Thursday, April 1, 2010

The Steely Backbone of the School of Jerry Falwell

I have a confession to make.

In my late preteen years, when forced to tag along on my mother's grocery shopping trips, I (an avid reader) used to kill time at the magazine rack. Here's the confession part: On those occasions I used to read Mad Magazine.

In 1982 I distinctly recall picking up an episode of Mad Magazine that contained a satirical "interview" with Jerry Falwell. The interview was not as bad as Hustler's infamous counterpart that portrayed Falwell as confessing to furtive erotic fixations upon his mother. It was nevertheless trash...absolute trash, and I knew as much even as a twelve-year-old. I confess that I laughed anyway, and I continued to read the magazine.

I'm thankful that God has granted me the gift of maturing spiritually somewhat (although not nearly as much as I would like) in the intervening years since I was twelve. No longer am I at all inclined to fill my mind with such garbage. I find it repugnant.

I think I would have found it repugnant in 1982 if somehow, at that tender age, I had possessed the slightest inkling of how difficult it must have been to withstand the continual assault directed toward Jerry Falwell by those who made themselves his foes. Everything that could be attacked about the man was attacked. People questioned his motives, lampooned his convictions, and dedicated their lives to his destruction.

Not that it all was entirely the fault of his accusers. We all have feet of clay, don't we? I can recall several times when Falwell wound up retracting, at least partially, something that he had said. He made several public apologies. He apologized when he called South African Bishop Desmond Tutu a "phony" (see here). He apologized for his remarks immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks (see here). Down through the years he issued many clarifications and many apologies. None of these trivialities blunted the force of his overall message, nor did his supporters, his organization, or his family ever allow these distractions to draw their attention away from the things that mattered in his ministry.

Considering all of this, I find it comical to observe bloggers thinking that, by turning up a little blogging heat upon Dr. Ergun Caner, they are going to be able to unseat him from his position at the helm of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I'm not going to name the bloggers and I'm not going to link to their posts, because I have no desire to be responsible for driving any traffic in that direction. But it appears to me that, just because Ergun has apologized and clarified a thing or two and because they are so ravenously going after him, they think that school of Jerry Falwell is going to cower under their attacks and boot Ergun out the door. The school that Jerry built? The people who weathered the onslaught of vicious attacks from the entire leftish establishment of media and government for more than 30 years? These people are going to bow to the pressure of bloggers in bathrobes? I'm just not seeing it. They may get a few hits every day, but these bloggers have neither the writing skills that Alfred E Newman had nor the audience that Tinky-Winky had.

So, like a seasoned palm tree in the Florida keys, the school that Jerry built will sway with the howling winds that blow from people who are never going to be a friend to Liberty under any circumstances, and in the end the school's steely backbone will hold intact as it always has, and the truth will continue to sound forth from Lynchburg.


bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: ... I'm not going to name the bloggers and I'm not going to link to their posts ... they are so ravenously going after [Caner] .... The school that Jerry built ... [is] going to bow to the pressure of bloggers in bathrobes?

bapticus hereticus: As a ‘trust me’ post, this is acceptable; but it does not, however, present a case that has supporting evidence for your conclusions.

Caner acceptable. Bloggers unacceptable.


Because I said so.

Bart Barber said...

BH: I'm sure that my personal opinion of the fracas is evident in my posting, but the main point of this little bit of prose is to assert that, regardless of which side you think is right or wrong, do you really think that Liberty is really going to make personnel decisions at the behest of these particular bloggers?

I also wonder whether any of the bloggers who are not in support of Dr. Caner are people who were generally in support of Dr. Falwell? I would guess not. If I am correct in my analysis there, then what we really have is people who are generally unfriendly toward Liberty to begin with who are now also unfriendly toward Liberty's seminary dean. Not surprising.

volfan007 said...


It's amazing and sad that some people want to attack...visciously attack a Brother in Christ like some people are doing. It never ceases to amaze me how mean and low down some people will go to annihilate someone that they have personal issues with. It's just plain sad.

What's even worse is that these people actually think that they're doing service to God with their obsession. It's Capt. Ahab after his white whale all over again.

I pray that God will give Dr. Ergun Caner grace and strength to withstand these mean spirited attacks. And, I pray that Liberty University will give these bloggers with an agenda the same attention that we'd all give to an anonymous letter written by some upset, mad person, who's ranting and raving like a howling dog.


Bart Barber said...

David, I just don't think there's much doubt about what Liberty will do. I'm just writing to point out the foolishness of anyone considering that Liberty, after all of these years of faithful steadfastness, would do an about-face and kowtow at this time to such people.

In the Texas vernacular, this ain't Liberty's first rodeo.

Anonymous said...

I have followed this a bit, but not closely.

If Dr. Caner has said things that are not true or are an embellishment of his experience and background, he should apologize and set the record straight. I see that he has done that, but, again, I am not certain of all the charges and what has been said or done so far. I am just for the prinicple of getting it right.

Each of our backgrounds and stories of our conversions are special. They do not need to be embellished.

As for ousting him from Liberty, that is another matter and would depend on a lot of things. Of course, untruth about one's background could be one of those things, depending on the nature and extent of those untruths.

As for bloggers and those who comment on blogs (I include myself), so the world goes.

We can't stop people from talking. The good aspect of blogs is that it allows people to talk. The bad aspects are obvious and don't need to be recited here.

Onward and upward.


Bart Barber said...

It would be both ironic and hypocritical if I were saying that people shouldn't blog. That's not what I'm saying. Rather, I'm opining that there's no way on earth that Liberty actually acts upon critical blogging from people who would be blogging against Jerry Falwell, were he alive and active today. Liberty has faced far more formidable opponents in the past, and without caving. There, in a nutshell, is the point of this post.

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: ... regardless of which side you think is right or wrong, do you really think that Liberty is really going to make personnel decisions at the behest of these particular bloggers?

bapticus hereticus: Given your post, the point appears a bit more complex: The steely-backboned [read: esteemed] LBU will not and should not allow bloggers to influence their decision making process and content of policy.

Not having the ability to bend, as much a problem of only bending, is problematic if relevant, yet unpleasant, information needs to be taken into account. To not interact with information is to not be engaged, which is especially problematic if an institutional goal concerns influence. To operate as a closed system in a dynamic environment is to misalign the organization with its task environment. Translation: poor organizational leadership. Nonetheless, your argument of ‘will not’ assumes and is apparently built upon a ‘should not,’ but no support is given for such.

Bart Barber said...

BH: Thanks, as always, for clearing up for me what I'm really thinking and saying.

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: BH[,] Thanks, as always, for clearing up for me what I'm really thinking and saying.

bapticus hereticus: It's called feedback, Bart. It provides both you and me a way of interacting which may actually facilitate communication, i.e., understanding (e.g., the manifest, latent, implied, intended, and unintended messages). The snarky response you offered above is not helpful, however, but it is revealing, nonetheless.

Bart Barber said...

BH said, "Given your post, the point appears a bit more complex."

When I say what was the point of my post, and then you tell me that what I (the author) describe as the point of the post is not, in fact, the point of the post, then you have moved beyond feedback and have begun to explain to me what I am really thinking and saying.

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: BH said, "Given your post, the point appears a bit more complex." When I say what was the point of my post, and then you tell me that what I (the author) describe as the point of the post is not, in fact, the point of the post, then you have moved beyond feedback and have begun to explain to me what I am really thinking and saying.

bapticus hereticus: “Appears” is the qualifier that allows me to be wrong and for you to be as you intend(, etc.), and moreover my extended comment provides you with information about how and why the message is being interpreted as it is, rightly or wrongly. For one to assume that ‘message sent’ is ‘message received,’ or that ‘intended message’ cannot have ‘unintended meanings’ is to dismiss much communication research as irrelevant. Whereas one may have a point in mind, such is no guarantee that said point is actually developed and then received, given noise in the communication process is not confined to ‘between parties,’ rather it typically begins ‘within party,’ the one constructing the original message.

Bart Barber said...

That's true, BH, in communication media in which "feedback" is not possible. Miscommunication is an ever-present threat. However, what we have here is not the mere reading of a text. What we have here is an ongoing dialogue between you and the author of the text. Feedback must be received as well as given. In dialogue with the author, is it logical to argue with the author about the point of the text (unless, of course, you believe that the author is deliberately obfuscating the point of the text)?

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: That's true, BH, in communication media in which "feedback" is not possible. Miscommunication is an ever-present threat. However, what we have here is not the mere reading of a text. What we have here is an ongoing dialogue between you and the author of the text. Feedback must be received as well as given. In dialogue with the author, is it logical to argue with the author about the point of the text (unless, of course, you believe that the author is deliberately obfuscating the point of the text)?

bapticus hereticus: That you have provided feedback to my feedback is no guarantee that communication has occurred or that your feedback nullifies my perception, but it does indicate that parties are trying to understand each other and that communication correctly understood is an iterative process. There may be aspects to a message that one has not fully realized and is operating at a level that one has yet to consciously perceive; however, I am not suggesting such must be the case in this situation, only that it is a plausible possibility.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Hey Bart - your assumptions are wrong.

I have always been a supporter of Falwell, and I very much like Jonathan Falwell.

Heck, I've always liked Ergun Caner.

But I'm quite upset that he used FBC Jax, with Jerry Vines over his right shoulder, to paint a false portrait of himself as a former Jihadist, raised in Europe and trained to be a Muslim.

He didn't misspeak. He didn't stumble. He purposely misled the good folks at FBC Jax.

He should issue an apology to FBC Jax.

I don't care a hill of beans whether Liberty does anything or not. However, I predict YOU are wrong, and they will require him to address this. Just a prediction.

If that doesn't bother you, that Caner used FBC Jax to help launch his career as some sort of expert ex-Muslim by making us all think he was raised in Europe in the youth Jihad movement, then I feel sorry for you.

And your reaction to my reaction, tells us all much about the state of the SBC...vitriolic pastors blogging about bloggers.

And I'm in my shirt and tie as I write, not my pajamas.

So my plea is to Caner: please apologize for misleading the people of FBC Jax, for playing on our emotions after 9/11 to make us think we were listening to a trained Islamic Jihadist, when you were just a chubby kid from Columbus.

Bart Barber said...

FBC Jax Watchdog,

Well, the strength of not identifying of whom I was speaking was that I'm not directing traffic their way. The weakness...not having performed any exhaustive catalog of everyone who has opined on this particular discussion, my net might catch people other than whom I intended.

I knew that a certain very, very, very high Calvinist blogger was involved, and I knew that another secondary blogging personality who has commented here occasionally in the past was involved. I also knew that the Muslims have been after Ergun for a long time. These are the folks whom I had in mind. Are they not the ringleaders of all of this? (There...managed not to mention either name and not to be responsible for anybody having made it to their respective sites.)

As for you, I just didn't have you in mind when writing this particular piece.

Ergun has already issued apologies and clarifications. If more of that is warranted, where more of that is warranted, I predict that he'll continue to do precisely that.

What's more, I predict that before I die I have to sample that unpleasant dish some more for myself, too. This is what it means to be human.

And part of the post was simply to indicate that Jerry Falwell himself had to apologize quite a bit during his lifetime. Which makes this nothing that Liberty has not been through many times before. This undergirds the point of the post—that Liberty is accustomed to standing firm during such trying times without abandoning their own.

Bart Barber said...

FBC Jax Watchdog,

I will also say this...I've met Ergun's and Emir's brother, a successful businessman, not in ministry at all. Why would he be lying about his background? It doesn't help his career at all. Indeed, it could jeopardize all that he has earned were he to lose the trust of his colleagues and customers.

I've lived through Mike Warnke. Gilyard wasn't much on my radar screen until he came crashing down. There have been others with fabricated backgrounds down through the years. But in this case, I'll be very very surprised if it turns out that Emir and Ergun have been fabricating their personal histories. I'll be surprised and brokenhearted.

But I'm not much worried about that. Having met family members of theirs, I've just seen too much evidence to discount their stories essentially as they have told them.

I also don't know for certain that you can't live in Columbus, OH, and be a member of Islamic Youth Jihad.

Dave Miller said...

I guess I'm caught in the middle. I am a huge supporter of Liberty University and have a son who attends there. I have told my daughter that she does not have to go to Liberty if she will simply bring me a hand-written note from the Lord releasing her.

On the other hand, I have read some things about Ergun Caner that bother me - calling into question some of his story.

I'm just not sure what's going on at this point.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Bart - you're not thinking clearly.

I was sitting in auditorium that day.

The man stood in front of us and told us:

1. He was raised in Europe (with a middle eastern accent on "Europe", rolling his r).

2. Said until the age of 15, insinuating in Europe, that he was in the "Islamic Youth Jihad".

3. He said until the age of 15, that he was "...trained to do that which was done on 11 September"

4. Claimed to not speak very good English as a late teenager.

Please don't bring Emir into this. Emir never, ever, has claimed to be raised in Jihad. Emir has never spoken with a middle eastern accent. Emir has never spoken jibberish to make people think he was speaking some Turkish or Arabic language. Emir has never said he was trained as a terrorist. Never. Get me proof that Emir said he or his brother were trained to be 9/11 style terrorists and I'll concede.

Please don't tarnish Jerry Falwell by suggesting a moral equivalency between his apologies for offending people or saying something stupid off the cuff, and Ergun Caner's purposeful exaggeration in front of FBC Jax on 11/20/01.

And I have to say...would you defend Wade Burleson as vigorously as you are defending Caner, if it were found out that Burleson made a habit of fibbing to congregations about his past as he made the rounds on the preaching circuit? Or do you defend Caner because he's on your conservative side? I know the answer.

About Liberty - maybe I'm wrong, I thought they were a bonafide educational institution...but if they let the president of their seminary avoid directly addressing this exaggeration, while other universities fire their football coaches for a simple error on their resume...well, we shall see.

peter lumpkins said...


Let's see, now. A) You have no evidence for your opinion B) Your point is not X but y c) Your assumptions are wrong

This is one sorry post.

By the way, if BH is not known by you, I'd consider giving the ultimatum--sign in with name or sign off without it.

Thanks again for a sorry post.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins said...

oops, sorry Bart. d) you're not thinking clearly

With that, I am...

Anonymous said...

Here's Jerry:

On the broadcast of the Christian television program "The 700 Club," Falwell made the following statement:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Is This an Apology or What?

Falwell told CNN: "I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize."

At least he didn't lie about his past.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #1,

You just indirectly proved one of Bart’s points.

Anonymous said...

El Cid is dead

and the silver spoon Kid at the helm is no master

Anonymous said...

El Cid is dead,

and the Silver Spoon Kid doesn't have a clue what's happening .

Ron Phillips, Sr. said...


Well said. Both Liberty and Ergun are strong as an oak. I believe neither will let the gnats flying around sway them.

What saddens me the most, is the willingness of believers to give credibility and join with one whose stated purpose in his attacks is:

They desire to extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His Light, though the unbelievers hate it.

I would be fearful to stand before Christ and give an account for encouraging an Islamic attacker whose sole purpose is to discredit the Gospel.


Ron P.

CB Scott said...

Thanks for this good post Bart.

Some of those who have attacked Ergun so mercilessly also spoke publicly against waterboarding terrorists.

Now that Ergun has publicly repented, it seems that his attackers want more.

Maybe they want for Ergun what they denounced for terrorists. Maybe they are all in favor of a good waterboarding for Ergun.......or maybe a cross.

Nonetheless, Emir Caner is my friend and I appreciate this post on his family's behalf.

BTW, the "bloggers in bathrobes" caricature is priceless. :-)


r. grannemann said...

... and sometimes bloggers type in their undee wear.

Turretinfan said...

Wouldn't it be better to defend Caner on the merits rather than simply mock his critics as "bloggers in bathrobes"? Or if Caner's actions are indefensible, why even mention the matter at all?

volfan007 said...

Debbie, "Dr." White, L's, and others involved in the Great White Whale Hunt,

Is God really glorified with the obsession to hound and nitpick and dissect every single thing that someone does or says, and make a huge mountain out of every molehill glorifying to God? Would you, or the others involved in the great white whale hunt, like for your lives to be dissected and blogged about, like what’s happening to Dr. Caner? Do you think that we might turn up a few skeletons in yall’s closets? Do you think that we might find some sins and shortcomings that we could make a huge deal out of, hiding in your life? I believe that we all sin; do we not? I believe that we all mess up more than we want to admit? We're human beings, who arent perfect. And, if every Pastor in this land had to undergo the scrutiny of people on witch hunts like yall are, then there would be no Pastors left. Because, I guarantee you that we'd find sins and mistakes and exagerations and bad hairdays and zippers that were not zipped up and a lot of other thngs in the life of every, single Pastor....without exception.

I really want to encourage yall to stop hunting the white whale; to quit fighting the wind mills.


Turretinfan said...

"Is God really glorified with the obsession to hound and nitpick and dissect every single thing that someone does or says, and make a huge mountain out of every molehill glorifying to God?"

That's an exaggeration and misstatement of what's going on with Dr. Caner. There are two things going on:

1) Dr. Caner (as a public figure) is being publicly called to repentance about a specific pattern of habitual autobiographical embellishment. Yes, because it is a pattern, it involves mountains (not molehills) of evidence.

2) Muslims apologists are critiquing everything he has said about their religion.

(1) and (2) are connected, in that Caner has puffed up his autobiography in ways that, in my opinion, suggest he is more of an expert in Islam than his real biography would suggest.

Those Muslims have gone so far as to accuse Dr. Caner of being a "fake ex-Muslim" and have seized on every little thing (including things like mispronouncing Arabic words) to try to prove that.

I have defended Dr. Caner against the false charge of being a fake ex-Muslim. In the process, though, I have discovered that it is true that Dr. Caner has systematically told falsehoods and exaggerations about his past, particularly related to his connection with Islam.

What Dr. Caner is doing with his systematic pattern of embellishing his autobiography is hurting the witness of Christians who are evangelizing the Muslims. I know that is not his intent - quite the contrary - he wants to see Muslims brought to believe in Jesus.

The sin needs to be dealt with and repented of. Those who call for repentance need to be treated with dignity and not mocked as "bloggers in bathrobes."

As for the Muslims, they're entitled to address what Dr. Caner says about their religion and to correct his errors, if and when he makes them.


bapticus hereticus said...

volfan007: Would you, or the others involved in the great white whale hunt, like for your lives to be dissected and blogged about ...?

Posted on Jun 28, 2002 | by Russell D. Moore and Peter R. Schemm, Jr

FORT WORTH, Texas. (BP)-- ... Cobb's sermon, however, was allegedly lifted verbatim and almost in entirety ... In a statement released by the CBF June 28, Cobb acknowledged, "After I was confronted by reporters for Baptist Press who questioned the origins of portions of my message ....

volfan007 said...


I believe that Dr. Caner has apologized for his misstatements and for mis-speaking.


What in the world are you talking about?


volfan007 said...


Also, if we got a Private Eye to investigate every part of your life, and examine every sermon or lesson that you've taught; do you not think that we might be able to blog ad infintum, ad nausea on your mistakes?


Turretinfan said...


"I believe that Dr. Caner has apologized for his misstatements and for mis-speaking."

I wish I could look at (or listen to) the apology you have in mind.

"Also, if we got a Private Eye to investigate every part of your life, and examine every sermon or lesson that you've taught; do you not think that we might be able to blog ad infintum, ad nausea on your mistakes?"

I don't adopt Dr. Caner's approach of making things about my life history. I don't use my life history in bearing witness to God before others. If I did, investigation of my life history would be relevant and appropriate to the extent I was relying on it. Hopefully (for me to be consistent), I would welcome it.

However, to answer your question directly, I too have sinned before God and have had to repent of sins to Him. When I have sinned publicly, I have sought to repent publicly, but if you are aware of some place where I have fallen short in this regard, please bring it to my attention.


Majestatic said...

Let us judge Ergun Caner by his own standard. Ergun says in the first line of his testimony "The definition of a fraud is someone who looks like something but is something else" (Source ).

Does this mean that everything that is wrong is fraudulent? No! We all make errors from time to time perhaps concerning a date. However when numerous errors occur on a consistent basis then our antennae may go up. For instance he says he came to America in 1978 when Ayatollah Khomeini said we wouldn‘t stop until America was Islamic (Source, yet his brother was born in Ohio in 1970 and the book Unveiling Islam states that Emir was born “after we arrived in Ohio” (Source and therefore the family must have moved to America before 25th August 1970.

Some have alleged Ergun was not a Muslim. Ergun's Islamic father and universalist hippy mother disagreed over their sons religious upbringing (Source: ). I do not doubt that Ergun was brought up a Muslim because of errors he has made about Islam. Ergun says "Until I was 15 years old, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad. So, until I came to America, until I found Jesus Christ as Lord, I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September, as were thousands and as are to this day, thousands." (Source: He is marketed on as a former terrorist. Was Ergun planning a suicide bombing because he says “Jesus strapped Himself to the cross so I didn't have to strap myself to a bomb”

One of the commandments is not to bear false witness. We should not exaggerate or tell lies because this is not God honouring. When we do so we should repent of our sin. When we make errors we should endeavour to fix them where this is feasible.

It is sad that Ergun wrote a begrudging apology that was quickly withdrawn. It attacked as much as it apologised and it quickly disappeared.

Ergun if your background was not as devoted to Islam as you have said, then so be it. However, Ergun if you have deliberately treated the truth as being elastic then I urge you to repent and inform us. God wants us to be truthful even if our testimonies appear somewhat duller. Ergun, I shall pray for you as my Christian brother that truth will prevail.

John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Guys, let me just offer one more example of just how bad this is.

Over at Phil Waldrep's website, he is selling CD's of Ergun Caner's testimony, and here is the plug, verbatim that's on the site NOW:

"Do you believe God can change the heart of a hardened terrorist? Former Muslin Ergun Caner, who came to America to be a terrorist, shares his testimony of how he came to know Jesus Christ."

Phil Waldrep is a fine man. He has somehow been convinced that Caner was a "hardened terrorst", and that he "came to America to be a terrorist".

If this doesn't prove that we're not talking about misspeaking, but a deliberate attempt at deception, then I don't know what will.

Caner was not a hardened terrorist, and he didn't come here to be a terrorist.

He came here as a 4-year old to Columbus, Ohio.

When will you defenders of this deceit wise up? Don't you see you are making yourselves look foolish?

Anonymous said...

It runs in the Liberty veins:

"Once, in 1980, Falwell was caught lying about an exchange between himself and President Carter at a White House breakfast. Falwell claimed he had asked the president, "Sir, why do you have homosexuals on your senior staff in the White House?" and the president had replied that he wanted to represent everyone. When audio tapes revealed that no such exchange occurred, "Falwell tried to excuse his action by characterizing what he said had been a 'parable' or an 'allegory'." He asked, in effect, that his words be read figuratively, not literally."

- from The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics.

bapticus hereticus said...

volfan007: BH, [w]hat in the world are you talking about?

bapticus hereticus: I don’t know Caner from Adam, but apparently there are some substantiated problems concerning him, as was with Cobb. She resigned from her position in CBF the next year.

BP apparently had no problem covering this situation, nor apparently did those in SBC mind it ‘dissecting’ the incident. Has concern over the public pronouncements of influential organizational leaders become quaint? Or is it simply about which bull gets gored?

Mark said...

Hi Bart,

I'm curious. What do you make of this "secret bio of Ergun Caner" which provides copies of actual legal documents?

It looks like one could put together a time line of his early life. Based on the documents it seems as if he never left the USA once his family moved here at ~4 yrs old. It also looks like there may have been a dispute as to what religion to raise him in since he was ~7 yrs old though that is not 100% clear.

volfan007 said...

And, those who chase the white whale continue in their search and obsession, while all the time justifying it, as did Capt. Ahab. But alas, it's still a white whale, out there somewhere.

I believe that the Caners father was an Imam. Learning the Koran, and being a devoted Muslim would lead to terrorism; would it not? Because the Koran teaches that Muslims should kill all infidels. In fact, they'll have a better place in "Heaven" with all of those virgins if they do commit acts of terrorism.

Could this be what Dr. Caner was referring to? That if he continued as a Muslim, being taught to be a good Muslim, that it could lead to him being a terrorist? And, it wouldnt matter if he moved to Ohio at the age of 4, or if he was born in Brooklyn.

Hummm...seems to me that we've had some homegrown terrorists here of late...have we not?


Majestatic said...

volfan007 you say believe Ergun's father was an imman? I have never heard Ergun nor Emir claim that. There you go speculating and making stuff up.

Stick to facts/statements by the Caners

Ergun puzzles
His middle name - Ergun Michael Caner/Ergun Mehemet Caner/Ergun Mehmet Miguel Giovanni Caner
His birth place - Istanbul/Stockholm
His ethnicity - Is it Arab, Persian or Anatolian
Ergun stresses his father was Turkish and his mother was a Turkish citizen/Ergun’s mother was Swedish. Her mother’s name was Lindberg (spelling?) .
He first came to America on or before 1970/ He first came in 1978/ He first came in 1979
Ergun came to America as a missionary/Ergun came as a jihadist
He first learned English in Brooklyn NY/Ohio
He got married aged 30+ in 1994 (he says this several times & he was born 1966)
Ergun says there was a fatwa against him and his family had to go on the road for safety/ Ergun publishes house and family photos on Twitter
Ergun was saved Thur Nov 3 1982/Emir was saved Thur Nov 3 1982 according to Ergun and Emi’s book Unveiling Islam /elsewhere Emir is saved a year or so later.
Ergun was preaching for the first time and Emir & Mark got saved/ Emir says someone else was preaching when he got saved.
Ergun always lived in majority Muslim states before America yet Ergun was born in Sweden
Ergun always stresses his Islamic father and the Islamic faith/Ergun never mentions his mother who deserted the Islamic faith was the one who raised him in the main.
Ergun goes to high school only in Ohio/ Ergun goes to high school in Ohio and Brooklyn, NY
His earned doctorate - he says on audio he has an earned PhD from South Africa, Unveiling Islam says he was working on a PhD in 1999 when his father died. Elsewhere he says he a ThD from South Africa

Remember Ergun’s testimony recordings are sold with this sort of material in them.

I have deliberately have left out debates/ church history errors/ Islamic errors as some of those do not strictly fall under his testimony.

Big Daddy Weave said...

"Learning the Koran, and being a devoted Muslim would lead to terrorism; would it not?"

This coming from a man who clearly has never befriended a Muslim.

Using that same logic, I too could assert that Learning the Bible and being a devoted Christian would lead to racism and a believe in the superiority of the white race.

Today's Southern Baptists argue that Southern Baptists of the past wrongly interpreted Scripture when they deemed both slavery and segregation to be biblical and divinely sanctioned. The Muslims that I know, that I work with, that I'm friends with make a similar argument about Muslim terrorists. They, of course, believe that Muslim extremists have radically misinterpreted the Koran.

I guess I don't understand why folks like Volfan continue to insist that becoming a terrorist is a natural consequence of learning the Koran while rejecting the notion that becoming a racist is the natural consequence of learning the Bible and being a devoted Christian....

From the Middle East said...

Brother David (007),

You said:
Learning the Koran, and being a devoted Muslim would lead to terrorism; would it not?

If you really believe this to be true, you might consider making more Muslim friends and listening to them.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Anonymous said...


Good point. Learning the Bible does not necessarily lead to racism, and learning the Koran does not necessarily lead to terrorism.

But your point comes with 2 qualifiers, which I am sure you will agree with.

1-at least based on what we have seen over the last 30 years or so, there is substantial part of the Muslim community that believes in violence as a part of spreading or defending Islam. Many of the world's hot spots involve Muslim violence. Not to mention the peaceful countries that have endured violence done not just by Muslims, but specifically in the name of Islam - the U.S. (9/11); Denmark (riots and violence related to cartoons); UK (bombings); Spain (bombings); France (violent uprisings in 50 cities); Holland (the murder of the film maker); Bali (disco bombings); Russia (Chechnian(sp) rebels), etc.

The violence committed by Christians in the name of Christ does occur. But it is much more limited in degree and scope. They are usually in hidden groups in separated rural areas with people who are illiterate - culturally or literally.

2 - the difference, in my opinion, is in the nature of the Koran vs. the Bible and Mohammed vs. Jesus. I think that one can see Mohammed's sword in Turkey . Jesus never had a sword.

I am so glad for that. I believe that explains some of the difference.

I hope that there will be more interaction between Muslims and Christians both here in the US and abroad. I believe if both faiths can speak to one another in market place of ideas, so to speak, that would be a really good thing. It could affect the world in a great way, and several nations in particular. But I think that predominantly Muslim cultures will need to become more open to allow the presence of open Christianity, without persecution, in their cultures, including evangelism. Also, the conversion to Christianity should be an option that doesn't carry either the death penalty or severe cultural punishment.


Anonymous said...


One other thing. I attended an interfaith dialogue at Vanderbilt University a couple of years ago. All the various faith representatives were seated together at a table on a platform. They each gave short presentations. They each stressed how open they were toward other faiths.

Then the time for questions came.

I asked the following question: "It has been said that the best way to test the tolerance of a faith community is to see how families and people in that faith treat members of the faith who convert to another faith. Please explain to me how your faith treats its members who convert to another faith."

There were lots of crickets chirping and euphemisms spoken, such as, "that situation would be problematic." Yes, indeed.

Hope you and the openness of US society and culture have a great impact on your Muslim friends, and that they, in turn, have a big impact on their fellow Muslims and the predominantly Muslim countries that exist around the world. That would make the world a better place.


volfan007 said...

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9

Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)

Hummmmmmmm...these quotes from the Koran sure do sound like terrorism.


volfan007 said...

PS. Here's another one "8:59-60 “Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

Wow, that sure do look like terrorism is taught to me.


Anonymous said...

Bart, Back to the point of your post....uh, I doubt anyone would be shown the door of Liberty, lest Liberty leaders are led of the Holy Spirit to do so. May we all be found as pure and holy and righteous as those accusers Dr. Caner has at the moment. Oh...maybe not. Maybe we should be more so? Anonymous because BH is anonymous and because all the other anonymouses are anonymous. :)

From the Middle East said...

Brother David (007),

Have you ever been to one of those websites that tried to debunk Christianity by citing a bunch of "violent" verses from the Bible? They take everything out of context and do not understand the overarching story of the Bible. You know how ignorant of the Bible they sound to us? Well, you sound just as ignorant of the Qur'an (to those who have spent time studying it) as do those who claim the Bible teaches us to stone our kids or that Jesus came to start wars or that we should kill entire villages including the women and children today.

Now, would you care to share some about the situation and culture in which those passages take place (context), maybe a little about the original language they were written in and then after determining what the intent was to their audience, how that applies to our lives today?

Treat their text the way you would want them to treat our text. Exegesis, not proof-texting!

Is the Qur'an the Word of God? Of course not. Does it have problems? Of course it does. But if you only deal with the teachings on such a superficial level, you can never understand the heart of a Muslim who holds it dear.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Anonymous said...

From the Middle East:

That is a good warning to all of us.

I would like your thoughts on my comments specifically.

In general, doesn't the founding of Islam and the veneration of Mohammed as a warrior, conquering in the name of his god, present a completely different picture than the one created by a suffering servant?

Isn't it logical to believe that has some affect on a view of violence to accomplish God's ends in the Muslim community?

Your warning against quoting verses without knowing the context is a really good one. Therefore, I do not make it a practice to quote verses from the Koran.

But my impression is that violence to advance Islam or more often, to defend Islam, is a generally acceptable concept in Islam.

Also, my comment about what happens to people in predominantly Muslim countries when they convert to Islam. Is violence often a way of dealing with that.

Also, the punishments for crimes in Muslim countries are often violent and way beyond what we accept.

Is there no connection here between these cultural expressions and the very nature of God and his prophet in Islam?

I really would like to hear your thoughts on this.



From the Middle East said...

Brother Louis,

I will try to respond as best I can in such a venue. And it might be best if we take further discussion on this topic to an email conversation as we are really off topic.

In general, doesn't the founding of Islam and the veneration of Mohammed as a warrior, conquering in the name of his god, present a completely different picture than the one created by a suffering servant?

Yes and no. First, to address Muhammad. He did what leaders did in his day. Was persecuted for going against the grain and challenging the lucrative idol business in Mecca, then established his power-base in Medina among those who received his message. Then he raided the rivals (normal among the bedouin in that day) and then he took Mecca back but killed no one in the process (that was not normal). Quite different from Jesus' obedience in not retaliating and not conquering earthly kingdoms... if only Jesus' "followers" had remembered his example throughout history.

On the other hand, this is a major misunderstanding that many Muslims have of our view of Jesus. Namely, that he suffered and was defeated. He wasn't defeated, but the reality is that he conquered the only enemy we have - Satan. His battle and victory was greater than that of any person in history. He is a Warrior, He is a Conquering King.

Isn't it logical to believe that has some affect on a view of violence to accomplish God's ends in the Muslim community?

Sure it has an effect and his theology was affected by the bedouin culture of his day. But we cannot forget that Christians have cited Old Testament texts throughout history when preparing or promoting war. Ultimately Jesus ethic is quite different than that of Muhammad... we just need to be careful to work on our own planks as well.

Your warning against quoting verses without knowing the context is a really good one. Therefore, I do not make it a practice to quote verses from the Koran.

But my impression is that violence to advance Islam or more often, to defend Islam, is a generally acceptable concept in Islam.

It has also been acceptable throughout church history. I am not saying it is biblical, just observing the same theme in our tradition. The overwhelming majority of Muslim people today (scholars included) consider valid jihad to be defense of Muslim land. There are those who have been influenced by the radical groups, but most Muslim people do not hold to such extreme positions that no government is valid until the Caliphate is restored. The overwhelming majority of scholars know it is easier to catch flies with honey and do not consider acts like 9/11 a valid expression of jihad.

Also, my comment about what happens to people in predominantly Muslim countries when they convert to Islam. Is violence often a way of dealing with that.

Yes, it is just like the Old Testament. Those who worship other gods are to be executed. This is actually much rarer than is generally thought in the West. Most of the time they are shunned or sent away.

Also, the punishments for crimes in Muslim countries are often violent and way beyond what we accept.

I would contend they are not very different than Old Testament social law - which would also be violent and way beyond what we accept these days in the Western world. Muhammad borrowed heavily from both Jewish and Christian sources and we are talking about the Middle East and Semitic peoples. They have a similar culture and worldview.

Is there no connection here between these cultural expressions and the very nature of God and his prophet in Islam?

Let me respond with a question that does not really answer your question... but I want you to think more deeply about this topic. Is there no connection between the cultural expressions we see in the Old Testament and the very nature of God and his prophets in the Old Testament?

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

volfan007 said...


All I did was put up the quotes from the Quran itself. Along with all that Louis is pointing out to about the Muslim faith; it makes me think that Islam is indeed a religion that promotes violence against those people, who disagree with you.

Jesus said to bless those who curse you; bless and curse not. Jesus said to treat everyone like you'd want to be treated. Jesus said that the sheep would be divided from the goats by Him, one day, at the judgment. Jesus to bless those who persecute you.

But, when you look at the teachings of Mohammed, and you look at all the violence and terrorism that Muslims have done thru the years, and you see how they treat people that are not Muslims, or that try to preach the Gospel, or who break one of their laws, in countries that are dominated by sure is different than how people are treated in countries that are dominated by the Judeo-Christian ethics and morals and values.

FTME, I know that you're in a spot that doesnt allow you to freely express yourself, so you dont feel that you can even reveal who you are, nor where you live....oh, that's a Muslim country, aint it? lol.

When Muslims come to the USA, they're free to practice their religion, try to convert people, and they dont have to conceal their names. They dont have to hide where they're living. They can even openly preach Muslim doctrine in the streets of Detroit, or NYC, or Dayton, Ohio.

I bet you cant do that in many countries that are dominated by Islam.

Anyway, I really dont want to get into this conversation. I really dont have time for it. But, I just felt the need to respond to you.

Bart, I'm sorry, but this is my last comment on this. I'll move on.


From the Middle East said...

Brother David (007),

Thank you for your response.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Anonymous said...

From the Middle East:

Thanks for the substantive response.

You are right to point out certain Old Testament passages and practices and the conduct of some Christians throughout the ages. I am sure that is fertile ground for discussion which is brought up often in the Muslim world.

But in the end I am sure glad that we don't have to defend everything done in the Old Testament or everything done by Christians through the centuries.

The dividing line, as it is with every religion, is the person and work of Christ. That is our only message to the world. The person and life of Christ, his death on the cross for our sins and his ethical teaching about how to treat one's enemies are the center point for me.

You are right to suggest an email discussion. If I can muster the time this weekend, I'll try that.

If I miss you, have a great Easter. God bless.


From the Middle East said...

Brother Louis,

The dividing line, as it is with every religion, is the person and work of Christ. That is our only message to the world. The person and life of Christ, his death on the cross for our sins and his ethical teaching about how to treat one's enemies are the center point for me.


Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Strider said...

How fascinating that the same folks who have so attacked the Camel Method being used in ministry to Muslims because it seems to be deceptive are so forcefully defending a minister whose whole testimony seems to be based on deception. Very interesting indeed.

Byroniac said...

I for one am sincerely glad that most of this evidence apparently came from Muslims. This way I do not have to be objective about it. I can just cite various warm evangelistic fuzzies and go on with my merry life as if the facts did not exist, were not contradictory in nature, and had no bearing on the perceptions of the lost of our ministries. Whew! This could have been a lot worse. (insert standard sarcasm disclaimer here)

volfan007 said...

And the members of Capt. Ahab's ship continue to defend their capt. as he hunts the white whale.


Byroniac said...

David Worley,

I am not sure who Captain Ahab is supposed to be in your illustration, but if it is James White, I got interested in this before James White even got involved, and as for hunting a white whale, sure. That would be great. But I will happily settle for the truth, especially if all of these allegations are old news and have been dealt with before (and if so, where is the evidence and what are the answers?).

If this were not a Southern Baptist superstar, perhaps reactions and expectations would rise to the level of normality like it is for the rest of the world, outside the SBC.

Christiane said...

"volfan007 said...

Debbie, "Dr." White, L's, and others involved in the Great White Whale Hunt "

David, what are you talkin' ?
I LOVE whales.



Byroniac said...


I just don't get it. Somehow simply demanding answers for troubling audio and video discrepancies in defense of integrity in ministry translates into "ravenously going after" Ergun Caner. Also, we are somehow guilty of sending "the howling winds that blow from people who are never going to be a friend to Liberty under any circumstances." I do not see that either, or that we are necessarily enemies of Liberty University. That does not follow for me, and I am trying to understand Bart Barber's position, but in the end, I do not get it. I was under the impression that ministerial integrity was mostly an objective concept in the Southern Baptist world, but apparently I am mistaken? And where are all these wonderful answers which will silence all the critics? Are they forthcoming, or are they already old news, and if so, why does no one point others to them if they have existed this whole time?

Hopefully Ergun Caner will follow in Jerry Falwell's footsteps and answer all the questions, truthfully and reasonably. That is all we ask. We do not want these issues to be cheerfully dismissed after being swept under a rug and ignored. And we cannot help but notice the more questions we ask, and the longer we persist in expecting answers, the more uncomfortable the atmosphere becomes. Why is that?

Christiane said...


Yes, there seems to be some 'discomfort'. I have an idea why, but it is a little bit difficult to explain.

The visible 'fuss' centers more, I think, on surface matters, but most everyone seems to be ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

That gorilla is what I think makes all of us uncomfortable: the presentation of a minority faith group in our country in ways that invite contempt, create fear, and do not appeal to the 'better angels of our natures'.

I think the REAL debate should be centered on the morality or the immorality of presenting a minority faith group in a way that invites prejudice and 'acting out' against them.

I wish all Christian leaders could visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. I wish they could do this to understand how it can all end, when 'hate is an option'.

Ralph Fiennes is quoted as saying 'And I think we see extremist beliefs possible in all countries. And there can be reaction.
One set of extremist beliefs leading to horrific and destructive things, create another response that’s the same or even more.
And I think it can creep up on us before we know that we’re in it. "

That is the 'gorilla' in the room, Byron.

That is what makes all of us uncomfortable, I think: the ones who are in 'rant mode' against the faith of our Islamic citizens, and the ones who know that they cannot turn away and just let it all happen, without saying
'hate is NOT an option'.
Not here in OUR country.
And not in the followers of Lord Christ.

People do 'get it', Byron.
That's why they are most definitely uncomfortable. And, honestly, that's not such a bad thing. It means there is still hope.

Byroniac said...

Christiane, that makes sense. I do not hate muslims, though I am not and will never be a follower of Islam. However, I also realize not all muslims are terrorists, or take the Quran literally (I guess they qualify as "liberal"). Fundamentalist Islam is dangerous, but every religion can become so when it becomes violent and militant.

Strider said...

I am having trouble picturing David the Volfan as a save the whales enthusiast.

Joe Blackmon said...

Christians have a responsibility to proclaim the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. Doing so will involve saying that "Anyone who says you can get to heaven any way other than through Jesus Christ is a liar and is leading people to hell".

Now, for people who profess to be Christians but believe that being a Christian means supporting left wing nutjobs and their whacked out political agenda the above statements will sound hateful. To these pretend christians, people who proclaim the exclusivity of the gospel are hatemongering bigoted fundy's. However, Christians should remember the truth is offensive to those who want to reject it.

Joe Blackmon said...

Oh, and I'm not a Ergun supporter. I'm a Calvinist so I believe what he calls a doctrine of Satan. I'm also not saying that, as Ricky Ricardo used to put it, that he does not "have some 'splaing to do". I just find it hilarious that certain blog commenters suggest that it is hateful to proclaim salvation in Christ alone and that there is no other way to heaven.

Byroniac said...

Joe Blackmon, your last two sentences are good points, Re: April 5, 2010 9:42 AM

volfan007 said...


It's not hating Muslims to say what they are. It's not hating Muslims to say that they're lost and going to Hell, unless they repent and put their faith in Jesus. It's not fear to tell what Muslims believe. It should make some people fearful, when you realize what their Holy Book tells them to do. Personally, I absolutely would not like to live under Muslim law. But, Muslims need Jesus, just like lost pagans need Jesus.

L's, do you think and believe that a Muslim will go to Heaven?


Christiane said...


You are by your own word, an 'inerrantist', and I believe you. But when you say this: "However, Christians should remember the truth is offensive to those who want to reject it."

Now, JOE, there seems to be a 'disconnect between your 'truth' and the angel's words in Scripture. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding, of course, as I often do, but it looks like St. Luke had a different take on how 'all people' would recieve the Good News when he described this angelic proclamation.
Take a look:

Luke 2:1-20

When the angel announced to the shepherds the birth of Jesus he said: "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."


well, if the Bible is inerrant, then I will trust the angelic proclamation as the Gospel is 'the Good Tidings' 'of great joy' 'which shall be to all the people'.

Unless, someone thinks St. Luke messed up here, I think the response of a person who learns about Christ from someone who truly points to Christ, that response will be JOYFUL.

And that term 'shall be' to all the people: 'shall be' means now and forever more . . .

Could it be that sometimes the 'messenger' gets in the way of the 'good tidings', when the manner of the messenger is the source of the offense, and the messenger drowns out the 'great joy' of the Gospel message ??????

Just something to think about, JOE.

Joe Blackmon said...

There is nothing in any way form or fashion that suggests or implies for even an instant that the angel was saying all people would be joyful when they hear the gospel.

Also, where in that text does it say anything remotely resembling "I think the response of a person who learns about Christ from someone who truly points to Christ, that response will be JOYFUL.".

You also might want to look up Matthew 10:22, Mark 13:13, Luke 21:17, John 15:18-22 for some other things to think about.

Joe Blackmon said...

L's, do you think and believe that a Muslim will go to Heaven?

David, she won't answer that. Her faith does not judge people. Only God is allowed to judge. You and I are just hate mongerin' fundies for suggesting that there is only one way to heaven.

Christiane said...

Hi David,

What will Christ show towards those who are 'harassed and helpless, and without a Shepherd'?
Compassion? and Healing?
Or condemnation to hell?

Is there any record of this in the Scriptures?

And what would Our Lord have said, on behalf of those who rejected Him and persecuted Him, while He suffered on the Cross?

Is there any record of this in the Scriptures?

When Christ hung on the Cross, he might have told the people 'repent and believe in Me, or you will go to Hell'. These are the words many say today to those who reject Our Lord.

But HE didn't say those things. He spoke of something that few of us can even begin to understand: words of forgiveness. And why? 'for they know not what they do.'

So if you ask me how Christ will receive a Muslim, I point you to Christ. The words He said on the Cross have great meaning to those of my faith. And also the way He was moved with compassion when He saw those who were helpless and without a Shepherd.

Look always to Christ, David, and to how He treated those who were lost and in trouble.
I can give you no better answer than that.

Joe Blackmon said...

L's, do you think and believe that a Muslim will go to Heaven?

Translation from her answer--"Yes, Muslim's will go to heaven."

Christiane said...


Are you going to stand before God and tell Him who goes to hell?

I doubt it.

You may claim to speak for God, but you don't speak for me. I'm pretty good at getting my own self into trouble. :)

Love, L's

Joe Blackmon said...

Are you going to stand before God and tell Him who goes to hell?

I doubt it.


It doesn't matter that I'm not going to be telling God who is going to heaven and who isn't. It does matter that God has already proclaimed that in His word.

Every Muslim** will burn forever in hell due to their rejection of Jesus Christ. End of discussion.

**You can replace "Muslim" with any person regardless of race, social status, place of birth, or wealth that refuses to repent and place faith in Christ alone (no sacraments) and the sentence will still be true. All who do not trust Christ alone for their salvation will be punished eternally in Hell forever.

It doesn't matter what Don Quixote and his little trained minions in Enid have to say about it.

Christiane said...


Maybe it's Christ who does the saving.
Did you ever think about that?

Byroniac said...


Joe is right, though I wouldn't state it as forcefully as he does. Every person who does not truly believe in Jesus Christ and trust Him alone for salvation from sins and righteousness that alone can please the Father, is lost and if he or she dies in that state, will spend an eternity in Hell under God's wrath without hope of redemption. This warning applies to all non-believers, whether agnostic, atheistic, Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic (sorry, no offense, but the official Church teachings deny salvation by Faith through Grace), and et cetera. God is love, but that is not His only attribute, and it does not eclipse others, such as holiness and justice. Salvation is of the Lord alone, on His terms alone, and for His glory alone. Wade Burleson I am sure believes that only Christians (true believers) go to heaven, but I know he would not shove the Gospel down people's throats either. All we can do is preach the Gospel and pray that people will repent and that God will save them. People need to be told that they are in rebellion against God in their sins and are under His wrath, but that there is forgiveness and redemption in Christ alone.

Joe Blackmon said...

Yes, Christ does the saving. He saves everone (and only those) who repent of their sins and trust Him alone for salvation. Everyone else will go to hell. Would I love to see everyone repent and trust Christ? YES!!!!! That would be AWESOME. Matthew 7 records Jesus talking about two roads and they don't lead to the same place. The one leading to life is narrow and few find it.

Joe is right, though I wouldn't state it as forcefully as he does.

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! Best laugh I've had all day.

CB Scott said...

OK Vol,

There you have it. it is evident that L's has no concept of the biblical gospel. She has been giving those kind of answers to questions relating to soteriology for almost two years now.

Christiane said...

Byron, don't encourage Joe.
There will be no living with him now.

The teachings on redemption, salvation, discipleship, and all of the other theological terms do vary considerably from denomination to denomination.

But there is agreement on the fact that it is Christ who does the saving.

We are led to Him, not by men, and not of our own power, but by the grace of the Lord and the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Byroniac said...

Joe Blackmon,

OK, I give: where is the humor? Perhaps I need to clarify? Or perhaps you can explain your reaction to me.


Christ alone saves, but my whole point was in the exclusivity of salvation, which is found only in Christ.

Byroniac said...

Hmmmm. No response from Joe (no surprise there). I'd swear the "clam-up-and-disappear" routine has to be written down in some procedure book somewhere.

Strider said...

Well, here is an interesting conversation. Two important things to say here.
One, I don't like the way that Joe says all Muslims are going to Hell. It sounds as if he thinks they are more deserving of Hell than he is. They are not. Jesus saves you and me by grace and He is and will save current Muslims by the same grace.

Two, I don't like the way L's seems - emphasis on 'seems'- to be saying that the Muslims will be saved, or are already saved apart from a radical change in their lives. They are bound by the evil one. In my own experience I would say they are not going to Hell, they are there already. Don't believe me, you try and live here with the amount of brokenness these people live with minute by minute. They are sheep without a shepherd. But Jesus came to set even them free. Even me free. They can be set free from the lies that hold them down but that will require us being obedient to His commands and proclaiming the liberty to the captives He has provided. It will then require the Spirit to work in hearts and minds and bring salvation.
I like a lot of what L's says in the blogosphere but I wont let anyone insinuate that the work that Christ has set us to do is finished. It is not and there are huge eternal consequences for our disobedience.

Joe Blackmon said...


I have kids to get to bed and I have to be up at 5 am to catch a train for work. Sorry I'm not here 24/7.

What was funny to me was just what you said--that I said it "forcefully". I mean, I go back and read comments I've written and I'm like "Whoah, take it down a notch there, dude." It's just funny to me to hear other people think that I'm over the top as well. Got a good belly laugh out of it.


You make a ton of assumptions there. Guess you didn't read the stuff beside the two asterisks in one of my comments. Yeah. I said Muslims because she was asked if Muslims will go to heaven. She came back saying basically that all Muslims will go to heaven. I was refuting her assertion. If you don't like how I worded something, then don't like it. Just don't expect me to worry about if you like it or not.

Strider said...

Joe, don't worry. I was never under the assumption that you would be concerned about anything I said.

Christiane said...

L's most definitely says, in way of ancient prayer:

'Salvation is of the Lord
Salvation is of the Lord
Salvation is of Christ'

We are to point towards Him.
The Scriptures tell us how to do this.
And the Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit does the rest.

It is for the Holy Spirit to convict a person of their sin when their face is turned towards the Lord, so that they may repent.

Perhaps the difference in the way people express salvation to others is that some do not accept that the Holy Spirit is the One Who does the convicting. They would do the convicting instead. I don't know this, but I suspect that it may be a part of why there are differences.

Trusting to the mercy of God is not 'unbiblical'. There is a precedent: Ishmael, son of Abraham, and his mother Hagar were ordered sent into the desert,
but God heard Hagar's weeping,
and was moved by Compassion,
and sent the Angel to help her and the infant.

Many of the Muslim people descend from Ishmael.
In faith, we cannot assume the limits of God's compassion, whether He saves or does not save.
It is His Call. He is One who sends the angels to men.

Joe Blackmon said...

God helping Ishmael and Hagar does not in any way suggest or imply for even one minute that He will save anyone who does not repent and trust Christ alone for salvation. If a Muslim, Jew, Caucasian, Mexican, Republican, Democrat, et cetera, et cetera, does not rrust in Christ alone for salvation and repent of their sins they will be punished for all eternity in hell.

We most certainly can assume that is the case because that is what God has said in His word. Just because they don't believe that in Enid, Oklahoma does not make it any less true.

Christiane said...

JOE, don't ever despair of the mercy of God.

Joe Blackmon said...


That's good. At least we're on the same page.

Joe Blackmon said...


Don't contradict what God has clearly spelled out in His word. Your sugary platitudes are, well, quaint but they don't have anything to do with what God has revealed in His word. God will not be merciful in the slightest towards those who did not profess faith in Christ alone and repent of their sins. They will be punished.

Christiane said...


it is written in James 2 this:

"mercy triumphs over judgment".

We have proof: the Lord Christ,
Himself, 'The Divine Mercy' of God

Byroniac said...

Joe Blackmon,

Sorry about that. I think this is at least the third time I have made unreasonable assumptions. Since I do not have any family to speak of locally, what you explained did not even cross my mind, though that does not excuse what I said.

Joe Blackmon said...

Pulling fragments of Bible verses out of thin air does not change the fact that those who reject God's offer of salvation based on faith in Jesus Christ alone and repentance of sins will be punished forever. No amount of sugary syrup will change that no matter how much you want it to. That's why every chance I get I tell people that Jesus saved me and He can save them too. I can't stand the thought of someone dieing and going to hell so I tell them that God forgives sins.

Sugary syrup never saved anyone. The gospel, on the other hand, the preaching of Christ crucified for sinners, the call to repent and trust that sacrifice for salvation, does save people.

Joe Blackmon said...


It's no problem. If'n you ever ask something and I don't respond, you're welcome to email me.

volfan007 said...


It's very obvious here that you have no idea what grace is all about. You obviously have a universal belief about salvation.

Yet, the Bible is very clear that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. There is no other way to be saved. Everyone must come to the Lord Jesus for salvation. John 14:6; Acts 20:20-21, and many, many, many other verses in the Bible make this crystal clear.

A person...whether they be pagan, Muslim, Buddhist, lost church member, hedonist, Jehovah's Witness, or whatever...must be saved. They must be born again by the power of the Holy Spirit by repenting of their sin and putting their faith in Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross, everyone was not saved. A person must repent and put their faith in Jesus in order to receive God's gift of salvation.

Any one who dies outside of Christ will go to Hell forever to pay for every sinful deed, for every evil thought, for every bad attitude, and for every foul word spoken. They will spend eternity in Hell, being punished for their sins. That's what the Bible clearly teaches. To say otherwise, no matter how sweet and nice you say it, is to deny the Bible and proclaim an error.

Thus, Muslims will go to Hell. I dont know any nice way to say this. Buddhists will go to Hell. Lost, unregenerate, Church members will go to Hell. Pagans and heathens will go to Hell. Nice, sweet, good people will go to Hell, if they're outside of Christ.

I dont know of any other way to say it. It's just that plain and simple. The Bible says it that plain as well. Jesus said it that plain and clear....Matthew 5:29; Matthew 18:9; Luke 12:25; Luke 16:19-31; i Cor. 6:9-10; 2 Peter 2:4; and many, many others.


Joe Blackmon said...


Face it. We're just hate mongerin' fundies who just don't undertand that God is love and is incapable of doing anything like punishing sinners. (/sarcasm)

CB Scott said...


I would like to make a request of you relating to fair-play and as one who is against bigotry of any type.

I notice that you always properly capitalize words such as: Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc., etc.

But when you use the words: Pagan or Heathen, you always use lower case (pagan, heathen).

Obviously you do not realize how that offends people like Tim Rogers or cb whose ethnic and religious backgrounds are both Pagan and Heathen.

I feel you should be more considerate toward all ethnic and religious backgrounds and if you capitalize the name of one group, you should capitalize each one equally in an effort to be more sensitive, express your undying love and tolerance of us no matter what we do and to be politically correct which is of a great importance in reaching Pagans and Heathens in the present culture.

You should certainly do that now that L's has pointed out that God's Universal Mercy can be extended to any and all ethnic and religious heritages even if we do not repent and believe the biblical gospel. And that surely would include Pagans and Heathens like Tim Rogers and cb, right L's?

volfan007 said...




CB Scott said...


I am just trying to be helpful. to you as you go in your journey toward the "light" and "running waters" (running waters must be indoor plumbing). Later I will post some poetry and ancient writings to better make my point.

Right now, I am going to a Inner-self Sensitivity Seminar led by Joe Blackmon and Bart Barber. Please feel free to join us. I think L's is the guest speaker. Or maybe its Debbie Kaufman, I can't remember.

Joe Blackmon said...


I know you dit'nt.


Lydia said...

"There you have it. it is evident that L's has no concept of the biblical gospel. She has been giving those kind of answers to questions relating to soteriology for almost two years now."

From what I gather from her vague comments over the years, she does not believe in a literal hell. She does not believe that Jesus Christ is coming back with a sword in His mouth and will judge. Seperating the sheep from the goats. It seems she does not believe the full Gospel because it would be too mean?

While I believe Caner has been fabricating his bio, I can also see that Christiane has been using this occassion to lament about the much misunderstood 'minority' of Muslims being villified and discriminated against with hostitlity by mean Christians who dare speak truth that unless they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ they will not be saved.

This hardly makes sense. One would think Christiane would have great compassion for Caner and give him a pass with her great fountain of compassion.

It is terribly confusing to try to keep up with who warrants her compassion and who does not.

Lydia said...

I am also at a loss for why Christiane does not seem to have the same compassion for Muslim women. Can she not see the evils of Islam, at the very least,from the way their females are viewed and treated?

Joe Blackmon said...


Her ways are higher than our ways. Our brains, such as they are, are so twisted by our fundementalist assertion that Christ is the only way to heaven that we're unable to see how right she is and how wrong we are. If we only realized that true faith involved just loving everybody regardless of what they believe, unless they're a conservative Bible believing Christian in which case we can hate on them as much as we want.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek)

Lydia said...

Joe, I do love Muslims. That is the whole point. I love them enough to speak the WHOLE Gospel to them. It is not me who convicts someone of sin and the truth of Jesus Christ as the only way, but the Holy Spirit through the Word. I am a simple, flawed messenger who must present the truth in full for it to be truth at all. My speaking the full Gospel does not in any way mean I am better or self righteous. That would mean no pastor could ever preach on sin..the REASON for the Cross!

But all of this is moot if one does not believe that a merciful but perfectly Just God will allow people to burn in hell. They believe differently than what is presented in the Word. And they ignore what is obvious both in the OT and the NT. Even in the OT, God makes it clear in several places He was saving only a 'remnant'. What do folks do with such passages and their religion of universalism? Obviously, they have to ignore them or twist them to fit a wrong premise.

There is wisdom in fearing a perfectly Just and at the same time, Merciful, God. If God were not Perfect Justice, there would have been no need for Him to die on the Cross or for us to become Born Again as New Creations in Christ.

Joe Blackmon said...


Preach it, sister!! Err, I mean, well, you know what I mean. LOL

Christiane said...

Good Morning, Everyone.

Lydia has written:
"It seems she does not believe the full Gospel because it would be too mean?"

I offer a different perspective. The 'Full Gospel' PROTECTS Christians from the effects of evil on their own spirits and souls, if it is honored in their lives by true obedience to Our Lord. I do not believe in 'fundamentalism'. I think it has allowed its followers to be harmed.

Let me share a comment I made in response to Lydia on Debbie's blog:
It follows what a fundamentalist would call a 'sweet syrupy story': the response of the Amish at Nickel Mines in the face of the murder of their children. Ah, what some call 'sweet, syrupy', others call a strong witness to the Power of Christ in the face of unspeakable tragedy.

"Lydia has written this: “The Nickel Mines story was presented in a different light from what Christiane is presenting here in a book called “Unpacking Forgiveness”. I think it is wise to realize that their ‘forgiving’ the murderer will not save him. Only Christ can do that.”

The problem here is that ‘Christiane’ did NOT present the murderer as forgiven ‘by Christ’. No one knows for certain the judgment of God on the murderer.
Christiane portrayed the murderer as forgiven by the Amish, in accordance with the Commandment of Christ to forgive. The Amish were given the grace to forgive.

The difference is classic.

In fundamentalism, the fundamentalist becomes ‘god’.
In Christianity, the Christian allows God to be God.

In forgiving someone, WE are forgiven.
We are the ones in obedience, out of love and trust.
But, in Christianity, we know that God is the ultimate judge of a man’s heart, which we may not know, and that He is the ONLY ONE who can determine the eternal fate of an individual. We are told that judgement is the Lord’s.

The Amish allow God to be God.
They forgave, and Christ was able to remove from their hearts the urge to condemn, to sit in judgemnt, to curse to hell, to hate, to be bitter, to hold in contempt.
In forgiving, they turned the matter over to God.
And they received the gift of the peace that surpasses all understanding.
The evil that Satan did could not contaminate their spirits, because, in forgiving, the Amish OBEYED Christ.
They let God be God.

A fundamentalist cannot do this, and we see that they become angry, hateful, full of bitterness, full of judgment, full of contempt, and the ‘pointing of the finger’.

Yes. “Christiane” points out the difference between the Amish way of obedience to Lord Christ as a way to avoid becoming ‘bitter, full of hate, condemnation, judgment, anger, and rage’.

I believe that the Amish way is ‘of Christ’ in the manner of their obedience to Him, and in how that obedience gave them peace and kept them loving in the midst of their painful loss of their little ones.

It was all the doing of the Lord. And the Amish, in great humility, pointed always towards Him, when people complimented their ‘way’. They took no credit, but pointed to the One who saved them from turning bitter and hateful.
It is Christ who does the saving, from a whole lot more than hell. Salvation is so much more than that. Christ has the power to ‘deliver’ our souls and our spirits from evil, if we live in obedience to His Law of love."

The Amish at Nickel Mines must still have faith in the Lord's Prayer .
I believe this because their spirits have been 'delivered from evil' and they are a peaceful people.

I believe that the 'FULL Gospel' teaches this:
Never despair of the Power of God in ALL things. His Ways are far above ours. And His gift of peace surpasses all understanding.

Let God be God. Judgement and vengeance is His. And His Mercy is His to bestow, as He wills.

Christiane said...

Ergun Caner: he either is or is not what he says he is. That is his problem before the ones he answers to.

But Christian people who use misinformation to portray another faith group with contempt need to think about this:

IF that faith group is as contemptible as they want to portray it, then
WHY do they have to use 'misinformation' to do the job?

Just a thought.
Christian ethics applied to Caner.
Has he presented people of the Islamic faith using 'misinformation' or not?

The films are out there.
Or were.
Most of the sites who support him have quickly 'removed' filmed interviews. Hmmmm . . .

To condemn anyone unfairly is wrong.
Let the films be shown, unedited by anyone. That's fairness.
That's ethical.

And if, perchance, it is discovered that Caner has used 'misinformation', what is the response to that, as an ethical Christian community, living in obedience to Christ's Laws. ?

It would take a lot of 'steely strength' to face and deal with this controvery out in the light.
I know that. But from the title of this post, I'm told the backbone is there. Peace and good in Christ.

CB Scott said...

You know L's,

I have worked for people like you who say the things you do about such horrors as what happened to the Amish in PA.

And from experience, I would bet the farm that if such actually happened to you, you would be the very first to demand the blood of the perp.

When I read things you say about conservative Christians like Ergun and others, your true heart comes to the forefront and the veneer of "religious platitudes" begins to wear thin.

I have been reading your comments now for about two years. It is evident you despise orthodox Christian theology. It is also evident that you are in rebellion against many of the teachings of Roman Catholicism which you "say" you espouse as your "faith."

Your comments are riddled with the echos of Liberation Theology and that is easy to see if one reads you closely.

You can fool folks like Debbie Kaufman and others, but you don't fool people who have been "around" awhile and are able to detect the truth of what you say.

You are not fooling that many people anymore L's. Folks like Lydia and others have been on to your game for a long time.

All they don't know is who you really are and what caused you to be so very venomous against biblical Christianity.

Joe Blackmon said...

Let God be God.

So if someone says "This is what the Bible says" that is not letting God be God? Prove it.

Judgement and vengeance is His.

And He has revealed His judgement and vengence in the pages of scripture. You have no right to contradict Him, thank you very much. Further, when a Christian proclaims what God has revealed in His word they are not usurping God's right of vengence and judgement. They are faithfully proclaiming what they have been told to proclaim.

And His Mercy is His to bestow, as He wills.

And He only wills to bestow said mercy on those who repent of their sins and trust Christ alone (not Christ plus sacraments) for their salvation.

Every single person who does not repent of their sins and trust Christ alone for salvation will burn forever in the fires of hell as punishment. If that sounds hateful to you then you seriously need your hearing checked.

Actually, you need to repent and trust Christ alone for salvation but that's another story.

Joe Blackmon said...

All they don't know is who you really are and what caused you to be so very venomous against biblical Christianity.

Yeah, for someone who preaches against "hate" so much, she sure slings a lot of it around.

Of course, if it's against mean-spirited hate mongerin' fundies it's not really hate, is it?

Lydia said...

"You are not fooling that many people anymore L's. Folks like Lydia and others have been on to your game for a long time."

What L's will never admit is that she is just as "political" as any of the rest of us. She has mingled her brand of 'Christianity' with politics and the result is Liberation Theology.

The Caner scandal has been used by Christiane to paint Christians as mean and hateful toward Muslims. She vaguely echos the 'violence' we do to Muslims. She refers to them as a minority and Christians as being 'hostile' to them.

Planting seeds of poison, I call it.

When you read her long enough you get the picture of what she is doing. She hates any conservatism at all. Political or Christian. She would never say that outright but it is there if you read long enough. She does hate...the venom comes through loud and clear to those who are not governed or deceived by emotional and vague platitudes served up with a portion of deceitful whipped creme inbetween her self righteous platitudes.

She does refuse to answer very pointed and direct questions.

Those of us who have grown up evangelizing Muslims have a much better grasp of the realities. Far from hating Muslims, I have the opposite in my heart. But I am no fool. I know what we are dealing with because I have studied the Quran and have dealt with the realities up close and personal in my own home.

I won't go into why I think the Caner scandal hurts us so badly in this respect because I want to respect Barber's living room as much as possible.

BTW: When one does not believe in any absolute truths and never has to stand on an absolute truth, it is very easy to deceive others.

Christiane said...

A reflection on this point:

"But Christian people who use misinformation to portray another faith group with contempt need to think about this:

IF that faith group is as contemptible as they want to portray it, then
WHY do they have to use 'misinformation' to do the job?"

So, examine.
Was there 'misinformation' used to stereotype another faith group?

Yes, or No ?????

What is the need for 'misinformation' when the 'truth' about the group ought to be enough to 'do the job' of creating intolerance towards it. (If that is the goal?)

And if the goal is the 'help the minority group', wouldn't it be better for them to see that they were NOT being presented unfairly by those who are trying to 'help them'?

It's worth thinking about, at least, no matter what the objectives are.

Truly, the use of proven 'misinformation' does the following:

It portrays the 'case' of the presenter as a weak one needing the bolstering of 'misinformation' to make the case appear stronger.

It reveals the 'ethics' of the presenter as 'the ends justify the means. (strange 'ethics' n'est pas?)

To all who see the 'misinformation', a red light goes on, and the questions and concerns begin.

To the 'target group' (the minority being stereotyped by the use of 'misinformation') the motives of the presenter will never be taken as 'well-meaning'.

So, the use of 'misinformation' is self-defeating all the way around.

It makes people who engage in it shrink from open debate and avoid other forms of confrontation.

Better not to 'mis-represent' others using 'mis-information'. It jest dun't work for ya.
People are not fools.
'You can fool all the people sometime. And you can fool some people all of the time. But you can fool all of the people all of the time.' (I forget who said that, but I like it, so I'm usin' it.)

Enough advice for one day to anyone out there who practices 'misinformation' either in trying to save the souls of a minority faith group,
or in trying to stir up the demons of intolerance against them.
It jest dun't work for ya.

(good advice, too) :)

Christiane said...

Correction: 'You CAN'T foo all of the people all of the time.'

Especially the larger Christian Community.

Christiane said...

One last remark. (Sorry)
Lydia, I wouldn't worry about Bart's reaction to our discussion. I'm not sure if he is a professor at a seminary, but he could use it as an example of the interchange between fundamentalists and a person from a different perspective.

If God can bring good out of evil, then Bart can do something positive with this whole mess, if he chooses to do it. Bless his heart.

Love, L's

P.S. It would be really cool if he used it in a Christian ethics class.

Lydia said...

"But Christian people who use misinformation to portray another faith group with contempt need to think about this"

Christiane, the deception you are promoting here is with your personal definition of "misinformation" and "contempt". You get to define what you think is contempt when it is most likely truth. Some truths are negative. That is just the way it is. Baptists did not fly the airplanes into the Twin Towers. But listening to you, one would think they did.

Do all Muslims practice violence? No. But they can to please Allah... according to their Quran. That, is a negative truth. It cannot be denied. It is right there in print if you decide to study.

And I am not talking about what Caner has done. That is a seperate issue and you know it. Even though you are trying to merge it with a strawman issue that orthodox Christians hate Muslims.

I am talking about what some Muslims believe if they are orthodox and follow the Quran.

Caner's fabrications have NOTHING to do with what Muslims believe or practice.

One cannot make all Muslims a victim "faith group" because of what Caner has done. That is simply illogical.

Once again, you are stirring a pot of poisonous stew trying to merge two completely different issues and presenting them as the same issue. They are not.

The 'truth' is intolerant for you, Christiane. That is the problem.

So, my advice :o) is to stick with one issue or the other.

Lydia said...

"Lydia, I wouldn't worry about Bart's reaction to our discussion. I'm not sure if he is a professor at a seminary, but he could use it as an example of the interchange between fundamentalists and a person from a different perspective."

Christiane, I DO believe in the fundamentals of the Faith. I believe in a literal eternity either with Christ or separated from God in torment. And I believe we MUST present the full counsel of God so there is no blood on our hands (Acts 20). It is only "Good News" because there IS such a thing as very bad news.

I am not even sure what being a fundamentalist means anymore. It seems to have drifted to legalities on secondary non salvic issues.

But I have chosen to come to Barber's living room and I know he is a supporter of Caner. I am not. I have made that clear and have no reason to go any further.

I doubt he would take the advice of what to teach from two women, anyway. :o)

Christiane said...


I doubt he would take the advice of what to teach from two women, anyway. :o)

Come to think of it,
I think you're right. :)


CB Scott said...


Not long back I referenced you to Ergun's statement of apology and repentance.

You did see it. I know. You mentioned it over at Debbie's funhouse when I first stated it was up on the web.

Yet, you never did acknowledge that he did make a public statement of repentance and acknowledgement confessing he had told lies about his past.

Yet, you have continued to grind him into the dirt.

On the other hand you have been absolutely silent about the recent child abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church involving the Pope. Of course so has your friend Debbie Kaufman.

You, Debbie, and a host of others, including Paul Burleson and his most recent and self-gratifying, silly post, continue to beat the guy when he is down. Why is that? He has repented. Did he not repent as well as you feel that he should have?

What is it that you want him to do? That is what confounds me in this whole thing. What do you all want him to do?

The truth is L's, I don't think you really care what he does or does not do about any of this. You despise him because he is conservative in his positions relating to Christianity.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

C.B., I don't hate him.

But if someone is stirring up vulnerable people by presenting a stereotype of a minority group that is unfair and would lead to intolerance,
what IS the responsible reaction?
The responsible and ethical CHRISTIAN reaction?

Look away?
Do nothing?
Say nothing?
Go along silently?

I'm worried for the consequences of intolerance to a minority faith group in my country.

And I'm worried for the people who are vulnerable who get pulled into practicing intolerance for minorities.

What is that poem . . .
'they came for the _______, and I did not speak for them.'
(You can fill the name of just about any minority group who has borne, is bearing, or will bear the scares of intolerance in on the blank.)
The poem ends 'and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.'

C.B., intolerance hurts us all, sooner or later, but usually its early victims are the most vulnerable ones.

Check out the website of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. They have some good ideas regarding educating people about intolerance and what it is capable of leading to.
And they have ideas on how to stop it by taking a stand when you see stereotyping being done unfairly towards a minority group.

Even one person say, 'no, no more, not here, not now, never again'. One person. Just one.


Bart Barber said...

I'm just into my office upon returning from a trustee meeting. I regret that I have not engaged vigorously in this discussion. I will no longer have that to regret within the next twenty-four hours.

CB Scott said...


You again skirt the issue.

The guy repented and publicly acknowledged his transgression. What more do you want him to do?

This has nothing to do with minorities.

BTW, many of the "minority" you speak of have done pretty well on their own to promote intolerance toward them.

How tolerant are we to be of people who fry babies, children and women and non-combatant men in jet fuel?

How tolerant are we to be of people who cut the heads off of little Christian girls on their way home from school?

How tolerant are we to be of people who hack off the arms and legs and noses of children, rape and kill pregnant women and hack off the breasts of women who are nursing babies?

Do we tolerate what happened at Fort Hood?

And you still seem to be silent about the Pope and the child abuse scandal. Are we to tolerate that also?

Is it only conservative Christians who commit sin or tell a lie that we do not tolerate?

But you are truthful L's in that you don't hate Ergun.....alone. You seem to hate everyone who embraces conservative Christian theology or politics or both. And you use and pamper those who have not yet come to see you as you really are.

CB Scott said...


If you feel I have been too hard here, I will stand down.

I am just kinda tired of the hypocrisy and rude behavior that is being wrapped in a thin skin of false piety of late about Ergun. So I thought I would address it a little.

I don't know what else these "fine" folks like L's, Debbie and Paul want Ergun to do. If his repentance and a public confession is not enough, then I fear there is no hope for people who have been guilty of the kind of trespasses I have been guilty of during my life, both before and after becoming a Believer.

Bart Barber said...

'Tis a day for standing up, not standing down. How ironic would it be for me to author a post about steely backbones while asking you to misplace yours?

Christiane said...

Hi C.B.

You have my permission to be as hard as you want. I don't take offense. I am entirely too good natured for that. (Between you and me, I bet your're still sore over that 'wabbit' thing.) Sorry about that, but it was Easter, and I got carried away.
You can forget about the 'fine' folk, too. I'm sitting here blogging with a mayonaisse pack on my hair (cheaper than conditioning at the beauty shop), wearing cut-off jeans, and a sweat shirt. Nails are broken and dirty from gardening. I'm a total mess. :)

Go ahead and speak your mind. It will do you good. I just hope that sometime before I kick the bucket I have the joy of seeing you make peace with Debbie. Love you, L's

CB Scott said...


I just hope you make peace with God.

Whether I live to see it or not don't really matter.

Christiane said...

"This has nothing to do with minorities."

I'm afraid it does.

CB Scott said...

OK L's,

If it has to do with minorities, then why notanswer the questions I asked you about how much we tolerate the actions of some many of them?

Why not answer the question about the Pope?

Why not answer the question as to what exactly do you want Ergun to do beyond public confession and repentance?

CB Scott said...

Well, L's??

I usually do my best to answer your questions. Will you step up for good Ole Central American equality and answer mine?

Joe Blackmon said...

I think CB and Lydia have hit the nail on the head. I wonder what it is that filled L's with such vicious hate toward anything conservative.

BTW--talk about oppressed minorities, what about women in muslim countries and how they're treated. Some muslim countries in Africa still practice female castration which is bascially mutilation. If you were really concerned about minorities, you would speak to these issues.

What about all the sexual abuse victims world-wide that were abused by your church? I and others have spoken out about sex abuse cases in our church but you're not willing to stand up for those poor children.

I mean, I know you have the integrity to respond to both of those issues, don't you L's?

Christiane said...

Well, let's see.

The Regensburg incident was followed by a reconciliation between the Pope and the Islamic Community. The Pope went and prayed with an Islamic leader, two figures in white, praying together. Not a bad reconciliation.
(Can Catholics pray with people of other faiths? Oh yeah. )

As for extremists fundamentalists' abuse of women, well, we don't have to look as far as the extremists in another faith in another country. It goes on right here. I consider Dr. Klouda to have been treated very poorly. That was NEVER resolved, but she survived, and I understand is doing better.

As for sex scandals, take a look at Christa Brown's blog. You know Christa, I'm sure. Well, maybe you don't. Her blog will orient you into what has and has not been done in my Church and in your Church to handle cases of sex abuse by clergy.
Does the SBC keep a registry of documentation on clergy sexual abuse yet? If not, are there any plans to begin?
See Christa's blog:
Very informative. I highly recommend it.

BTW, where exactly is that 'apology' of Caner's. Does any one know the content of it, or is it just a rumor that he responded with an apology to the Islamic Community for stereotyping them? If he actually did apologize to them, I would be thrilled for him. It could mean a beginning for him to build a rapport with them with all respect, and this is important if he wants to communicate with them and be heard respectfully as a representative of Christ's Church.

CB Scott said...


You had knowledge of Ergun's public statement of confession and repentance on Debbie's blog when I posted its existence. You even commented on it. If you say you were not or are not aware of its existence, you are lying.

Christiane said...

C.B. I read about it there, but I did not find the location of where it was posted so I could read the content of it.

Do you know where I can find it posted? Thanks a bunch. L's

CB Scott said...


You mention Klouda again. Therefore, I ask you again; How much financial help did you give her personally during her time of need?

You bring her up over and over to use her, but you never helped her did you?

Also you have yet to answer any of the questions I presented you with. Why not?

So again L's, Why not answer the question as to what exactly do you want Ergun to do beyond public confession and repentance?

CB Scott said...

It is posted on SBC TODAY as I said on Debbie's post the day it happened. But you already know that L's.

Yet, even if you did not read it, you know Debbie did. You know Byron did and a host of others. You have witnesses that the man made a public confession and statement of repentance for his sin.

What more do you want beyond that?

Obviously you want far more from him than you want from the Pope. it seems that you demand more from him than God demands. Is that the case L's? Do you require a reckoning beyond what the Scripture demands?

Tell us then; What does your reckoning requires of a person beyond what God has called for in His Word?

Christiane said...

Thanks, C.B.

I'll look for it on SBC Today.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Look at this discussion.

I thought that Lydia and L's were of the same mind on so many things, but this conversation sure has boiled over. CB has always been "direct" with L's.

I've already had my say on Mr. Caner, and had a good exchange with a guy from the Middle East about Islam.

I have always liked L's and still do. I don't think that she is evil or spreading poison or poisonous seeds or anything like that. Her opinions are well within the mainstream of secular and religious thought in the US.

My understanding of her position on scriptural issues, particularly salvation, is that she is in the mainstream of Catholic thought on that. John Paul II, whom I respected very much on many issues, I believe, eventually expressed semi-universalist views. He wrote that believers of other faiths who sincerely seek God through their faith will be saved. I think that he said it is because of Christ's forgiveness. So, they may pursue a false way to God, but Christ will forgive their ignorance, and save them anyway.

I don't know what he said about people who have no faith, or those who live wickedly on earth. I am not sure that they will also be saved.

So, it's understandable for L's to have responded as she has.

Her view is not that different from some liberal Baptists that I have known.

Her political views that relate to how to treat Muslims and such are partly right and partly wrong.

She is right that we need to treat people, even people of other faiths, with respect. I don't think that any people on this blog disagree with that.

I do believe that she has conflated Caner's alleged untruths as a mode of lying about Muslims so that we can demonize them.

I have not followed the Caner thing closely. But even if the worst is believed about him, it is fair to say that the untruths were told to build himself up and his own credibility, not to whip up hate against Muslims.

L's advice about how to treat Muslims, as minority or otherwise, is not all bad. We should treat people with respect.

But I think that L's view of treating people with respect includes not telling them that on theological issues that they are in error. Again, consistent with John Paul II's thinking, one does not try to convert others of another faith or tell them that they are wrong. Because if they are sincere, Christ will take care of them in eternity. So, there is no need for us to do that. That's why the Pope can pray with people of other faiths.

To be continued...


Anonymous said...


We have to see that the history of the Catholic church plays a big role here. Baptists have a substantial luxury. Our denominational history starts in the 1600s. We were always on the outside, a minority. We have never been in control politically of any country, state or region. If we had been, we would have a history (given the sinfulness of mankind) that is not too different from Catholics. But we don't.

Catholics have a history of selling indulgences, political strife in Europe, killing or trying to kill reformers and the Inquisition. Also, the colonization of Latin America and other poor regions of the world by Spain, Portugal and other Catholic countries, has a long history of forced conversions etc. We did some of that to the Indians, but on a small scale. And there was already so much diversity in the US religious scene that Baptists were never at the forefront of this. Why, we've only had 3 Baptist Presidents - Harding, Carter and Clinton. Hardly a rogue's gallery of theological conformity.

Against this backdrop, it is easy to understand why the Catholic church has moderated on theological issues and matters related to conversion, evangelism etc.

A similar analogy can be seen in the political world on the issue of capital punishment. Europe has a terrible history of millions of people being killed by the state for illegitimate reasons. The French Revolution, the English "civil war", the holocaust, communism etc. With that background, it is understandable why Europe is so anti-death penalty. The US has examples of the unjust use of the death penalty, but no where near the levels of Europe. Hence, the US still believes that the death penalty is a necessary form of state punishment.

Also, the Bible plays a different role in Catholic theology. The Church plays an equal role to the Bible. And the philosophical difference is this - for Catholics - God's people (the Church) created the Bible. For the Protestant reformers (and us), God's word has always created God's people. Not the other way around.

So, I see where L's is coming from. I am not going to fuss at her. We should respect her, even if we don't agree with her opinions.

I enjoy her commentary even if I don't agree with it. She has always, to my knowledge, maintained her cool, and doesn't start calling people names and being nasty. I respect that.


CB Scott said...


You already knew it was there. The comment thread on Debbie's original post on the matter reveals that plainly.

I posted the presence of his statement on SBC TODAY in comment #270. You entered the dialogue again shortly afterward. Debbie, Byron, Lydia and Thy Peace and maybe Paul had already mentioned it just before you entered the thread in that specific dialogue.

You knew it was there on SBC TODAY all the time you have been continually attacking this man along with the others involved. For you to declare you did not know of its (Caner's statement) existence and where is was to be found in nothing more than your lying to keep up your facade and hide a heart tainted by your hatred of people who espouse biblical Christianity.

Caner repented L's. What about you?

So again, I ask you; What does your reckoning require of a person beyond what God has called for in His Word?

Christiane said...

C.B. I found some podcasts but could not activate them.

I did look this up on Google, but it has to do with 'camel' method:

you have to scroll down a little bit to get to the part about Caner and the 'camel' thing. It's descriptive, but not conclusively the whole 'apology'.

Is that the apology you are referencing?

CB Scott said...


I think you to be basically sound theologically. At the same time, if you are directing your comments to me (maybe you are not) I do not need you to school me in history (Us or otherwise) or Catholic theology.

It is true that I have been "direct" with L's but it will not be true that I do not respect her.

Louis, L's is lost. it is true that she does say things that are true. She does say things of encouragement. She also displays humor at times. But she is lost.

She also embraces tenants of Liberation Theology and makes that evident from time-to-time. She is not always in agreement with Catholic theology and has stated as much.

You can say I have been direct with her and be totally correct. But if you are saying I have no respect for you, that is totally false.

CB Scott said...

That should be "no respect for 'her' rather than no respect for "you"

But you probably know that already.

CB Scott said...

L's the post in question is on SBC TODAY, dated Feb. 25, entitled: A Statement by Dr. Ergun Caner.

But, of course you already knew that.

Christiane said...

Now, now C.B.

I am a Catholic of the Roman rite.
Case closed.

What 'theology' from my Church's catechism do you think that I don't follow or accept?

Just google in 'catholic catechism, vatican' and sit back and read for the next ten hours until you find what I don't believe in. :)
If you look up all of the Bible verses, it takes three times as long to do.

Good luck, dear one.


I don't agree with C.B.'s assessment, but I do have a wicked sense of humor, and am currently in very bad hair. Hopeless hair.

As far as being 'lost', a story:

A man became lost in a large city that had a giant stone Cross in the center square. Someone asked if they could help him find his way. He replied, 'Take me to the Cross. I can find my way home from there.'

The story is from a sermon by Billy Graham.

C.B. is sweet to care about 'lostness', but he worries too much. So he gets mad at me and I get 'fussed out' a lot, but it doesn't bother me, 'cause I can see his heart is good. You have love someone whose heart is good.
Actually, I'm extremely good natured and not a whole lot changes that. :)


Christiane said...


I found the reference, but when I click on the underlined
Ergun Caner's Statement, I get an
Error 404.


There is however a small excerpt quoted on that SBC TODAY post.
So, what do I do with an 'error 404'?

I'll go ask THY PEACE.
He can help me sort this out.

Thanks again. Love, L's

CB Scott said...


I have never been "mad" at you. Getting mad has the same effect as getting drunk. It can get you killed or worse.

I'm still here. And I am dead right about you.

Christiane said...


You don't get mad. At me.


G' night, dear one.

CB Scott said...

Sleep well L's.

Maybe you might consider answering the questions you skirted tonight after a good night's sleep.

Bart Barber said...

Emerging from our celebration of the Resurrection and the trustee meeting that immediately followed that, I have a few thoughts to place before you all regarding this matter:

1. It seems to me that there are those who are not recognizing the full force of the allegations against the Caner brothers. FBC Jax Watchdog has come on this site and stated that this is not about Emir. The sites that he links, however, are claiming that the Caner brothers are fake converts from Islam to Christianity. If Ergun's testimony is fraudulent, then it is difficult to perceive how Emir's could be genuine. Was Ergun not raised a Muslim, and yet Emir was?

2. I have interacted with the family of the Caner brothers. For me, the basic tenets of their testimonies have been confirmed by people beyond themselves. This is no longer, for me, simply a matter of taking their words at face value. Although I have not performed all-out research on the matter, I have by happenstance experienced some corroboration of their testimonies.

3. As to their religious practice and beliefs prior to their conversion and then their actual conversion experiences, the church is still there, the pastor is still there, their families are still there. They tell the same story, as far as I have met them. Do those who deny the validity of the Caners' conversion from Islam to Christianity also dismiss the existence of all of these people? Or do they suggest that they are all joined in some vast conspiracy to manufacture fake testimonies for these brothers?

4. I confess that, after twenty-five years of preaching, I've been at times a bit misleading about my own background. When preaching in rural areas, I have at times in the past exaggerated my own rural roots. I came from a small Arkansas town and was in FFA in High School. I raised pigs and one steer for FFA projects. But I had my nose in a book from early in life and was not really the typical rural boy from the South. At times, when preaching, I have (over?)emphasized these rural elements of my life story as though I were Huckleberry Finn, leaving off the more bookish realities of my own story. I have done this sort of thing to try to connect with my audience (as I read them) and to try to be more compelling in my presentation of the gospel. I further confess that I have, occasionally, completed paperwork in which I have listed "Lake City, AR" as my birthplace, although in actuality I was born in a hospital in Jonesboro, AR, some 15 miles away from our home in Lake City. I apologize and earnestly hope that this fault on my part will not result in any sort of an Internet colonoscopy that I will have to endure.

5. The point of this post remains my position: Liberty University will stand behind Ergun Caner. Any mistakes that he has made are no more grave and no more damaging to the effectiveness of his ministry than are several of the mistakes that Jerry Falwell made in his life. Both are great men. Both have served God faithfully. Both have impacted many lives. I thank God for the both of them. I agree with neither of them on every last opinion that they have held, but I do not require such of brothers.

Jeff said...

Bart, Good last response. Lake City is not to far from my old stomping grounds in Mississippi county. My dad preached at Leachville, Luxora, and Blytheville.

Bart Barber said...

Thanks, Jeff!

And I guess it is turning out to be the last response, although the thread was still hopping as recently as last night.

Of course, I know all of those areas well, but particularly Leachville. I have preached at the church in Leachville before, and I have good friends from over in that direction. In particular, Nathan Sanders has been a brother and a friend since early on. He has been led the worship at FBC Leachville for quite a while, and may still be doing so.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Bart - you're not being honest.

I'm not claiming that the Caner's weren't genuine converts from Islam.

I've pointed out that Caner's testimony is grossly exaggerated, and significant parts are lies.

Not minor misstatements, but purposeful exaggerations made to FBC Jax right after 9/11, to make himself to be more of an expert on Islam and terrorism than he actually was. He claimed to be a trained terrorist, trained in Europe until the age of 15, in the Islamic Youth Jihad, trained to do the very acts of 9/11.

Sure, the defense for Caner is we all do it, don't we? We all lie on our resumes, we lie to our employers about our experience and training and where we were born. So its ok for Caner to do it when he preaches.

Apparently there is only one profession where its ok to grossly exaggerate one's credentials: SBC preacher. Gee, even Notre Dame fired their football coach for one teeny tiny exaggeration on his resume about where he attended school. Not in the SBC. If you love Jesus and can preach a good sermon, its all ok, because we all do it, don't we?

And you equate Caner's deception about his past to Falwell's "mistakes". You should be ashamed of yourself. Nothing Falwell ever said rose to the level of Caner's deception. And when Falwell said something stupid, he apologized specifically for the remarks, which Caner has not done.

You and your Pattersonite friends who are bending every which way to defend Caner are running the risk of being greatly embarrassed when Caner's exaggerations become more newsworthy over time.

Just hope and pray this all blows over, and everyone will forget.

You guys might forget, but plenty of lay people will not. We don't take kindly to fibbers in the pulpit.

Bart Barber said...

FJW, I am not being dishonest.

I stated that you seemed not to comprehend the full force of the accusations against the Caner brothers. I authored this post in consideration of what others were saying about Ergun, and not what you were saying about him.

About his participation in "Islamic Youth Jihad" or the degree of his terrorist training, if any, I simply don't have anything to say at all. Ergun and I have never discussed these aspects of his life at all. I hope that he gives either an answer or an apology. I am confident that he is a man of integrity.

I do know, however, that your sources are claiming that Ergun and Emir alike are "fake Muslims." Are you asserting that none of these people are trying to press that claim?

Well, I find that claim worthy of a response. I've tried to make one (not in the original post, but in the comments here). I'm very confident that those sources are in error at this point, and this point is their main point, as I understand them.

These facts also make me question the reliability of these sources. I would want more reliable sources before I concluded that Ergun is lying.

I'm giving serious thought to taking camcorder in hand and driving up to Ohio to interview people and see what I can find. I wonder why nobody else has done that?

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Bart - I'll try it one more time.

My "source" is my own experience, and a recording of the sermon he preached at FBC Jax on 11/20/01, which I heard live as a member of FBC Jax. I only weighed in on the Caner debate last week AFTER I went back and listened to his sermon on 11/20/01.

I was there. I sat in the audience.

I heard him say:

1. "I was raised in Europe"

2. "Until the age of 15 I was in Islamic Youth Jihad"

3. "I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September".

4. He claimed to not speak good English when he was saved and even a year later when he felt called to go into the ministry. Depending on which testimony you hear, Caner was either 16 or would be speak broken English after being raised in the U.S since age 4.

So please, my sources are not "Muslims". Yes, there is a Muslim who calls Caner a "fake Ex Muslim". But that really has nothing to do with my beef about Caner. Even if everything the Muslims say about Caner is fabricated, Caner deceived us at FBC Jax that day.

And he did it with Jerry Vines right behind him.

Bart Barber said...

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. I, too, will try again.

I know that you have your own video source that Ergun has said all of those things. What I'm talking about is your source that allegedly REFUTES those things in Ergun's life. For the refutation of those things, you're depending upon the "fake ExMuslim" people aren't you?

Or maybe you aren't, and I'm not following you. Which perhaps would give credence to my assertion that you weren't really the fish that I was frying here. But I welcome you to help us to understand how you have obtained sources that refute what Ergun said in that video.

As I've stated already, I've never spoken with Ergun about "Islamic Youth Jihad" or any of the other things here. Next time I see him, I'll ask him about it. My trip to Ohio, should I find the time to take it, might provide some first-hand information about the English skills of the brothers Caner. There are ways to check all of that out. And I'm content to hear the answers for myself.

I'm just not going to count the evidence of the "fake exMuslim" folks as conclusive proof of anything.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Attempt #3.

Fact: Caner came to America when he was 4. Not when he was 15. When he was 4.

Source for this: Ergun's and Emir's book in which they state that Ergun was born in Sweden, and Emir was born in Columbus after they had emigrated from Sweden. they said it, in their own book.

Emir was born in August 1970.

Source: Emir's bio.

So Ergun was here since the age of 4.

Columbus, Ohio, since he was 4.

Not in Turkey. Not in Europe. Not in Beirut. Not in majority Muslim countries.

Columbus, Ohio.

This is the evidence that should cause you and me to demand Caner to explain:

1. How do you claim that you were "raised in Europe" when you admitted in your book that you came here when you were 4.

2. How were you trained in "Islamic Youth Jihad" when you were in Columbus since 1970? Was there a Jihad movement in Columbus? Did you notify the CIA to report them after you became a Christian? :)

3. Since you came here in 1970 before Emir was born, why does your bio TODAY at Liberty say you came here in 1979?

4. Where did you receive the training to "do that which was done on 11 September?" if you were here in the states since age 4? Were terrorists training you in Columbus, Ohio?

5. Why do you roll your R's when you say "Europe" and why do you prounounce "America" as "Ah-mid-i-cuh" when speaking to the folks at FBC Jax, when you were raised in the United States since the age of 4? Did this help make you sound more "Muslim", more of a "terrorist"?

6. Why did Phil Waldrep until Sunday describe you on his website where he was hawking your $35 testimony CD by calling you "a hardened terrorist" and a Muslim who "came to America to be a terrorist"? Did you write that for Phil, or did Phil's people write that? If they wrote it, how on earth did they get the idea that you were a "hardened terrorist"?

7. One other one Bart, from the FBC Jax sermon: which high school did you attend in Brooklyn, New York? If you were raised in Columbus since the age of 4, how do you tell the folks at FBC Jax that you "learned English in Brooklyn, New York"? In the Phil Waldrep sermons that were removed over the weekend in response to my post about Waldrep's site hawking his testimony CD for $35 calling Caner a "hardened terrorist"....Caner says he was in high school in Brooklyn and prayed on his prayer rug 5 times a day. Brooklyn, NY? So did you learn English in Brooklyn? Or did you go to high school in Brooklyn? Please explain the multiple references in sermons to your upbringing in Brooklyn, NY.

So Bart, these are my own sources, my own analysis.

And I'm just a blogger in his pajamas, and I can figure this out?

But you, a "man of God", with an advanced degree I assume, and you don't see this?

Lydia said...

"These facts also make me question the reliability of these sources. I would want more reliable sources before I concluded that Ergun is lying.

Are you totally dismissng these public documents as unreliable?

They certainly tell a different story than what Ergun has told in countless sermons on both audio and video.

Lydia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bart Barber said...

The documents given there establish beyond any doubt that:

1. The Caner brothers lived in Ohio (which I've known all along from the Caners themselves)

2. Their parents divorced.

3. Their parents owned real estate.

4. There was an arrangement for custody sharing.

I let the computer search through the documents for the phrase "Islamic Youth Jihad," but didn't find it.

Yes, I see that the separation agreement indicates that the boys were not supposed to travel outside the United States. And we all know that separation agreements are always followed to the letter without deviation. Just ask a mother who gets child support.

Ramesh said...

Helping L's with a link ...

SBC Today > Statement from Dr. Ergun Caner 25 FEBRUARY 2010.

Lydia said...

Perhaps you could make a trip to Turkey with your video recorder, too. :o)

bapticus hereticus said...

Paige Patterson in “Anatomy of a Reformation” states: “To conservatives, [Ralph] Elliott’s startling admission that “doublespeak” was common at Southern Baptist Convention seminaries was astonishing only because Elliott was so forthright. Furthermore, Elliot’s last sentence was precisely the issue. To conservatives, the issue was integrity [bold-face added].

What are Paige Patterson and Liberty University Board of Trustees members Jack Graham, Johnny Hunt, Bailey Smith, James Merritt, and Jerry Vines saying about Caner?

volfan007 said...


First of all, I believe that we should always tell the truth, even if it hurts…even if it means losing our shirt…tell the truth.

Second, I believe in giving a Brother the benefit of the doubt, until it’s proven to me different. I’ve heard nothing that substantially tells me different. I admit that there’s things being said that make me wonder, but I also know that Dr. Caner did apologize for exaggerating and mis-speaking at times. He did do that.

Third, I dont hate Calvinists. Some of my best friends are Calvinists. I dont appreciate the aggressive, obsessed, five point calvinists that are out to convert the SBC one church at a time. No, I dont. I dont like what they’re doing. I dont hate them. I love them in the Lord. I dont like the attitude of a few of them. But, God knows my heart….I dont hate them; I appreciate any good they do for the kingdom of God; and I consider them my brothers in Christ. But, I absolutely do not want their agenda to take over the SBC…that is the truth. And, I know that that causes some of them to hate me…it seems. But, that’s okay, too. But, they dont like Dr. Ergun Caner. There's no doubt about that. And, they seem to be one of the groups leading the charge here, with James White at the front.

Fourth, I’ve never been tazed, nor do I ever want to be tazed. lol. Who cares whether Dr. Caner was actually tazed, or if this was a prank...for the audience of young people? I mean, really...making a big deal out of this is really stupid. Yet, there's actually some people in blog world out there making a huge deal out of this. Wow! Maybe they should get tazed? lol.

Fifth, I think that we need to be very careful when thinking we know other people’s motives, unless they’ve been stated. We cannot look into the heart of someone to see if they were sincere; or if they knew something, or not; etc.

Six, if it’s found out that Dr. Caner was lying in sermons and on his resume and other things, then he’ll be man enough to own up to it, I’m sure. He, and his brother, Emir, seem to be fine people, who love the Lord, and who love His Book.

Seven, it is mainly the Founders type Calvinists and James White; along with the moderate/liberal crowd; and along with the Muslims, who even say that the Caners were not Muslims!!! that are going after Dr. Ergun Caner the most. I mean, there's just something odd about this...that makes me sit back and wonder......


Byroniac said...

David Worley,

1: I appreciate that. I really do.

2: This is not about needing to give the benefit of the doubt as if there's no certainty real problems (e.g., real contradictions) exist. This would not be nearly so large of a deal I believe if Ergun Caner's repentance statement had actually clarified the issues involved (which I believe was sincere, though not explicitly clear as to every wrongdoing that occurred), and if those of us on the other side of the issue did not feel a push as it were to dismiss and sweep under the rug so everything can go back to normal. Problems of this level of severity need to be dealt with, and when they aren't, that's not healthy.

3: One man's impression of what is "aggressive" and "obsessed" (i.e., yours) can merely look subjective to others (e.g., me). Being sincerely convinced of Sovereign Grace and desiring to teach, preach, convince and disciple others of what we believe is the truth is not a "take over" of the SBC. It is simply the product of heartfelt sincerity met with conviction of purpose. It hardly qualifies as a take over if people "convert" to this system of theology by being convinced of it from the Word (something I personally disagree the majority of the SBC will do in all probability). The question is not, are people being convinced of this doctrine, but, will they be allowed to hold to their beliefs, openly express them, and conduct discipleship and mentoring in the SBC without condemnation? I already know the answer offered by Peter Lumpkins' blog on this, as I was a small part of the ongoing conversation on this issue at one time.

4: OK, I give up. Whether or not Dr. Caner was tazed was no big deal, even if the video I watched seemed to center around the idea he was going to be tazed, and the fact of being tazed held some relevance for the subject at hand. Reminds me of Milli Vanilli from awhile back. We should not have been concerned with whether or not they were actually singing either, right?

5: Good reminder, and I agree, but one often cannot help assigning motive or intent when analyzing evidence of a consistent pattern of behavior. I personally do not know what is in Ergun Caner's heart. I do know that even I have seen video documentary of behavior (which categorically supersedes mere mis-speaking) which is troubling. I want to assume the best, but until such matters are addressed, that becomes harder and harder to do.

6: Amen. That is my prayer, and that either guilt or innocence will be shown and this matter be resolved.

7: I am one of those who are skeptical that the Caners were ever devout Muslims. Perhaps they were indeed Muslims, in the same way that many are nominal Baptists. But building a case for devout faith in Islam is rather hard to do with the evidence presented. I understand you are addressing instead whether or not they were ever truly Muslim, not whether or not they were devout, but since we cannot know their hearts, all we have to go by are their words and behavior (and mispronunciation of fundamental Islamic words does not bolster the argument that they were truly Muslims to start with).

Sorry for the length, but this had to be said so I can get it out of my mind.

volfan007 said...


If I remember right, their father was a Muslim Imam. How devout do you think they were?


Byroniac said...

David Worley,

I have heard that anyone can be an Imam, but I do not know. However, in the Baptist world, "Preacher's kids" are known for not being, well, devout. I do not think that is the case here; I am just making a point, that the religious stand of a parent is not always a good guarantee. Dr. Caner's early life may very well prove he was Muslim, but that he was devout would be harder to prove.

Byroniac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Byroniac said...

I should have said that I have heard that any Muslim faithful to an Islamic assembly can be an Imam of that assembly, but quite honestly I do not know. However, if someone is truly devout in a religion, would they then years later forget basic religious teachings of that faith and pronunciations of words? (e.g. #4 in AOMin blog post on 03/05/2010).

I am not here to judge the man (I have neither that responsibility nor that right), and I seek only to judge the truthfulness of his words by the evidence (in other words, I have a duty to truth as all believers do). But many times I feel like I am being asked to believe something, that Dr. Caner was a devout Muslim, without sufficient qualifying evidence. Yet somehow, the burden of proof rests on me and others who are skeptical in the absence of evidence, not on those who assert something without providing evidence or caring that such evidence needs to exist in the first place. Sorry to be blunt, but that is how I see it.

Debbie Kaufman said...

David: Dr. Caner's father was not an inman. He was a man who called people to prayer. Children can be asked to do this, anyone can be asked to do this. It is not a high position in the Mosque.

Debbie Kaufman said...

That should be imam. Dr. Caner's father was never an imam.

Byroniac said...

That's what the distinction was. I forgot that. Thanks, Debbie.

volfan007 said...


Debbie Kaufman said...

Yep Byron. That's the distinction. In one sermon Dr. Caner also talks about his father having many wives. Again did not happen. Not an imam, did not have many wives. That is just two of many.

Byroniac said...

So, Debbie, after all of these things are revealed, we get a literal "lol" offered in response. This diminishes my hopes for respectful consideration and meaningful response. The response I quoted in its entirety does not meet that criteria.

volfan007 said...