-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Norm Geisler on Caner
- Thread starter Paul33
- Start date
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-email-to-dr-norman-geisler-and-his.html
More information revealing Geisler's defense of Caner. Also, the comment section is pretty interesting until it devolves into a Calvinism/Arminian debate.
More information revealing Geisler's defense of Caner. Also, the comment section is pretty interesting until it devolves into a Calvinism/Arminian debate.
http://babyloniansquirrel.blogspot.com/2010/06/historiography-primary-source-material.html
Another interesting link dealing with historiography, Caner, and supporters such as Geisler. This link is especially insightful with regard to evidentialist apologetics, the nature of source materials/evidence, and sticking one's head in the sand.
Another interesting link dealing with historiography, Caner, and supporters such as Geisler. This link is especially insightful with regard to evidentialist apologetics, the nature of source materials/evidence, and sticking one's head in the sand.
In Defense of Ergun Caner
Dr. Geisler has posted a defense of Ergun Caner. While he does not address everything, nor what I consider to be the most troubling evidence, he does address most of the evidence. Whether or not Geisler has a leg to stand on is your choice.
http://www.normangeisler.net/indefenseofcaner.html
I will not post/reply any more on this issue. It is done.
Dr. Geisler has posted a defense of Ergun Caner. While he does not address everything, nor what I consider to be the most troubling evidence, he does address most of the evidence. Whether or not Geisler has a leg to stand on is your choice.
http://www.normangeisler.net/indefenseofcaner.html
I will not post/reply any more on this issue. It is done.
Those questions are very easy to re-answer (i have done so in previous posts).
But first you failed to answer my question. Is this a personal vendetta?
You also claimed that Caner can not be saved until he repents but suppose he was saved already and went down the wrong path in the area of his public testimony (obviously) Does you think he is now unsaved? You have ignored this once already.
My personal interest in this issue is the truth. Some want to know how this issue pertains to us. They claim that we should stay out of it. They want to know what we have to do with this issue. It is quite simple, we want the truth. We care about the name of Christ. We care about the body of Christ. And when one lies while presenting the gospel, that tarnishes everyone in the family. So what dog do I have in this fight? the truth!
Caner doesn't lose his salvation because he has sinned. But until he repents, he cannot be forgiven for the sins of the past nine years and be restored. My statement about one not being saved until one repents was a general statement, not specific to Caner.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Martin. A very interesting defense. Unfortunately, the hard statements have been left out. Such as:
I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September.
I was born in Turkey.
I came to America as a teenager believing Americans hated me.
I spoke broken English when I came to America having learned it from watching the Dukes of Hazard.
And on and on.
It is a nice attempt by Geisler but misses the mark by a mile.
The truth? The evidence for Caner's intentional falsehoods is overwhelming. He didn't just misspeak. He told false and conflicting stories.
Here is what I would like to ask Geisler. If God's grace is so good, and if repentance leads to forgiveness, why don't you just encourage Caner to repent of lying?
I have struggled all afternoon as to whether post in this thread once again. This too will be my last post on the issue; I do not have time to waste debating this matter. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine.
From the posts you have made, this post does not seem consistent. In reality you seem to out for blood and seem to be slighted because the situation was not handled as you may have handled it. The reality is that if you were not part of the decision making process, you do not have ALL of the facts and any summation would only be partial rather than complete.
Again, if you do not like Caner and the manner this situation was handled, then stop giving him recognition be belaboring this matter. If you do not like Liberty, Falwell, Towns, or Geisler then stop supporting them and move on. Stop fixating on this matter.
Again I am finished with this matter and have more important things to turn my attention to. Good day and God bless.
(And no Toppass, I have no personal connection to Caner, Liberty, Geisler or anyone else involved in this matter. I am simply trying to make the point that our time could be much better used by moving on.)
HUH????? i didn't ask if you did. In fact you said what I have been saying, but you were right to the point! I do not do well if I can not go the long way.:laugh:
I agree with all you have said.
Geisler is shooting himself in the foot and not really helping Caner. Your last paragraph is quite appropriate.
Not only has this response toward defending Caner shown how much lack of credibility that Geisler now has -- it is a sad testimony of how he tries mightily to minimize sin.
Geisler has apparently been in consultation with Caner recently. And that evidences the fact that the latter's "apology" was bogus.
Even though I think Liberty's latest statement and actions have been too weak, I believe that they would take strong exception to Geisler's defense of Caner.
It's a topsy-turvy world when the word 'exoneration' is turned on its head by Geisler,Lumpkins,Guthrie &Co. The world is watching and Christ's Name is being profaned by the Gentiles.
Amazing. Just amazing.
A man publicly lies in pulpits and classrooms, on Christian TV and radio and the bad guys are the ones who point out the lies.
Now we are being told that we just don't like LU, Caner etc.
Did any of you ever consider that we love the Church? Did you consider that we might just wish for Liberty U to grow and thrive?
I for one love the idea of a school with strong conservative theology playing division 1 NCAA athletics.
However, if there is no integrity, no standard of honesty from the leadership, LU is just another of the many Universities in the US that has a connection to religion but no real theological conviction.
No, I for one do not hate Caner or Liberty and in fact, I hope those wiser than I will continue to fight so that repentance will come and Liberty will not sink into irrelevance as a Christian institution.
A man publicly lies in pulpits and classrooms, on Christian TV and radio and the bad guys are the ones who point out the lies.
Now we are being told that we just don't like LU, Caner etc.
Did any of you ever consider that we love the Church? Did you consider that we might just wish for Liberty U to grow and thrive?
I for one love the idea of a school with strong conservative theology playing division 1 NCAA athletics.
However, if there is no integrity, no standard of honesty from the leadership, LU is just another of the many Universities in the US that has a connection to religion but no real theological conviction.
No, I for one do not hate Caner or Liberty and in fact, I hope those wiser than I will continue to fight so that repentance will come and Liberty will not sink into irrelevance as a Christian institution.
One thing to add, if you love Liberty U an Caner with a perspective of Christ's Kingdom you long for truth and repentance.
If you love Liberty and Caner with a worldly perspective then you long for this whole thing to be forgotten and for the enrollment numbers to continue to climb, lies or no lies.
So which is it? Forget about hating LU and Caner.
Do you love Caner and LU with worldliness or Godliness?
If you love Liberty and Caner with a worldly perspective then you long for this whole thing to be forgotten and for the enrollment numbers to continue to climb, lies or no lies.
So which is it? Forget about hating LU and Caner.
Do you love Caner and LU with worldliness or Godliness?
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2010/07/watchdogs-response-to-geisler-listen-to.html
Interesting link discussing Geisler's defense and an original sermon by Caner. Use your own discernment.
Interesting link discussing Geisler's defense and an original sermon by Caner. Use your own discernment.
http://www.fakeexmuslims.com/responsetonormangeisler.htm
Geisler attacks an "extreme" Muslim for causing all of this disruptions in Caner's life. Here is the "extreme" Muslim's response to Geisler's defense of Caner.
Geisler attacks an "extreme" Muslim for causing all of this disruptions in Caner's life. Here is the "extreme" Muslim's response to Geisler's defense of Caner.
http://www.fakeexmuslims.com/viewsonergunsdemotion.htm
I found the above web site to be helpful in understanding how Geisler can make the statements he is making. Geisler claims that LU exonerated Caner. The official statement from LU refers to "factual statements that were self-contradictory." It then refers to these "factual statements that were self-contradictory" as "discrepancies" and "misstatements." Therefore, they were not lies. Since they were not lies, Caner was exonerated by LU and allowed to remain as a professor. So Geisler may be interpreting LU's statement correctly.
The above web site does an excellent job of evaluating LU's official statement. If correct, Geisler's defense of Caner is also incorrect, though it might be in agreement with LU.
Confusing? That is what you get when you don't call intentional misrepresentations what they really are - "lies!" Please read the web site above.
I found the above web site to be helpful in understanding how Geisler can make the statements he is making. Geisler claims that LU exonerated Caner. The official statement from LU refers to "factual statements that were self-contradictory." It then refers to these "factual statements that were self-contradictory" as "discrepancies" and "misstatements." Therefore, they were not lies. Since they were not lies, Caner was exonerated by LU and allowed to remain as a professor. So Geisler may be interpreting LU's statement correctly.
The above web site does an excellent job of evaluating LU's official statement. If correct, Geisler's defense of Caner is also incorrect, though it might be in agreement with LU.
Confusing? That is what you get when you don't call intentional misrepresentations what they really are - "lies!" Please read the web site above.
AntennaFarmer
Member
Is there any hard evidence that doesn't come from fakeexmuslims.com?
A.F.
A.F.
I do not think anyone loves LU and Caner for the worldly perspective. You are really close to nailing what is really happening on this board.
I do not know of anyone who supports Caner and his lies about his testimony. But there are those who spew hatred and venom and call it concern for Christian testimony when in fact they dislike Caner because he has given them reason by his own hand but most of all he does not follow a false belief that states God only chose a few for salvation and salvation was never available to all people. Instead he believes the scripture that states God desires all men to repent and that He gave his one and only Son so that the world might be saved. But, alas, Caner has lied many times and in many different areas about his testimony, he has only hurt himself and his testimony, though others think he has hurt Christianity itself. They do not really understand how sovereign God is and He is in control of where His will is going. There is nothing any man can do to make or break God.
Our real concern should be asking God for guidance in how we can help a fallen Brother. In fact, any fallen Brother should be held up a prayed for, even if he has not repented we still should pray for him and not at him.
Tons and tons. Like the sermon tapes from Jacksonville and Prestonwood. Or the video sermons from last years conference in Gatlinburg, TN.
All of the evidence comes directly from Caner (video/audio/text).
AntennaFarmer
Member
Paul33, I can't seem to find any verifiable sources on the web due to the clutter from all of the blog activity. Can you suggest a url for a source that can be traced.
The fakeexmuslims.com stuff is highly edited to say the least.
A.F.
The fakeexmuslims.com stuff is highly edited to say the least.
A.F.