Saturday, July 10, 2010

Caner's consiglieri

"[TV host] John F. Ankerberg, who interviewed Caner for more than a dozen television programs, has posted on his website that he is disheartened by the attacks upon his friend's integrity and character. Ankerberg said he believes Caner's testimony is 'completely true.'" ---Christianity Today, posted 7/02/2010

" In a day of negativism and bad news, I am rejoicing today over many things. I rejoice over faithful witnesses of Jesus in a small Ohio Baptist church that loved two Moslem boys to Christ and then encouraged them to live for Jesus. I am grateful to God for the many people that have come to Christ through the witness of those two men. I continually thank God for His unbelievable plan to use sinners and mistake-prone men like the Caners, and even more amazing, people like me, to accomplish some things of great value in His kingdom business. Only eternity will reveal the good that two former Moslems have done. I thank God for them both."--- Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas

"I know Dr. Caner and have done a number of apologetics conferences with him, and have witnessed God using Ergun in a powerful way. He has always spoken words of grace to others, and I thus find it disturbing that some have chosen to show NO grace to Ergun in the midst of his current trial. If God only used perfect vessels, who among us would be qualified? I know of none. I urge all those who respect my work to take the word of someone who knows Ergun personally (me): He is a good man with a heart for God." ---Dr. Ron Rhodes, author and President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

Apologist Dr. Norman Geisler declared: "We posted complete and detailed response to criticisms against Dr. Caner on our website (" He concluded that, "Having examined all these charges against Dr. Caner carefully and having looked at the related evidence, I can say without hesitation that all of the moral charges against Dr. Caner are unsubstantiated. Further, no one had demonstrated moral intent on any of the factual misstatements he made (which we all make)." He added, "Dr. Caner is a man of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to Christ."---Dr. Norman Geisler, author and Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary

"Dr. Geisler's response to the charges brought against Dr. Ergun Caner by some Muslims and other groups has hit the mark. The charges on the surface sounds formidable until they are met with TRUTH, then they quickly evaporate away losing all power to condemn – leaving the accusers to contemplate their actions. Dr. Geisler's responses serve to confirm what I had already known about Dr. Caner's sincere character and tireless efforts to reach the lost with the gospel and equip Christians to defend the faith in a hostile world. Dr. Geisler and Dr. Caner are the two spiritual warriors I would most like next to me in the trenches doing battle for the cause of Christ." ---Dr. Joseph Holden, President of Veritas Evangelical Seminary, Murrieta, CA

*"Tim Rogers of SBC Today (A Southern Baptist news organ), declared and defended his claim that Ergun Caner was "exonerated" of the charge against him by citing Merriam-Wesbsters definition "to clear from accusation or blame."


  1. Steve,

    If I may, in a sample of Geisler's own writing he is shown to be more careful in defining words with in their context. As well, he seems to hold cult members to higher standards.

    Should this be so?

  2. Geisler's an evidentialist until the evidence implicates a one of his buddies. At that point he becomes a fideist!

    From what I can tell, Caner is no different than other self-promotional charlatans like Benny Hinn, Richard Roberts, Creflo Dollar, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton. But his defenders don't apply the same standards to him that they do to prosperity preachers or faith healers.

  3. Well, now I know the people that believe that using lies is a powerful force for the advancement of the Kingdom.

    Revivalism strikes back.

    This is a sad day.

  4. Ron Rhodes put his name up to rationalize Caner?


  5. Politics instead of the gospel. Sad.

    I see it in the local church as well. And it's difficult for elders to stand against it.
    I appreciate all who have exposed Caner, according to Scripture (2 Thes. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1).

  6. Would that lying was also condemned when it comes to lying about Catholics and their beliefs (as occurs, e.g., regularly on this very blog).

    It sure looks like Caner is guilty of playing fast and loose with facts and the truth, but that is certainly not the be-all and end-all of falsehoods and fabrications in the Protestant world.

    If we want to be advocates of truth, let's be consistent and do so all down the line. I've defended James White, Eric Svendsen; even John Calvin (the sodomy charge) and Martin Luther ("Christ was an adulterer" charge) when they were lied about. It goes far beyond party affiliation or whether the person likes one or not. Truth is truth and fair is fair.


    "Would that lying was also condemned when it comes to lying about Catholics and their beliefs (as occurs, e.g., regularly on this very blog)."

    Armstrong lies about "lying about Catholics."

    Of course, given his chronically irresolute resolutions, that's par for the course.

  8. Considering the fact that dear old Dave belongs to a denomination which relies on pious fictions to advance its claims, his plea for truth sadly lacks the ring of truth.

  9. Case in point . . . thanks dear ol' Steve!

  10. Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter!
    - Isaiah 5:20, ESV

  11. I see Armstrong yet again fails to understand a topic.

    If I believe that Catholicism states X when it really states ~X, and I then say, "Catholicism states X" in what way does that make me a liar? Would it not, instead, make me mistaken?

    On the other hand, if I say I was born in England when I was actually born in the United States, then in order for this to not be a lie I must be able to show a plausible explanation for how I could mistake my birthplace by over 2,000 miles, right?

    Now, any reasonable, rational person can look at these two types of instances, one where it's very easy for someone to be mistaken about a position he doesn't believe in, and one where it's not at all obvious as to how someone could be mistaken, and see that they are two different things. But it is precisely because it requires a reasonable, rational person that you are not able to see the distinction.

    Oh well. At least I tried for the others' benefit.

    And for the record, I don't believe anyone on Triablogue has ever radically misstated the Catholic position anyway (perhaps a few times things were not stated as clearly as they could have been, but that happens with all writing). Instead, we see how it is inconsistent, and we point those inconsistencies out. You, on the other hand, believe it to be consistent and thus your only recourse is to claim that we've misunderstood it. Now, if I were a wildly hysterical person such as yourself, I would accuse you of lying here; but since I understand you're deluded in false belief, I know you think you are right even though clearly you are wrong.