Ergun Caner

[HappyChristian]

You're right. I should have said "some". I feel it is a problem in some parts of Christians using rhetoric for effect rather than to convey truth. And I believe that's at the heart of the Caner controversy: he used rhetoric to get the result he wanted: plum jobs. 

Thank you.  I agree that all too often that is the case (but would not limit it to fundamentalism, for sure!).  I have only been able to watch one video you posted (about his birthplace). Thank you for providing the links.  

[candlelight]

I read one book by Ergun and Emir Caner.  I thought it was very good.  It gave me many ideas on how to witness to Muslims.  As I stated, I live in an area where Muslims live, as well.  I have been able to witness to Muslim women, b/c of this book, and I also witness to a 24 year old Arab man on Facebook, who is trying to get out of Islam. 

[Dr James Ach]

 

Why are some fundamentalists so out-of-control in their rhetoric?

Why did you choose to come to a KJVO fundamentalist forum to post your rhetoric? Go tell JD Hall to repent, and the SGM to stop covering up for their pervert pastors, clean up your own house and then come back here and tell us how to manage ours.

[Bro K]

"you don't even tell us a bit about yourself": This topic was brought up under the "Member's Profile" Thread. There was only 3 replies and no one for requiring more profile information be given; therefore let us live by what we ask for. 

[peter_lumpkins]

All

 

My name is Peter Lumpkins, an SBC pastor in West Georgia. I appreciate for the most part the contributions here. Given all threads I've engaged and/or observed, there is a more helpful regard for demanding evidence concerning Caner without drinking the spiked Kool-aid so often poured by self-appointed Caner-condemners like John Carpenter. The fact is, Carpenter offers a completely one-sided view pertaining to each of his charges against Caner, charges he routinely places in the same category as we place divine revelation; namely, <i>unequivocal absolutes</i>. In short, to disagree with Carpenter over Caner is to disagree with <i>truth</i>. Further, once one disagrees with Carpenter, then a) the one disagreeing is almost instantly labeled a liar; Carpenter calls the one disagreeing with him to repentance; c) then a question mark is branded into the forehead of the person disagreeing with Carpenter, a question mark referencing whether the person is saved.

 

Now I'm not speaking this out of inexperience mind you. This is precisely what happened on my site after I had placed a public comment to all that since we'd fairly well answered all the questions, no more comments would be posted which were <i>redundant</i>. Along comes John Carpenter posting a series of questions and assertions which had been dealt with in the immediate thread as well as other posts I'd published. I sent an email to Carpenter reminding him I said I was not going to publish redundant questions. What did Carpenter do? He shot back in part, "...Those aren't "redundant questions". Those are actual statements made by Ergun Caner that anyone can hear for themselves. They are also lies. You falsely call them "redundant questions" (thus lying) to help cover for his lies.

Please realize that the Bible says that all liars go to hell."

 

Please understand. Here's a man I've never met. And, so far as I know had only posted on my site once before--a 'drive-by' scolding me for daring to talk about Mark Driscoll's alleged plagiarism (he must have misunderstood the post because I actually was taking more of a neutral stance on the plagiarism claim). Hence, the first thing out of this man's mouth to me (figuratively, of course) is implicating me a liar and reminding me all liars burn in hell. The sheer condemnatory posture of some people nearly steals my breath away. Well, it got uglier with more explicit language judging me unsaved.

 

For my part, my brothers and sisters, when I personally deal with persons who are so short-fused when it comes to blowing out unequivocal moral epithets about people they neither know nor have enough to come to such a definitive conclusion, I have to say, "Whoa. Wait just a minute. If this dude so easily and quickly dismissed me as both liar and lost, why should I take his interpretation too seriously--and especially too quickly--when it comes to his moral pronouncements of others?

 

You are biblically wise and morally sound to clip John Carpenter's wings so to speak. The truth is, I can fully respect a brother like Dr. Ach who offers principled and well thought out reasons why he continues to possess questions concerning some of Dr. Caner's assertions. Granted. And one can have a reasonable, sober, and God-honoring conversation with people of his mature temperament. On the other hand, how are we supposed to have any reasonable exchange with someone who immediately labels us both liars and lost?

 

Unfortunately, Carpenter uses the same approach as James White, J.D. Hall, Turrentinfan, and a host of other aggressive Calvinists. I've been in this blogging game since the summer of 2006. So I've kinda been around. And, I'll have to tell you, my experience is no religious community--whether or not they name the name of our Lord--comes even a close second to the strict Calvinists associated with White and his internet circle (by the way, Carpenter posted a piece on White's blog just recently) when it comes to the unfair, unChristian, mean-spirited, and frankly, low-down attack-the-man tactics.

 

I trust you'll continue to offer meaningful exchange in your forum. Thank you for allowing me to post, and I hope I broke no etiquette you've established in your forum.

 

King Jesus be praised.

 

With that, I am...

Peter 

[No Nicolaitans]

My name is Peter Lumpkins, an SBC pastor in West Georgia. 

 

 

King Jesus be praised.

 

With that, I am...

Peter 

 

From one West Georgian to another...well said.  Welcome to OB.

[ASongOfDegrees]

Brother, they've got the links, there's no question about that. I researched it all from scratch myself I documented some of it Here but the problem I have is with:

 

JD Hall’s Deliberate Lies and Pious Hypocrisy

 

The Calvinists and Ergun Caner

 

James White Followers Threaten to Harass A Detractor

 

JD Hall’s Radio Show and James White Cover Up

 

And I'll just stop there.

I'm still suspect of the links John C. gave. I didn't like the way they were edited and patched together. Seemed dishonest. Now I'll take your word but answer me this;

 

Did Caner speak "gibberish" or was it Arabic that just sounded that way because of how fast he said it and with the accent?  The video said it was gibberish and they spelled out how it sounded to them i(which seemed childish) but they never mentioned how the phrases should really have been spoken or written. If you are gonna call it gibberish then you need to speak and write out how the phrase really is in Arabic. 

 

My past personal experience with Calvinists is that they are very dishonest in their approach and debates and will twist, misquote, ridicule and flat out lie about everything you say. This is because preserving their precious Calvin doctrines are more important than the scriptures themselves.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Welcome, Peter!

Thank you for your words of illumination as to how a Calvinist's mind works.  Much we already knew from past dealings with such Calvinists.  But it is always good to to have a refresher course once in a while so we don't let our guard down.

Welcome to the board!

[Dr James Ach]

I'm still suspect of the links John C. gave. I didn't like the way they were edited and patched together. Seemed dishonest. Now I'll take your word but answer me this;

 

Did Caner speak "gibberish" or was it Arabic that just sounded that way because of how fast he said it and with the accent?  The video said it was gibberish and they spelled out how it sounded to them i(which seemed childish) but they never mentioned how the phrases should really have been spoken or written. If you are gonna call it gibberish then you need to speak and write out how the phrase really is in Arabic. 

 

My past personal experience with Calvinists is that they are very dishonest in their approach and debates and will twist, misquote, ridicule and flat out lie about everything you say. This is because preserving their precious Calvin doctrines are more important than the scriptures themselves.

Now I am not fluent in Arabic but I've been around Muslims long enough to know some familiar phrases and recognize the accents (or dialect) which in Israel is how you can tell what part of Israel someone is from. His accent sounded weird. My brother in law, Elisha Weismann, speaks Farsi and Arabic so he is more familiar with Arabic languages and he said he couldn't really understand some of the things he was trying to say and would have to hear him speak some whole sentences. But since his parents were actually Muslims, I wouldn't doubt that he at least was familiar enough with the language to engage in a casual conversation with other Arabic speaking people. Thus, for that reason we did not look very closely at that issue.

 

I think he probably spoke the language naturally before he came to the United States. When I lived in the US, I knew a lot of Hispanic children that spoke the Spanish language simply because their Mexican parents spoke it in the home all the time even though they did not live anywhere but the US. So location doesn't necessarily play that large of a role in what language one speaks, and I think that is one of more petty accusations.

 

But that's the problem once you go after someone is that once you find a few major errors, every little anomaly after that becomes a big deal, and when you fail to separate the big issues from the smaller ones, it makes your overall case look weak. One of the things they taught us in law school was that when writing briefs, to limit your argument to 3-5 main points, and leave out the smaller issues, because if you include issues that can be argumentative, it leaves too much room for reasonable doubt***. I presume this is why those on Caner's side are so reluctant to believe the accusations because his attackers have presented so many irrelevant and small issues it makes the bigger issues seem like it's all one big cacophony.

 

Plus, the other danger in this accusation is that most of it comes from radical Muslims who will lie if it gets another Christian in trouble. Had they simply stuck to accusations that other believers had observed that were provable it might not been so damaging to their credibility.

 

And your last statement has really been shown in volumes. Once everyone has their mind made up, then you have all the fake profiles coming out of the wood work, someone heard from so-and-so who told so-and-so, it gets posted on a website somewhere, and then quoted and requoted so many times that all anyone remembers is the accusation without knowing the source, and then the rumors and lies build from there. That's why when I wrote about it, I started from scratch, and then listed only the biggest issues and the ones I could prove. This is where the Calvinists attacking him have damaged their case because they feel that the ends justifies the means (killing Servetus was justified because it silenced a heretic). They don't get that God is just as concerned about the methods in which the expositions are communicated as well as the.content of the allegations. At this point it has become an obsession for them to find everything they can to make him look worse by combing through every little detail of his life, and then castigating for any little inconsistency, or not being forthcoming with personal information that they themselves would keep private.

 

One of the warnings that Paul gives in 1 Timothy 6:4 is about "evil surmisings". That word surmising means harping on and spreading around allegations that have not been proven to be true. And as I have thoroughly documented in several articles, even though the case against Caner is pretty solid on the big issues, they have went into overkill on many things they can not prove, and have done so to several other people in addition to Caner.

 

 

__________________________________________

*** I let one of their bogus followers with a fake account called "Lumpy Peter" hang himself over picking on how I spelled something on my Twitter profile. On my Twitter, I have that I was a circus clown and am a certiFLIED Biblical counselor. The spelling is obviously deliberate, but this guy has spent 3 weeks Tweeting about how stupid I am because I "can't spell". When he last Tweeted, he said that I "forfitted [sic] my right to preach", misspelling forfeit in the process. Instead of addressing any of the arguments I presented, he merely tried to ad hominem me to death, and lost several of his own followers in the process. And hint for any of those outsiders who read this, I don't use a spell checker when I Tweet 140 characters

[Dr James Ach]

All

 

My name is Peter Lumpkins, an SBC pastor in West Georgia. I appreciate for the most part the contributions here. Given all threads I've engaged and/or observed, there is a more helpful regard for demanding evidence concerning Caner without drinking the spiked Kool-aid so often poured by self-appointed Caner-condemners like John Carpenter. The fact is, Carpenter offers a completely one-sided view pertaining to each of his charges against Caner, charges he routinely places in the same category as we place divine revelation; namely, <i>unequivocal absolutes</i>. In short, to disagree with Carpenter over Caner is to disagree with <i>truth</i>. Further, once one disagrees with Carpenter, then a) the one disagreeing is almost instantly labeled a liar; Carpenter calls the one disagreeing with him to repentance; c) then a question mark is branded into the forehead of the person disagreeing with Carpenter, a question mark referencing whether the person is saved.

 

Now I'm not speaking this out of inexperience mind you. This is precisely what happened on my site after I had placed a public comment to all that since we'd fairly well answered all the questions, no more comments would be posted which were <i>redundant</i>. Along comes John Carpenter posting a series of questions and assertions which had been dealt with in the immediate thread as well as other posts I'd published. I sent an email to Carpenter reminding him I said I was not going to publish redundant questions. What did Carpenter do? He shot back in part, "...Those aren't "redundant questions". Those are actual statements made by Ergun Caner that anyone can hear for themselves. They are also lies. You falsely call them "redundant questions" (thus lying) to help cover for his lies.

Please realize that the Bible says that all liars go to hell."

 

Please understand. Here's a man I've never met. And, so far as I know had only posted on my site once before--a 'drive-by' scolding me for daring to talk about Mark Driscoll's alleged plagiarism (he must have misunderstood the post because I actually was taking more of a neutral stance on the plagiarism claim). Hence, the first thing out of this man's mouth to me (figuratively, of course) is implicating me a liar and reminding me all liars burn in hell. The sheer condemnatory posture of some people nearly steals my breath away. Well, it got uglier with more explicit language judging me unsaved.

 

For my part, my brothers and sisters, when I personally deal with persons who are so short-fused when it comes to blowing out unequivocal moral epithets about people they neither know nor have enough to come to such a definitive conclusion, I have to say, "Whoa. Wait just a minute. If this dude so easily and quickly dismissed me as both liar and lost, why should I take his interpretation too seriously--and especially too quickly--when it comes to his moral pronouncements of others?

 

You are biblically wise and morally sound to clip John Carpenter's wings so to speak. The truth is, I can fully respect a brother like Dr. Ach who offers principled and well thought out reasons why he continues to possess questions concerning some of Dr. Caner's assertions. Granted. And one can have a reasonable, sober, and God-honoring conversation with people of his mature temperament. On the other hand, how are we supposed to have any reasonable exchange with someone who immediately labels us both liars and lost?

 

Unfortunately, Carpenter uses the same approach as James White, J.D. Hall, Turrentinfan, and a host of other aggressive Calvinists. I've been in this blogging game since the summer of 2006. So I've kinda been around. And, I'll have to tell you, my experience is no religious community--whether or not they name the name of our Lord--comes even a close second to the strict Calvinists associated with White and his internet circle (by the way, Carpenter posted a piece on White's blog just recently) when it comes to the unfair, unChristian, mean-spirited, and frankly, low-down attack-the-man tactics.

 

I trust you'll continue to offer meaningful exchange in your forum. Thank you for allowing me to post, and I hope I broke no etiquette you've established in your forum.

 

King Jesus be praised.

 

With that, I am...

Peter 

I can say I have been somewhat "in the trenches" a bit with Peter in being included with him in James White and JD Hall's attacks on us on his A&O website. Peter has been a great source and wealth of information on some of the hypocrisy behind these men, and has maintained his dignity while doing so. Now as Peter has stated, he knows what I have said as far as my position on the Caner issues, but we can have disagreements without Servetisizing each other. This is a concept that the Calvinists on their side just don't understand. I never thought I'd see the day where some other group of believers could be more judgmental and hypocritical than some of my independent fundamental Baptist brothers, but they take the cake. They make Peter Ruckman look like a choir boy when it comes to insults. 

 

The manner in which they have attacked Peter Lumpkins, TImothy Rogers, and to a huge degree, even their prime suspect, Mr. Caner has been disgusting, putrid, vile and some of the most unchristian displays of ethical recalcitrance I have ever seen. JD Halls method of ad baculum assaults on Timothy Rogers, and the lies he promoted on his radio show in support of it are a frightening testimony to the environment that these new Calvinists intend on providing the Christian environment. Within 2 hours of a comment that Timothy Rogers made, that he has apologized for in detail, Hall demanded that his head be brought on a charger. I have spent 5 days now tweeting and emailing over 5,000 people to get JD Hall to fess up to what he said on his radio show and he has blocked me from his website, blocked Elisha from their Reformed Montana Facebook page and even created a new one, and refuses to respond or address the facts and allegations I laid out.

 

If there was ever a better example than the "falling away" Paul describes in the end times then the examples I've seen from these Neo-Nazi-like Calvinists, I haven't found it other than the mother whore herself.

[Dr James Ach]

JD Hall's first response in 6 days about me:

 

Randy Barnes ‏@RLBarnes372h

“@DrJamesAch: @RLBarnes37 @PulpitAndPen have you seen this? Day 5 of JD Hall's refusal to repent. http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-mt 

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite 
•  More

Details

 

User Actions

  Follow

JD Hall‏@PulpitAndPen

@RLBarnes37 @DrJamesAch I'm just waiting for him to run out of fingers, so he can't count any higher.

 

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite 
•  More

 

 

 

 

5:55 PM - 8 Jan 14

 

 

 

What I find really funny about Hall calling all of these folks unsaved is that on December 19, 2013, he tweeted this:

 

JD Hall ‏@PulpitAndPen

When we quote Charles Spurgeon and employ the tactics of Charles Finney, it's clear we've become theologically schizophrenic.

— Pulpit & Pen (@PulpitAndPen) December 19, 2013 " title="12:54 PM - 19 Dec 13">19 Dec

When we quote Charles Spurgeon and employ the tactics of Charles Finney, it's clear we've become theologically schizophrenic.

 

So while Hall claims that Lumpkins and Rogers suffer from "a cognitive deficiency" he just admitted that he is schizophrenic, LOL

 

 

[John81]

Where do you have interactions with all these fleshly acting "Calvinists"?

 

I've run into some obnoxious "hyper-Calvinists" online, but not met any in person.

 

All of the Baptist "Calvinists" that I have known personally, or have had any dealings with, one wouldn't be able to distinguish them from any "regular" IFB who is born again and living for the Lord.

[candlelight]

What gets me is that Calvinists would take the word of a Muslim, instead of a born again Christian.  There is a lot of that going on.  It is my understanding that Ergun Caner, told a different story of his past, and hide his identity b/c of Muslims.  Is that correct?  I am still confused about all of this. 

[John B. Carpenter]

What gets me is that Calvinists would take the word of a Muslim, instead of a born again Christian.  There is a lot of that going on.  It is my understanding that Ergun Caner, told a different story of his past, and hide his identity b/c of Muslims.  Is that correct?  I am still confused about all of this. 

First, thank you for taking the conversation back to Caner. Lumpkins, et al., consistently try to divert the conversation away from Caner because they can't possibly defend his self-contradictory statements.

 

Second, who's taking the word of Muslims? Look at the statements by Caner himself. In one he says he was born in Stockholm, Sweden and in another that he was born in Istanbul, Turkey. Which is it? I take the word of Caner against Caner.

[John B. Carpenter]

Why did you choose to come to a KJVO fundamentalist forum to post your rhetoric? Go tell JD Hall to repent, and the SGM to stop covering up for their pervert pastors, clean up your own house and then come back here and tell us how to manage ours.

Stop trying to divert attention away from Caner's lies. Almost every post of yours is an exercise in diversion.