Muslim, and there is no evidence that Dr. Caner's mother continued to wear hijab once she was in the U.S., if she ever wore it. The evidence is that Dr. Caner's mother was not a practicing Muslim from some point in the 70's onward. That does not make her baptism in the 1990's less, but it is sad that Dr. Caner appears to have tried to suggest that she was a devout Muslim woman up to that point.)
15. at 1:14:10 "There was a time when I was cool. 18 years old, foot-long Muslim mullet hanging off the back of my head. And I drove a Camaro ... and women would just jump in the thing, forget the little towel-headed, olive-skinned boy ..." (questionable/misleading: Dr. Caner was no longer a Muslim by the time he was 18. He had something of a "punk" hairstyle in high school, but not (as far as we can tell) either foot-long hair or a mullet (UPDATE: Some folks tell me that one of the hairdos in this recent post constitutes a mullet.), and there is no evidence that we've seen that he wore a keffiyeh, indeed, around the hour mark he specifically claimed to have taken it off as a symbol of his conversion. I have no doubt that there was a time when Dr. Caner was cool - he still seems like he would be a fun guy to hang out with.)

A couple more examples can be provided:

Here is a video from Dr. Caner:

(download here)
As you can see, he's a good, compelling speaker. Much of what he says is actually good and helpful. Much of what he says about Christianity is good and actually much is probably more monergistic than he intended. However, when it comes to Dr. Caner's autobiography, there is an inconsistency.

Dr. Caner states (around 1 minute in): "Finally, my senior year in high school to show him, I walked into this little church." Dr. Caner's senior year of high school was 1984 (link to site showing his class list). However, in his book, Dr. Caner claims to have surrendered to the gospel the ministry in 1982 (link to book page). Even if that was December of 1982, that would be in Ergun's junior year of high school, and that's when he allegedly surrendered to the ministry, not when he got saved.

Here's a second video:

(download here)
Here he claims (early in the video): "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."

He also makes an error with respect to when Mohamed's first alleged revelation came, it was when Mohamed was 40 years old, but not on his birthday.

Later in the video (around 11 minutes in) he claims: "And starting in my sophomore year in high school, he just wouldn't let up. All the way through, almost my senior year, 'Dude - you wanna come to this ... '."

Later in the video he appears to confuse Shabir Ally (still living) with Ahmed Deedat (famous Muslim apologist who is now deceased).

At about 19 minutes 50 seconds in, Dr. Caner states that on "November 4, 1982" he got saved. However, as you'll note at the link to his book above, that's the same date that the book claims that Emir got saved and the book claims that Emir was saved as a result of the fact that "Ergun invited Emir to a revival service the following year."

And around 21 minutes in, Dr. Caner states that "A year later, both my brothers got saved." This is the same year gap as in the book, but now it makes it sound as though Emir (and Erdem) got saved in 1983, not 1982, or possibly Dr. Caner got saved in 1981 (his sophomore year), not 1982 (his junior year).

You'll notice that these last two examples, which are all I'll post for now, have far fewer autobiographical issues than those above - and they are still enjoyable to listen to. The man is quite a speaker - he really knows how to work the crowd. Unfortunately, it seems that his comments about his own Muslim background or about Islam in general are not always strictly accurate.

- TurretinFan

UPDATE (from a draft post that never published):

Apparently, Ergun Caner spoke on January 12, 2005, for the North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (link to mp3). It is a version of his "Church House or Jail House" sermon - another instance of this same sermon can be found as a transcript here (link to pdf).

Peter Lumpkins vs. the Messengers

Peter Lumpkins who has been faithfully criticizing those who dare to criticize Dr. Caner has added an additional attack to his list. Here's a quick chronology (Last Updated July 5, 2010) (note that the list is in reverse chronological order):

1. August 2 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
   
2. July 17 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
   
3. July 9 - Peter Lumpkins goes after TurretinFan (and others)
   
4. July 8 - Peter Lumpkins goes after Turretinfan
   
5. July 6 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (and his supporters)
   
6. July 3 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
   
7. July 2 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
   
8. June 6 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
   
9. June 5 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
   
10. June 4 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
    
11. June 1 - Peter Lumpkins goes after - guess who - yes, James White again
    
12. May 28 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (big surprise!)
    
13. May 22 (in an update) - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (yet again)
    
14. May 21 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (again)
15. May 15 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
16. May 11 - Peter Lumpkins goes after Matt Svoboda
17. May 9 (and 10th in the updates?) - Peter Lumpkins goes after "Baptist Calvinist Bloggers" and Wade Burleson and Matt Svoboda
18. April 18 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
19. April 9 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
20. April 7 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
21. March 12 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White and Founders
22. February 25 (in the update which appears to be the same day) - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
23. February 23 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White and Tom Ascol

This approach is a classic "shoot the messengers" approach to dealing with criticism. I respectfully call on Peter Lumpkins to pursue a different approach. Some of his posts (such as the May 9 post and the February 25 post) could have been written in a way that deals with the issues without going after Dr. Caner's critics in a personal way. Obviously, Peter Lumpkins' favorite target is Dr. James White, but perhaps Mr. Lumpkins can learn to set aside that particular issue.

- TurretinFan

The Apostolic Succession as a Solution to Ambiguous Scriptures Challenge

In a comment box at the GreenBaggins blog, Jason J. Stellman sets forth a simple but important challenge (link to comment).

The challenge is this (paraphrased):

If "apostolic succession" is the solution to multiple competing Scriptural interpretations, then what is the solution to multiple claims to "apostolic succession"?

Let's suppose for the sake of the argument that there is some ambiguity in Scripture that we would like to resolve. Suppose further that we try to resolve it by resorting to "apostolic succession." We will encounter multiple claimants:

1) Mormons (who claim to have living apostles)
2) Roman Catholics (who claim to have a living successor of the Apostle Peter)
3) Eastern Orthodox (who claim to have a plurality of bishops that have succeeded the apostles)
4) Other "Orthodox" groups, including the Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.

It does not appear that the answer can come from any disputed Scripture, because that would introduce a circle. I have heard some folks claim it is history, but if disputes over Scripture are fierce, disputes over History are often even more fierce.

I would respectfully submit that there is no neat answer to the challenge. By whatever skeptical rule one denies that Scripture is the rule of faith, one's own rule of faith will perish.

- TurretinFan

Dr. Ergun Caner's Debates, Discussions, and Dialog

The weakest defenders of Dr. Caner have focused their attention on attacking Dr. Caner's critics. While they were wasting their time and destroying their credibility, I was busy searching for the debates that Dr. Caner has claimed to do, so that I could exonerate him of the charges of claiming debates he has not done. I found Dr. Caner making reference to his debates in a public address at an evangelism conference. Dr. Caner indicated that he uploads these debates to iTunes(R) and so I looked there. Within iTunes(R) one must go to the store and then to the Podcasts. I've managed to find the following debates, dialogs, or discussions from Dr. Ergun Caner in three categories.

The first category are items listed under the collection "Dialog, Debate, and Discussion"

1) Introduction to 3D (No opponents)

This segment is a general introduction. He states around 6 minutes, 30 second in:

I will get e-mails you know through the website and they will say, 'Where are your debates?' And my debates are all here, they're all free. And here are some of the rules that go with it. Even though I've done 'em for 20 years, I don't believe debate is only formal. As a matter of fact, I believe you are severely limiting yourself if the only exposure you have to other world religions is through formal debate. I believe the most effective means of sharing the truth of Jesus Christ the exclusive nature of salvation through Christ can only be found through conversation. ... I became dissatisfied with formal debate and quite frankly disgusted with some of the practitioners in that passive-aggressive methods of shaking their head and making noises, embarrassing themselves by acting petulant. And so, like I said, about five, six years ago, I became convinced that there had to be another way. What we've done is we've established 3D, which stands for debate, dialog, and discussion, where we sit around the table and I interview, for instance in this first season a Unitarian Universalist, a Druid, etc. and it's free form. I even tell them ahead of time, "I will never provoke you. I annot ask you trick questions and this isn't the Jerry Springer show. In other words there's not going to be a moment where you have to lurch out of your chair to defend yourself."

This discussion helps to highlight that Dr. Caner is aware of the fact that these interviews are not formal debates. While he might like to call them 3D, he seems to be aware that there is no "debating" going on in the conventional sense of the term. Unfortunately, without that context, claims of "debating" the following people would seem to be misleading.

2) Presidents Thornock and Ralls (Mormon)

President Michael Thornock is apparently Mission President of the West Virginia Charleston Mission. President Walter E. Ralls Jr. is Stake President of the Buena Vista Virginia Stake. These are mid-level officers in the Mormon bureaucracy.

3) Bob Riggs and James Williams (Baha'i practitioners)

Robert Riggs is a Baha'i author. It's unclear what, if any, leadership role either of the men have in Baha'i.

4) Rev. Paul Boothby (Unitarian Universalists)

Boothby is a local (Lynchburg) Unitarian pastor.

5) Fr. Richard Mooney (Roman Catholic) (There were three parts)

Mooney is a local (Lynchburg area) Roman Catholic Priest.

6) Rabbi Yosef Zylberberg (Reform) (There were two parts)

Zylberg is a Reform (not Reformed) rabbi, apparently from Phoenix, AZ.

7) Rev Kaz Nakata (Shin Buddhist)

Nakata is a Buddhist priest (the head of a seemingly small temple in Virginia).

8) Senior Druid Emeritas Nancy [McAndrew?] ("A Druid Fellowship")

Nancy holds a seemingly minor clerical rank in the local neo-pagan organization associated with "A Druid Fellowship, Inc."

9) Dr. Mel White (Metropolitan Community Church)

Mel White is apparently a clergyman in the MCC. The MCC is apparently supportive of non-heterosexual fornication (perhaps they also support heterosexual fornication as well, it's not clear to me).

10) Lonnie Murray (Unitarian Univeralist & Neo-Pagan)

Murray is apparently a congregant at a Unitarian Universalist church but also a Neo-Pagan who organizes a "Nature Spirit Worship" group in Charlottesville, VA.

The following were classified under "Sects and Cults Podcast" (apparently recorded during Theology 678)

1) Interview with Mormons (Mormons)

Two "elders" are interviewed. The discussion mentions that the questions that they will be answering is given to them in advance, except for the audience question.

2) Interview with Fr. Alban Waggener (Antiochian Orthodox)

Dr. Waggener is the priest of the local parish of an Antiochian Orthodox church.

3) Interview with Rev. Shirley Paulson (Christian Science) (there were two parts)

Paulson is a Christian Science lecturer.

4) Interview with Mel White (Metropolitan Community Church) (there were two parts)

(see above for the discussion of White)

5) Interview with Dr. Kenley Mays (Baha'i International) (there were two parts)

Dr. Mays is apparently a Baha'i practitioner that happens to live in Virginia.

The following were classified under "Apologetics 570 - Far Eastern Religions"

1) Taoism (there were two parts here)

Two practicing and "devout" Taoists are interviewed. One is apparently a leader at a local Taoist study center in Virginia, and other is from Seattle.

2) Oneness Pentecostal (I think this was tagged incorrectly.)

A local Oneness pastor was interviewed. This is the discussion of which a portion was recently discussed on the DL, with reference to the description of the Trinity that Dr. Caner provided.

3) Tibetan Buddhist

A Tibetan Buddhist is interviewed.

Conclusion

I checked the items in the list above, listening to the introduction and random portions from each. From what I could tell, in every case the format was roughly the same: the visitor was interviewed with a series of questions designed to learn more about the religion. Sometimes the questions are pointed questions. Sometimes there are some questions back to Dr. Caner. However, the interviews appear to be mostly designed to inform the students about the religious group whose representative was interviewed. There doesn't seem to be any argument, which would seem to be a necessary component of debate. If this is it - if this is really "all" his debates, as his intro to 3D suggests - then it doesn't seem that Dr. Caner has done many, if any, debates.

Perhaps there is something I've overlooked. If so, I invite my readers to draw my attention to it.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: An alert reader named Tim has pointed out that Dr. Caner may also have engaged in one or more e-mail debates. The only one I've seen is this one with Nadir Ahmed (link to official version at Ergun Caner's own website). It's worth noting the following exchange:

Dr. Caner's first email states:

If, however, you would like to DEBATE the issues of Christianity versus Islam, then I believe we might have an interesting opportunity. Here is what I propose:
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE: Take the money OFF the table - I do not do this for money. I am interested, however, in a debate via e-mail.

Nadir Ahmed's first email responds:

Therefore, just like our response to Craig Winn ... Ergun Caner, you have conducted probably one of the most intense media propaganda campaigns against Islam appearing on countless radio and television shows beamed into the homes of millions upon millions of people, but ... when knowledgeable Muslims calls your views into question, you restrict him to some email exchange? I'm sorry, but we will have to decline your offer. As I mentioned, neither the Muslims nor the Christians will settle for this, so it's really out of my hands. Rather we request a face to face public debate in front of a live audience. There is no substitute for this. Just like how you encourage our young Americans to be brave ... face the enemy head on in Iraq, you should also show the same courage, and face ExamineTheTruth.com in a fair, moderated debate in which we discuss the *truth* claims of Islam and Christianity in a respectful dignified manor ... and do it for them. The ball is in your court Caner.

Considering that you have spoken at thousands of churches or Christian organizations, then perhaps that would be a good venue for the debate? If not, then I have several MSAs and different colleges where I debated at and Mosques who would gladly sponsor the debate, just let me know. Also, in the spirit of fair debate, we will provide you with all our material and arguments before hand so you can be prepared.

(links removed ... ellipses in original)

Notice how Nadir Ahmed indicates that he does not consider the email exchange a "debate." That's my reason for not including it.

Tim mentioned that he thinks he has seen other email debates as well. I have not seen them, but I welcome my readers to point them out to me.

Unveiling "Unveiling Islam" - References to the Hadith

One of the points I've made in discussing the Caner situation with folks is that Caner's Muslim critics have focused most of their attention on his oral presentations, rather than on his books. The Caners' book, Unveiling Islam, has a lot of great material in it. However, a question has been raised about whether the book should be considered scholarly.

In reviewing the book, I found dozens of references to the Hadith. Many of the references are (as Dr. White recently pointed out) incomplete references:

• "hadith 9.57" (pp. 19 and 187)
• "hadith 5.266" (p. 31)
• "hadith 2.460" (p. 32)
• "Hadith ... (2.375)" (p. 32)
• "hadith 2.448" (p. 33)
• "hadith 7.619" (p. 33)
• "hadith 1.35" (p. 35)
• "Hadith ... (52.42)" (p. 35)
• "hadith 7.590" (p. 37)
• "hadith 3.826" (p. 42)
• "Hadith ... (8.419)" (p. 110)
• "hadith 6.60.336" (p. 114)
• "The Hadith illustrates ... (2.486) ... (2.498) ... (2.514)" (p. 126)
• "hadith 3.826" (p. 134)
• "hadith 2.541" (p. 134)
• "hadith 1.268" (p. 135)
• "hadith 7.62.77" (p. 139)
• "Hadith 7.30, 33. Hadith chapter seven also includes ... (7.133)" (p. 140)
• "Hadith 7.64" (p. 141)
• "hadith 8.76.481" (p. 144)
• "The Hadith expounds ... (3.57)" (p. 146)
• "hadith 3.46.724" (p. 186)
• "hadith 5.716" (p. 188)
• "hadith 4.52.79" (p. 188)
• "hadith 4.53.412" (p. 189)
• "hadith 4.52.317" (p. 189)
• "hadith 5.58.240; repeated in 5.59.602" (p. 190)
• "hadith 5.59.599" (p. 191)
• "hadith 8.73.1" (p. 192)
• "Hadith 5.42.85" (p. 192)
• "hadith 9.50" (p. 192)
• "hadith 4.52.127" (p. 193)
• "hadith 4.52.85" (p. 194)
• "hadith 5.58.240; see also 4.42. This verse is repeated in 5.59.602" (p. 195)
• "hadith 9.93.549" (p. 195)
• "hadith 9.93.555" (p. 195)
• "Hadith volume 9, book 93" (p. 195)
• "hadith 9.93.519" (p. 196)
• "hadith 4.73" (p. 196)

There were also a second category of odd references:

• "Bukhari, 784" (p. 100)
• "Bukhari, 1598" (p. 100)
• "Muslim, 3785" (p. 100)
• "Bukhari, 4813" (p. 100)
• "Sahih Muslim hadith 5339" (p. 114)
• "Sahih Muslim hadith 2214" (p. 115)
• "Sahih Muslim hadith 6595" (p. 115)

Not every reference appeared to be incomplete. The following references were provided in a more complete form:

• "Hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari, explains [quotation] (hadith 1.1.3)" (p. 41)
• "Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith, 6.477" (p. 92)
• "Hadith ... (7.590) ... (7.619) ... (4.537) ... (5.275) ... (7.636) ... (7.747)" (p. 98) (see note below about chapter 5)
• "Sunan Abu Daawuud hadith 23.3444" (p. 112)
• "Sunan Abu Daawuud hadith 41.4937" (p. 112)
• "Sahih Al-Bukhari hadith 2.21.221" (p. 116)
• "Sahih Muslim hadith 36.6631" (p. 116)
• "Book 52 of Bukhari's Hadith ... In the volume ... (4.52.42)" (p. 186)
• "Bukhari Hadith 9.57-58" (p. 249)

I had expected to find somewhere in the book a comment that "references to the hadith are references to [Sahih al-Bukhari ... or one of the others] except where indicated otherwise." However, while I found a comment that most of the translations from the Koran are from the translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall (p. 37), I did not find any such indication for the hadith.

With respect to chapter 5, however, the following indication was provided: "All the citations in this chapter come from Bukhari's version of the Hadith." (p. 96, chapter 5 extends from pp. 93-102) The chapter then goes on to state: "The translation of Sahih Muslim is a much larger collection." (p. 96) Both of these statements are imprecise. As noted elsewhere in the chapter (pp. 95-96) and even in the second statement, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are collections, not "versions" or "translations." There are versions of individual statements within those collections, however, one usually speaks of the collections as collections. The term "versions" might be defensible on some ground, but the term "translations" does not seem to be defensible.

Speaking of "translations," Unveiling Islam refers to "the official English translation of the Holy Qur'an" at page 217, whereas at page 83, the book indicates "Muslims regard any translation of the Qur'an with suspicion, for the true words are impossible to fully understand except in their Arabic original." (p. 83) The latter sentence is largely true, from what I understand of Islam. The former sentence is strange. There is not just one official English translation of the Koran. At another place already referenced above, Unveiling Islam provides yet another angle: "Most quotations from the Qur'an used in this volume are from the well-accepted English interpretation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall. While the text cites the Qur'an text, it is to be understood that only the Arabic text is accepted as the actual Qur'an. All other translations are regarded as interpretations of the Scripture given to Muhammad." (p. 37) This final sentence is probably just bad English, with the authors intending to say "all translations" rather than "all other translations." However, as it stands, it unfortunately conveys to the reader the same erroneous idea as "the official English translation" does.

These issues may suggest that the familiarity of the authors of Unveiling Islam was relatively low compared to scholars of Islam, while their familiarity is clearly higher than that of the typical American Evangelical. While there are many accurate statements in the book, calling Sahih Muslim a "translation" seems to reflect a basic lack of understanding of the Hadith, and saying that there is an "official translation" of the Koran is also questionable (particularly when it appears to contradict other statements in the book).

As I mentioned at the start of this article, there is a lot of good and useful information in Unveiling Islam. I also suspect that if there were many serious mistakes in the book, the Caners' Muslim critics would have brought those to light (or perhaps they have, and I am simply unaware of it). On the other hand, their popular book should be handled with caution, and it should not be assumed that because they have written this book on Islam, that makes them "experts," even though it does seem clear that we should expect them to know more about Islam than the typical "man on the street" in America.

-TurretinFan

Inquiry Committee for Ergun Caner

It appears that Liberty University is forming an inquiry committee to "look into these matters" with respect to Dr. Ergun Caner (link to source). An answer is expected by June 30. Let's pray that God will grant both Dr. Caner and the committee wisdom and grace in dealing with this matter.

Jamal Jivanjee's Memory

According to Jamal Jivanjee's current biography (as of May 10, 2010):

Growing up in the Columbus Ohio area, Jamal Jivanjee was raised by a devout Shiite Muslim father ... and a very conservative Catholic mother ... . Jamal's quest for the truth led him out of Islam and Catholicism, and down some perilous roads, but eventually to Christ as a young adult. Jamal went on to become a graduate of Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA where he studied Pastoral ministry.

(source)

Keep in mind that Dr. Ergun Caner claims to have been raised by a devout Sunni Muslim father. Also, keep in mind that Mr. Jivanjee claims regarding the Caner family:

My father was a devout Muslim and we attended functions at the same mosque/ masjid that Ergun, Emir, & his family attended on east Broad street in Columbus, Ohio. Ergun & Emir’s father, Mr. Acar Caner, was a very prominent leader within the Islamic community that we associated with and was very involved with this mosque. As a result, I remember as a young child going to their home with my family to have dinner with their family.

It would be interesting to know what approximate year Mr. Jivanjee remembers visiting the Acar house. From what I could find on the Internet, Mr. Jivanjee is about 35 years old, meaning he was born about 1975. As such, in November of 1982 (the date Caner indicates as his conversion), Mr. Jivanjee would have been about 7 years old.

I don't doubt that everything that Mr. Jivanjee said is true. The fact that his father was Shiite and Acar Caner was Sunni is not as significant as one might think, given that in the late 70's and early 80's there were not huge numbers of Muslims in central Ohio.

Notice that Mr. Jivanjee doesn't say he or his family regularly attended or worshiped at the Broad St. Islamic Foundation, but just that they "attended functions" there (although, again, perhaps there as no Shiite mosque in the area at the time). Notice as well that Mr. Jivanjee does not claim to have personally known Ergun and Emir, but just to have dined once with Mr. Acar Caner and "his family" (which may well have referred to Mr. Caner's second wife and daughters).

Some of Dr. Caner's fans seem to think that Mr. Jivanjee's comments above prove that Dr. Caner was not just from a Muslim family but a devout Muslim, and that this evidence exonerates Dr. Caner from all the accusations of dishonesty that have been swirling around him. The problems are (1) that's not what Mr. Jivanjee says and (2) it doesn't appear that Mr. Jivanjee, being only about 7 years old and in a different branch of Islam at the time Dr. Caner apparently converted, would have been in a position to know whether Dr. Caner was a devout Muslim.

I trust that Jamal Jivanjee will continue to speak the truth about his knowledge, and particularly the limits of his knowledge. While it would be great to be able to vindicate Dr. Caner's claim to have been a "devout Muslim" (and he may have been a devout Muslim, I am not claiming otherwise), Mr. Jivanjee's testimony is probably not going to be enough (as it stands) to silence the critics.

- TurretinFan

Wishful Defense of Ergun Caner

Ergun Caner's worst enemies are folks who have been trying to defend him by attacking his critics and ignoring the serious issues. The following is an example:

The original charge was that he was NOT a Muslim. Then when the records proved that he was, the charge changed to a Devout Muslim. Once something is proven the charges have had a way of progressively growing and adjusting. Truth has never been the issue. An agenda is the issue.

(as stated by him in a comment on this post) Peter Lumpkins is running with the same basic idea on his blog. Both Mr. Lumpkins and the author of the comment above are either unaware of the issues, or are trying to hide the truth.

The charges from the vast majority of Christian critics has never been that Dr. Ergun Caner was not a Muslim. There is indeed a question about how devout he was (based on a number of embarrassing errors he has made when it comes to discussing various aspects of Islam in his oral presentations), but that's not the main issue. The main issue has been Ergun Caner's various autobiographical embellishments, such as claiming he was born in Istanbul, Turkey (link to clip where he claims that) or that he grew up in Turkey (as reported here), and that he has debated Abdul Saleeb (a Christian pseudonym) and Shabir Ally, although the evidence that has been located places Dr. Ergun Caner in Sweden from birth to about age 3, and then in Ohio from then until his graduation from high school, and that Dr. Caner has never debated (except by email) any Muslim scholars (of course, this last item is a matter of there being an absence of evidence, but recourse to the usual sources has produced no results).

There may have been a few Christians who looked at the pattern of inconsistencies and asked themselves whether anything Dr. Caner said was true. However, the first issue raised by Dr. White was whether Dr. Caner had really done the debates he was claiming to have done. In a so-called Apology (link to discussion), Ergun Caner vaguely acknowledged the fact that he did not do the debates he had claimed while insisting that he had never intentionally misled anyone. Then, without warning, even that vague statement was removed from Dr. Caner's website.

Now, while certain SBC insiders try to hide their heads in the sand and imagine that the issues are going to disappear, the story of Caner's embellishments is getting picked up in an increasing number of news outlets:

Christian Right's Favorite Muslim Convert Exposed as Jihadi Fraud

Muslims, Christians

Liberty directors support seminary president amid charges of misrepresentation

Bloggers Target Seminary President (Subtitle: Liberty's Ergun Caner accused of false statements in his testimony about converting from Islam.)

Is Religious Right’s Star Ex-Muslim a Serial Liar?

Some of us in the "Religious Right" (though this blog doesn't get political, it certainly is religious) can point out that we called Dr. Caner to repentance before these articles started being published. Folks who have been sticking their heads in the sand and thinking that because they have established that Caner was from a Muslim father they have addressed the problem are in for a wake up call as the issues surrounding Dr. Caner's record of describing himself comes under increasingly more detailed scrutiny.

Let's hope that those who consider Dr. Ergun Caner their friend will act like friends to him. If faint praise is the worst sort of insult, these faux defenses that say, in effect, "There, we've proved Dr. Caner was a Muslim, there's nothing further to address," are the worst sort of criticism - not only because they insult the intelligence of the readers, but because they encourage Dr. Caner to continue on his present course.

-TurretinFan

The Heart-Knowing God

One of the unique characteristics of the LORD God is his ability to know the heart of man. Others may have some remarkable insights into human psychology. Nevertheless, God alone knows the heart. We see this taught in the Old Testament:

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

1 Chronicles 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

Proverbs 24:12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

Jesus is shown to be God in this way, for Jesus knew the thoughts and heart of men.

Luke 6:8 But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Mark 8:16-18
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

One of the most poignant testimonies to Jesus' knowledge of the heart is seen in Jesus' admonishing to Simon Peter (notice that Jesus is still calling him "Simon, son of Jonas" after Matthew 16 ... the name Peter is a surname, not a change of name):

John 21:15-17

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?"
He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee."
He saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." He saith to him again the second time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?"
He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee."
He saith unto him, "Feed my sheep. " He saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?"
Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, "Lovest thou me?" And he said unto him, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee."
Jesus saith unto him, "Feed my sheep."

Notice that Peter is attributing omniscience to Jesus, but particularly Peter is attributing to Jesus a knowledge of Peter's own heart. We see the same thing in the Apostles' prayer to Jesus about replacing Judas.

Acts 1:24-26
And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

In case there is any question that the "Lord" here is Jesus, consider the preceding verses:

Acts 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

And for the connection between Jesus being Lord and Jesus being the Lord God, consider the basis upon which the apostles prayed over the casting of lots.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Finally, perhaps we should conclude with a quotation from Jeremiah that brings us back to the point of the post:

Jeremiah 17:9-10
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

This too connects us back to Jesus:

Revelation 22:11-16
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

There's an additional link back to the prophets here:

Isaiah 62:11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

Perhaps you'll say that the salvation who comes is Jesus, but this verse doesn't specifically say that the salvation is God. That argument has been anticipated:

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

Even so, let us praise our God with the words of Psalmist:

The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. (Psalm 118:14)

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: An alert reader (Manu) brought to my attention a further evidence consistent with this theme:

Revelation 2:18 & 23
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; ... And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

That also relates back to Jeremiah 17:9-10.

Jamal Jivanjee's Testimony Regarding Ergun Caner

Jamal Jivanjee is, like Ergun Caner, a real ex-Muslim. He has testified to the fact that he went to the same Muslim "mosque/ masjid" as the Caner family (link to testimony). Some of those supporting Ergun Caner have viewed this as complete vindication of Dr. Caner. There are a couple reasons why it is still incomplete.

a) Mr. Jivanjee has not identified what years (even approximately) it was that he witnessed the Caner family at the "mosque/ masjid." This is not significant to the question of whether the Caner family was Muslim, but it is significant to the question of how devout they were.

b) Mr. Jivanjee has not testified as to whether Ergun and/or Emir were devout when he knew the family. Indeed, his testimony suggests that he may not be able to say, since he may have known them only slightly (he remembers as a young child eating dinner with his family at the Caner house) and/or he may have been too young to remember that kind of information.

Those items are what we would like to see from Mr. Jivanjee. I had previously asked Mr. Jivanjee if he knew Caner when Caner was a Muslim (link to my question). Mr. Jivanjee has not responded to my request. I have also asked the author of the blog that has reported Mr. Jivanjee's comment to see if he can elicit any additional facts to help support the points above. The information above would help to provide evidence against the Muslim critics who have been alleging that Dr. Caner was never a real Muslim.

However, it should be noted that the Christian critics of Dr. Caner have not been arguing that Dr. Caner was never a Muslim. Instead, the Christian criticism has focused on a variety of autobiographical embellishments, from claiming to debate people he never debated, to claiming to be born in places he wasn't born, and to have lived in places he hasn't lived. None of those issues are addressed at all by Mr. Jivanjee's comments. Thus, I think Mr. Guthrie is too optimistic when he writes: "Liars? No"

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner's So-called Apology

People have asked me where they can find the so-called Apology that Ergun Caner offered on his website. It seems to have been removed from his website, though, for the moment, it can be found via Google (link to apology). I have no idea why Dr. Caner removed it from his site. He has not publicly explained that, as far as I know.

The so-called Apology does not admit to lying. Instead it makes comments such as, "Indeed, the Muslims have used clips that attempt to show that through two decades of ministry and hundreds of sermons there exist discrepancies in my testimony." And again, "The truth is, I would be surprised if no discrepancies were discovered, given the hundreds of messages I have given during all that time!" And further: "I have never intentionally misled anyone. I am sure I have made many mistakes in the pulpit in the past 20-plus years, and I am sure I will make some in the future. For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better." And finally: "Criticism is many times helpful. In this particular instance, it has enabled me to correct the careless mistakes I addressed above. "

Additionally :

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.

Dr. Caner never admits to intentionally misleading anyone in this apology, though he admits that he did not debate some Muslim scholar that he claimed he debated (we think he is referring to Shabir Ally, but it is hard to be sure). This so-called Apology mostly claims that he simply unintentionally mixed things up. In my opinion it is hard to believe that Dr. Caner mistakenly believed that he lived in Turkey, watched American TV there, and particularly gained misconceptions about America by watching the Dukes of Hazzard (for the reasons explained here). Sadly, many more such examples could be provided. In any event, Caner has withdrawn this so-called Apology from the web. I have provided the information and link according to the request that was made, but I don't encourage people to dwell on an Apology, so-called, that has been withdrawn (for whatever private reasons it may have been withdrawn).

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner Parody

There is a "Dr. Ergun Caner" parody page on Youtube. It pokes some fun at the real Dr. Ergun Caner. Obviously, what Dr. Caner is doing in embellishing his autobiography is not funny. Nevertheless, this parody is at least drawing attention to the apparent attempted cover-up by Liberty University and Dr. Ergun Caner. Please keep in mind that the page is parody, not something serious. Also, for the Liberty University folks, before you try to take down this site, remember that parody is protected speech.

The Water-Calming God

In a previous post (link to previous post), we discussed the fact that Jesus' miracle of walking on the water is one proof of his divinity. Another proof of Jesus' divinity is Jesus' ability to control the weather and especially the storms at sea.

Matthew 8:23-27
And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

Luke 8:22-25
Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with his disciples: and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake. And they launched forth. But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy. And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

Notice that here the disciples do not seem to understand fully that Jesus is God. They do recognize, however, that Jesus is no ordinary man. Commanding the seas and the waters is something uniquely divine.

Proverbs 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

Perhaps someone will object that control of the weather was also done by Elijah. You will recall that Elijah prayed and it did not rain and Elijah prayed again and it rained.

James 5:17-18
Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

As it was reported in the first book of Kings:

1 Kings 17:1 And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.

1 Kings 18:41-46
And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up, eat and drink; for there is a sound of abundance of rain. So Ahab went up to eat and to drink. And Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees, and said to his servant, Go up now, look toward the sea. And he went up, and looked, and said, There is nothing. And he said, Go again seven times. And it came to pass at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man's hand. And he said, Go up, say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot, and get thee down, that the rain stop thee not. And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel. And the hand of the LORD was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel.

But recall that while the rain came in answer to Elijah's prayer, it was not because of any power in Elijah. Elijah did not command the rain, but God did. In the former case, Elijah simply brought the Word of the Lord. In the latter case, as God had revealed beforehand, God already planned to bring the rain:

1 Kings 18:1 And it came to pass after many days, that the word of the LORD came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, shew thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.

As an aside, we should note that these facts also reveal that God's gift of rain was not the result of merit on Elijah's part, contrary to the cavils of the papists. Indeed, this principle of rain being withheld as a punishment and then restored in response to repentance was previously announced in the prophetic prayer of Solomon. Notice that here rain is offered to sinners who repent and confess their sin to God, as a sign of God's forgiveness.

1 Kings 8:35-36
When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them: then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance.

2 Chronicles 6:26-27
When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; yet if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou dost afflict them; then hear thou from heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, when thou hast taught them the good way, wherein they should walk; and send rain upon thy land, which thou hast given unto thy people for an inheritance.

In view of the above, we can see the difference between God who commands the stormy waters to be calm, as opposed to men who can merely pray to God that it be so. WE have seen this both from Proverbs and from the response of the disciples, and we have responded to a possible objection regarding Elijah. Nevertheless, it is not only Proverbs and the reaction of the disciples that we may rely on, nor even the careful distinction from Elijah. We have the word of the Psalmist who teaches us that this is the Lord's doing:

Psalm 107:23-25
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.

And you will recall that the Lord exercised this power in the case of Jonah:

Jonah 1:4 But the LORD sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.

And when the men who were transporting Jonah saw that this was from the LORD they did as Jonah the prophet said (and who would be such a fool as to imagine that Jonah himself stirred up this storm?) and threw Jonah into the waves, God calmed the waters:

Jonah 1:14-15
Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said, We beseech thee, O LORD, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O LORD, hast done as it pleased thee. So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

From this we see another proof of Jesus divinity. Jesus is not only the water-walking God, but also the water-calming God.

Praise be to him in whose hand are the deep places of the earth and the strength of hills is his!

- TurretinFan

The Water-Walking God

Reading through a commentary on John by Theophylact (circa A.D. 1055-1107) I came across a proof of Jesus' divinity that had escaped my attention many times (pp. 101-02 of the English translation of his "Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to John). Surely all the readers of this blog are already familiar with the event:

John 6:19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

(Matthew 14:25-26 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.)

This extremely marvelous miracle is so familiar, many of us may even have come to treat it almost as a matter of course. The expression "he walks on water" is idiomatic in English for a person being really wonderful. Nevertheless, it is truly an extraordinary event.

Theophylact reminds the reader that this miracle shows that Jesus is greater than Moses. Moses parted the Red Sea with his staff, so that he and the people could walk through it on dry ground. But Jesus doesn't have to divide the sea, he can just walk across it.

Elijah and Elisha also parted the Jordan with Elijah's mantle (2 King 2:8 And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground. 2Ki 2:13-14 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; and he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.)

Joshua and the Levites bearing the ark also parted the Jordan.

Joshua 3:14-17
And it came to pass, when the people removed from their tents, to pass over Jordan, and the priests bearing the ark of the covenant before the people; and as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,) that the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho. And the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD stood firm on dry ground in the midst of Jordan, and all the Israelites passed over on dry ground, until all the people were passed clean over Jordan.

That shows that that Jesus is greater than Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha, but it doesn't quite show that Jesus is divine. Why then conclude that Jesus is divine from this miracle? The reason is that we are given prophecy in Job. Job describes God this way:

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

Jesus' walking on the water was a testimony to His divinity. God alone can do this. No ordinary man, not even Moses could do that. Simon Peter tried and could not:

Matthew 14:28-30
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

We're not told that the disciples remembered the prophecy from Job, but we are told that the disciples worshiped Jesus in response:

Matthew 14:32-33
And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Not only did the wind cease, but there was a further miracle:

John 6:19-21
So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid. But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid. Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.

Notice that although they had gone about three and a half miles, once Jesus came into the ship the ship immediately arrived at the land where they were going. This too is a remarkable miracle. Who can move a ship instantly to its destination? Only God has this sort of power.

What mere prophet ever did a miracle like that? We can compare walking on water with dividing the water and walking through on dry ground, but to what will we compare this transportation of the ship? Jonah fled from the face of God in a boat, but on his account God kept the boat in the midst of the tempest despite the efforts of the sailors (Jonah 1:13 Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them.).

The Apostle himself was only able to his fellow travelers that none of the people on the ship would die, although the ship they were traveling on would be destroyed (Acts 27:22 And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship.)

Jesus was greater than the greatest apostles and prophets, for he could walk on water and could instantly transport a ship to its destination. No mere man has these abilities, but only God. God alone spreads out the heavens, and treads upon the waves of the sea.

Praise be to the Great God and our Lord Jesus Christ!

-TurretinFan

Further Replies to Stellman

There are two parts to this post. The first is a response to Stellman's response to my previous post (link to previous post)(link to response: part 1 - part 2). The second part is a response to comments he had made earlier in the same comment thread.

I. Dividing Word from Scriptures

Jason J. Stellman wrote: “So to TurretinFan’s statement that “To divide the Word from the Scriptures, as Stellman is doing, is dangerous ground (although it is one of the approaches that the Romanists use),” I would simply answer that I am doing nothing other than what Horton is doing in the citation above.”

Paige Britton had written: “Whoa, I don’t think you need to pin some insidious Romanism on Jason’s thought, there.”

On this point, I want to clarify that I’m not pinning Romanism on Jason’s thought. I do think his argument is dangerously imprecise, but I don’t think he’s a Romanist. My comments (at great length) were aimed at showing him the danger, as well as helping to steer him clear of that danger.

I appreciate the quotation from Michael Horton. The quotation states: “Of course, God’s Word was at first delivered by oral tradition and was only later committed to writing. None of the Reformation theologians held that the Bible as we now have it preceded the church! However, the Reformers argued that the Word of God preceded both Scripture and the church.”

I don’t have the full context for this quotation, which makes it hard to respond to it. With that enormous and important caveat, I’d like to venture a few responses.

1) If Horton is simply referring to the fact that God’s word came orally from Adam to Moses, he’s right. No one can doubt that.

2) If Horton means that God’s word sometimes came orally from Moses until Malachi and again from John the Baptist to John the Beloved Disciple, he’s right. No one can reasonably deny that.

3) If Horton is simply trying to repeat what the WCF 1:1 says:

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

… then of course, Horton is right, and his point can’t reasonably be denied. (However, note that the confession itself teaches that the Church is founded (“establishment”) on the Scriptures.)

4) However, Horton’s comments could be taken another way. If Horton’s comments were taken as suggesting that the Scriptures themselves are simply a transcription/condensation of prior oral tradition (and without context, I have no reason to think that Horton meant his words that way), then they would seem to be wrong.

In that regard, Horton’s characterizations would be imprecise. For example, Paul’s epistles were not examples of prior oral tradition being committed to writing. Indeed, it is rare in Scripture that we are told that something is an oral tradition being committed to writing.

Finally, I note that the rationale/explanation provided in Stellman’s original comment, namely “but it was not founded upon ‘the Scriptures,’ for the obvious reason that decades elapsed during which the church was growing, and no NT books had even been written, let alone collected and recognized as canonical,” is still problematic, but since he’s not continuing that (and has already acknowledged that there was some imprecision there), I figure the point has been sufficiently made for everyone concerned. Indeed, the point that the Scriptures were given for the establishment and comfort of the church is simply Scripturally and Confessionally the undeniable fact. And Paige Britton has already noted that: “[Stellman]’s steady-on re. the mother-daughter thing (Church as mother of Scriptures v. Scripture as mother of Church).” So, I suppose the clarification is at an end, unless I’ve misunderstood Stellman’s responses above.

However, there is another issue I’d like to address.

II. The Authority of Councils

I wonder what Stellman means when he writes:

Were ministers in the post-Acts 15 church free to disregard the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council? Or, are we free today to disregard the Nicene formulation of the Trinity or the Chalcedonian definition of the hypostatic union?

You may answer (1) no and no; (2) yes and yes; (3) no and yes; or for the sake of argument, (4) yes and no.

My instinct is to opt for option #1. Now, if the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were so authoritative that they actually define orthodoxy, my question is, “Are the Westminster Assembly’s conclusions that authoritative, and if not, why not?”

And is there a church or branch of the church today that can still make Nicaea-like pronouncements? If so, where is it? If not, where did it go?

(source)

The specific question mark in my mind is his expression: “free to disregard” which isn’t really a defined theological term.

There are two possible senses to his comment. I’ll give the sense I hope he meant first. The sense I hope he meant is the sense of WCF 31:3:

III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.

In this sense, Christians are not free to utterly disregard the decisions of councils. If that’s all that Stellman meant (and to be clear, I am charitably presuming that’s what he meant), then I agree with him.

However, there is a possibility that what he said could be understood to mean that Nicaea and Chalcedon are our regula fidei – our rule of faith. That is to say, their definitions are not something that we can even consider questioning on the basis of Scripture.

If Stellman’s expression were to be understood in that light, then it would be both wrong and contrary to our (his and my) confession, namely WCF 31:4:

IV. All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.

Notice that the Confession (which in Section 2, had specifically indicated the Scriptures as the rule of faith) explicitly indicates that councils are nor our rule of faith/practice (even councils that were right).

In this regard, I am concerned that Stellman's view of the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura may sound closer to Keith Mathison's presentation of it (in The Shape of Sola Scriptura) than the presentation we find in the Westminster Confession of Faith. While it may sound that way, please note that I'm not accusing Stellman of denying the WCF in favor of a more Mathisonian approach.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner in San Diego

Ergun Caner was apparently in San Diego, May 1-2, 2010.  The following are some thoughts/reflections/comments on what he said at that time.

Part I

(07:17) As a boy, coming from Turkey, born in Stockholm, Sweden.

(07:55) Turkish background, Turkish father-mother, Turkish citizen, we come to America as Muslims.

(11:26) I'm the oldest of three sons, which means, in the Turkish culture, I'm the first one that's supposed to get married. So my father gives me the lecture on being married. And we come to America, now its my job to be the first one to marry an American. As a Turk and as a Muslim, you marry a girl and she becomes a Muslim, even if she never walks into the mosque.

(18:20) My assumptions were what I saw on television: Andy Griffith, Andy Griffith was American, and we came through New York. Mayberry and Brooklyn. Very little in common. And wrestling. I - my entire life - I know, it's odd - "President of a Seminary" - that's nothing, - being a president means nothing to me. When I looked at America, I saw it through the prism of whatever I saw on television. I thought Rick Flair was the mayor of America, I thought that - you a Rick Flair fan? - I thought Dusty Rhodes was the governor - I thought that was America. And that's my assumption, because that was my filter, and that was my grid. And everybody has a grid and everybody has a filter.

(39:55) They had, as I had, a glorious mullet that would cascade down my head. I had a foot-long Turkish mullet. Turkish hair is very kinky, and I would even have it permed so it bounced as one hair as I walked. I would blow-dry it upside down and I head a feather earring.

Part II

(11:46) We were raised the sons of a man who was so devout he did the call to prayer, a muezzin. Acar Mehmet Caner, my father. And we come to America - I've been sharing my testimony since I got saved, twenty-seven years ago. And yet, when YouTube became real popular in 2006, this - they - this Muslim guy out of London started getting video clips of me, and dissecting them. "He mispronounces this," I'm not Arabic. I'm Turkish. If you know the Middle East, a couple of you obviously do, cause ya'll've been there, there's Persian, there's Anatolian, and there's Arabic. And the Arabs are only 20% of the Muslims, world-wide. And everybody else speaks Arabic phonetically. It's like Catholics who memorize the Latin. You do it. You may not know what you're sayin', and you can do it reflexively. If you came from a Catholic background, and I just pop out a "peace to you," you just go "and peace be unto you." You do it in your sleep man, it came from your whole background.

(12:47) So the YouTube channel was Muslims. Hey, I've been dealing with that forever. And you learn to live with it. There's reasons you guys couldn't advertise, maybe the ways you've advertised in the past. There's things that I have to do, precautions I have to take. It's the way we live. Emir and I have to live this way, my younger brother.

(13:10) But about six months ago, about six - eight months ago, they got joined up. The Muslims got joined up with a Christian group to hate on me. Now that is painful, cause you don't see it coming. That's what happens in church fights.

(19:49) I went to my chancellor and I said, Chancellor, these guys have a website that's called "fakeexmuslims" something, says that my brothers and I were not Muslim. And it's by a Muslim who says, you know, for instance, "He speaks with a Turkish accent." well, really? really? Another one says, "I have absolute proof that his nickname is 'Butch.'" I tell everybody that. The people who call me Butch - you know - they're from my family - my wife's family. So I took it to the chancellor, and I said, "Chancellor, just because I'm accountable to you, I want you to see proof." He goes, "I don't need proof, you've been doin' this forever. You write books - do you really -" We write books under our own name. A lot of people in our world use a pseudonym to cover. I don't know if Shubat is a pseudonym, but Abdul Saleeb wrote a great book called, "Answering Islam." "Abdul Saleeb" means slave of the cross.

(20:45) We chose to write under our real names. So, we knew it was coming. We didn't that was [unintelligible]. So the chancellor said, "Look. Two guys become presidents of two colleges - two institutions, a college and a seminary - I don't think that you could pull that off."[end of quotation unclear] You know, they're looking for Mike Wernke moment. Yeah, they were. So much so, that the Christians hired somebody to go to Columbus Ohio where we lived and to the courthouse and this has been about three weeks ago and got my parents' divorce, separation, and appeal papers, and uploaded them to the web. My whole life is on the web. My gun permit is on the web, my - which I'm sort of happy about - but you can imagine how my wife feels when our whole world is on the line. You know, we've had to move three times in Lynchburg, and now we may have to move again.

(21:41) I didn't see that because, when it comes to flamers, when it comes to people you can't shut up, you have to shut 'em out. You can't shut 'em up, you have to shut 'em out. So I cut it out of my life. I blocked those people, I blocked [unintelligible] But it was my students that started coming to me. Goats. "Well, what are they saying about you?" I don't know. So I went back to my chancellor. My chancellor said, "Have you seen what they uploaded?" "Nope." "Ya need to see it." "Why" "Because they proved your point." What they uploaded was our father's saying he has land and property still in Turkey, that we have Turkish passports, that we are Turkish citizens, that in the divorce he wanted us to still be raised in the madrassa, to still follow the holy days, and it proves that we were Muslim.

(22:23) So, I go home to my wife, who is not happy, to say the least. And I said, "Looks like the flamers are piling on, but they may have proved our point, so they may go away." I am an idiot. Flamers never go away. They got eight hours a day to sit on the computer, because they don't have a life.

(32:10) As I entered into high school, I looked different, acted different, was different. I'm Columbus, Ohio, where my father builds the mosque on Broad St. It's still standing, the Islamic Foundation. Trust me, the haters put up the pictures. You can see where my dad - you'll see pictures of my father! There is Acar Mehmet Caner, standing next to the imam.

(32:35) We were in the mosque, like some of you were in church. Some of you were in church because you had a "drug" problem. Drug to Sunday School, drug to church, drug to Wednesday nights, etc. Right? Right? You went every time, Mom and Daddy made you come, right? That was us in the mosque. I knew nothing about you Christians, couldn't have cared less.

(32:53) One boy. One kid. Jerry Tackett was an apologist. Starting in our freshman year, going to our senior year, Tackett wouldn't leave me alone, wouldn't let me out of an excuse, and wouldn't shut his mouth. Every time he told me "Come" and every time I told him "No" he didn't mark me off a list, and go away. He just kept coming.

(37:44) Jesus strapped himself to a cross, so I wouldn't have to strap a bomb to myself.

(38:00) So, in that church, I got saved. In that church, that night. I'm free from scales. The youth group goes out to eat, as all youth groups did back then. Went to a waffle house, huddle hut, Dennie's - whatever. I took off my keffiyeh, told the waitress that I was saved, ordered some ham. I know - I don't lack ham now. Then I go home and tell my father that I'm a believer in Jesus. Now, it's the last day that I see my dad until his death. And as - oh - and as gracious as you are for thinking "oh, that's hard - oh, that's horrible," no. In the Islamic world, when they can't argue with your points, they argue with you, right. Ad Hominem instead of Ad Hoc. Here's the simple point they can't argue with. In Islam, conversion to anything makes you murtad. And in thirty-six countries, at least thirty-six countries - you are put to death for your conversion, including Turkey, where converts who owned a Christian bookstore were killed, just recently - a couple years. It happens. So my dad was doing an act of mercy.

(39:30) Next thing I know I'm in college, a year later, both of my brothers get saved. All three of us through the work of one apologist - one friend - one kid. One person who took the time and met me in the marketplace, and met them in the marketplace.

(41:47) In '91, my mom got saved. My mom. My mom. This little woman, adopted in Sweden, dark, heavy accent, I got to baptize my mom, which is amazing, and my mom now lives in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

(43:06) In 1995, my grandmother got saved. Our first book, Unveiling Islam, was dedicated to her. Maria Eleonora Lindberg. She's the one who adopted our mom. Our grandma moved to America, never learned a word of English, lived here twenty years - plus twenty years. And watched as her three grandsons get disowned, watched the family go through divorce, watched the horror that that entails. And she's living in Wood, North Carolina, where I met me wife, and my brother Emir was working with me, we were both in seminary at the same time, serving at the same church. And these ladies in the church blew up Scripture that she could read, large enough and led my grandma to Christ. Emir got to baptize our grandma.

Part 3

(41:01) The way that Mohamed described the life a jahid, the martyr, is that if he gets to the 100th degree of paradise, he's the only person in all of Islam who's assured of heaven.

(41:48) What does the female jahid - what does the female martyr get?

(51:40) Being from the Middle East - he's more olive skinned, darker than me - because again I'm Anatolian - I'm a Mongol [Mongrel?] - a more Asiatic Muslim.

Part 4

EC makes a good point against Legalism around 8 minutes in.

(16:34) I fight vehemently with hyper-Calvinists who think that Christ only died for them, and thus, he didn't die for the world, and they qualify that. But - so - hyper-Calvinists are still saved, they are still my brothers.

(23:16) The big evil thing is Catholicism and the icons. (fake voice)"Well they had icons, and the Greek and Roman churches split over the use of icons in worship" (normal voice)Yeah, I get it, but you're forgetting that this is the dark ages. And the reason the dark ages were called the dark ages was 'cuz after the fall of Rome, education fell on the backside, 'cuz everybody had to separate into city-states and nobody could be educated and they had to survive - and everybody stopped learning how to read. So - how do you tell the Bible - how do you preach the Bible to a people who can't read? Icons. That's how they did it. That's why, if you go into churches, and you see these monstrous stain glass windows. That's like the middle ages. They would tell the stories by showing the picture. In other words, Icons - they may be bad now, people kissing them and thinking they've the spirit of Gregory in it or whatever - but it started out as the Vacation Bible School method. It was the flannelgraph. It was holding up of an icon to say "this is the story of John."

[37:57] Thank you for listening to a towel-headed kid for two days, God bless you.