Update #2 on the Caner "Debate"
I hate to do it but I do not see any way to avoid this post without being accused of being unfair to Dr. Ergun Caner. I have not posted any emails regarding the Caner "debate." Dr. White has done so after agreeing to post them in their entirety. Even then, he waited until the obfuscation became so bad that meaningful communication almost totally broke down. You can read the whole exchange here.
Recently, after the latest salvos from Lynchburg and a troubling conversation with Dr. Caner in Greensboro, NC, I weighed in with one of my few contributions to this written exchange. I post that letter, and Dr. Caner's response, below only because he has asked me to do so. Actually, to say he "asked" is putting it charitably. I have been restrained in making many public comments about the "debate" or about the incredibly frustrating process of trying to get it set up.
When I announced that there would indeed be a debate and that I had agreed to participate in it, I made these statement:
With that being said, here is the recent email exchange, posted at Dr. Ergun Caner's request.
From: tomascol
Subject: Re: June 23, 2006
Date: June 24, 2006 2:42:15 PM EDT
Brothers:
I find Ergun's characterization of this whole issue to be far different from my own. I have read every single email that has been exchanged and would do so again except that I don't think I have sinned sufficiently to warrant such a sentence. It is enough to know that the record contained in those emails is clear enough to show anyone who wants to know about this pseudo-debate exactly what has transpired and how it has transpired.
Ergun, I do not know how or why you think that we have all agreed on the thesis or format. You have tried to dictate what they will be but there has been no negotiated agreement. Furthermore, Dr. O'Donnell's only email leads me to doubt the sincerity of his assurances to be an impartial moderator who will operate from the the rulebook of "fairness." His offer to entertain "specific questions about the format" as long as they are asked "professionally" rings hollow in light of my May 16 email to him. I did not copy it to anyone else because I was simply seeking to learn from him the best way to get information about the format.
Here is that email in its totality:
No amount of posturing or posing can change the fact that you have attempted to throw numerous roadblocks in the way of this debate. Virtually any prospect of having a fair exchange of ideas in a setting where our differences can be clearly expressed has been undermined by your unwillingness to discuss questions that must be settled before such an exchange can take place. I suppose that this sounds like whining to you. To me, it is an honest attempt to dialogue.
Ergun, when you told me and others in Greensboro about Dr. Falwell's plans to "pimp" this debate all over the world I was caught off guard. At first I thought I had misunderstood you but your repeated declarations that he was going to "pimp" it on TV and "pimp" it to "little old ladies" quickly disabused me of that notion. Your emails of the last two days have only confirmed my worst fears that your chosen vocabulary to describe this "debate" is all-too-accurate.
Well, I am no one's prostitute. And I refuse to be "pimped." If you are comfortable letting Dr. Falwell "pimp" you then that is surely your prerogative. I would love to pursue a genuine, theological debate. If that is what the Drs. Caner want, then let's work it out and get it done. If, however, all you want to do is put on a Fundamentalist burlesque show, then go ahead with the plans that you are making but find yourself someone more suited than I to join you on stage.
Sincerely,
Tom
Here is Dr. Caner's response:
From: erguncaner
Subject: Please Post This, Dr. Ascol
Date: June 26, 2006 8:48:57 AM EDT
26 June 2006
Dear Dr Ascol:
Well, for the first time in this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that posting private correspondence, which usually takes place between Christian gentlemen behind the scenes, might be helpful if posted. This is one e-mail that I believe should be posted, but I doubt if you will do it. This will stay private, or scrubbed, much like Brad Reynolds exchanges:
I am sorry you feel the way you do, Dr. Ascol.
emc
Recently, after the latest salvos from Lynchburg and a troubling conversation with Dr. Caner in Greensboro, NC, I weighed in with one of my few contributions to this written exchange. I post that letter, and Dr. Caner's response, below only because he has asked me to do so. Actually, to say he "asked" is putting it charitably. I have been restrained in making many public comments about the "debate" or about the incredibly frustrating process of trying to get it set up.
When I announced that there would indeed be a debate and that I had agreed to participate in it, I made these statement:
I am praying that this debate will bring honor to our Lord by showing how brothers can disagree strongly and decisively without resorting to the kind of name calling, misrepresentations, distortions that too often characterizes disagreements on this issue. I am also praying that the Gospel of God's grace will be set forth clearly and simply; that God's Word will be accurately handled; that truth will be honored and error exposed. I have no doubt that not only James, but also Ergun and Emir would join me in saying "Amen" to these petitions offered to our Lord. As God brings this to mind, please pray to this end (emphasis added).Let me simply say in the three months since I wrote that I have been completely disabused of such naivete. Make no mistake, Dr. Ergun Caner does not want to participate in a scholarly debate on the doctrines of grace. That is obvious to me and, if my email is any indication, to countless others who have read his comments.
With that being said, here is the recent email exchange, posted at Dr. Ergun Caner's request.
From: tomascol
Subject: Re: June 23, 2006
Date: June 24, 2006 2:42:15 PM EDT
Brothers:
I find Ergun's characterization of this whole issue to be far different from my own. I have read every single email that has been exchanged and would do so again except that I don't think I have sinned sufficiently to warrant such a sentence. It is enough to know that the record contained in those emails is clear enough to show anyone who wants to know about this pseudo-debate exactly what has transpired and how it has transpired.
Ergun, I do not know how or why you think that we have all agreed on the thesis or format. You have tried to dictate what they will be but there has been no negotiated agreement. Furthermore, Dr. O'Donnell's only email leads me to doubt the sincerity of his assurances to be an impartial moderator who will operate from the the rulebook of "fairness." His offer to entertain "specific questions about the format" as long as they are asked "professionally" rings hollow in light of my May 16 email to him. I did not copy it to anyone else because I was simply seeking to learn from him the best way to get information about the format.
Here is that email in its totality:
Dear Dr. O'Donnell:I sent it to directly to him. Yet, I still have not received even the courtesy of an acknowledgment, much less an offer to entertain my questions. As the written record demonstrates conclusively, this kind of treatment is typical of the lack of respect that has been afforded James and me in this whole process.
I have been told that you have agreed to moderate a debate on October 16, 2006 at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, VA. I am supposed to participate in that debate and have some questions about it that I would like to ask you. Would it be possible for me to address them to you via email, or would a phone conversation be better?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Ascol
No amount of posturing or posing can change the fact that you have attempted to throw numerous roadblocks in the way of this debate. Virtually any prospect of having a fair exchange of ideas in a setting where our differences can be clearly expressed has been undermined by your unwillingness to discuss questions that must be settled before such an exchange can take place. I suppose that this sounds like whining to you. To me, it is an honest attempt to dialogue.
Ergun, when you told me and others in Greensboro about Dr. Falwell's plans to "pimp" this debate all over the world I was caught off guard. At first I thought I had misunderstood you but your repeated declarations that he was going to "pimp" it on TV and "pimp" it to "little old ladies" quickly disabused me of that notion. Your emails of the last two days have only confirmed my worst fears that your chosen vocabulary to describe this "debate" is all-too-accurate.
Well, I am no one's prostitute. And I refuse to be "pimped." If you are comfortable letting Dr. Falwell "pimp" you then that is surely your prerogative. I would love to pursue a genuine, theological debate. If that is what the Drs. Caner want, then let's work it out and get it done. If, however, all you want to do is put on a Fundamentalist burlesque show, then go ahead with the plans that you are making but find yourself someone more suited than I to join you on stage.
Sincerely,
Tom
Here is Dr. Caner's response:
From: erguncaner
Subject: Please Post This, Dr. Ascol
Date: June 26, 2006 8:48:57 AM EDT
26 June 2006
Dear Dr Ascol:
Well, for the first time in this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that posting private correspondence, which usually takes place between Christian gentlemen behind the scenes, might be helpful if posted. This is one e-mail that I believe should be posted, but I doubt if you will do it. This will stay private, or scrubbed, much like Brad Reynolds exchanges:
- For the record, your quote of my words at the SBC was correct. I did use the word "pimped."
- I do love the fact that Dr. Falwell is willing to give this debate as big a stage as possible.
- He believes, as we do, that this is a vital issue in the SBC, and MUST be confronted to as large a crowd as possible.
- Of course, since no one is making any money on this debate (as Emir and I stipulated- no tickets and no "entry fees") your concern over being "prostituted" is not really valid.
- HOWEVER, before you storm off...please do not feel too superior. Would it change the equation if we were offering to pay you for doing a CRUISE to teach?
- Yes, Dr. Ascol, we understand your desire not to be pimped. Does that extend to traveling on a cruise with Dr. White...along with others...for free...as the advertised speaker? Apparently I am not as accomplished at this "pimping" thing...
I am sorry you feel the way you do, Dr. Ascol.
emc
posted by Tom at 6/26/2006 12:36:00 PM
332 Comments:
Brother Tom,
What a sorry state all of this has come to.
Dr. Canner tells of how Dr. Falwell is going to "pimp this debate to the world". He tells outright lies, claming you have agreed to things you have not agreed to. His behavior is Juvenile and arrogant.
It's hard to know what to make of this. Where is the brotherly correction and advice he should be receiving from inside Liberty? I suspect that most everyone is afraid to address him about this or he is living in an echo chamber and no correction comes his way, only affirmation.
It's truly sad but what's even sadder is that I'm not altogether surprised.
My encouragment to you and James is to take this opportunity to be a light in front of the students attending this debate. Take charge of it, as James dad recently advised him.
Years from now you will be proud of standing up for God's truth.
You and James are in my prayers.
Michael
And for the record, I just sent the following to Dr. Ergun Caner:
Greetings Dr. Caner,
I pray that this message finds you well.
As the first responder in the debate saga that began in February and continues to unfold to this day, I felt compelled to reply.
Firstly, if you would please carefully examine the advertisements for the 2006 Alpha and Omega Cruise, you will discover that Dr. Ascol is not speaking on the cruise this coming November.
Secondly, it is Sovereign Cruises LLC, not Alpha and Omega Ministries that will be sponsoring the conference in November.
Thridly, I would certainly hope that the __expression that you have used, "pimping", would not be used in any of these contexts. That term connotes someone finding customers for prostitution and I certainly don't believe that any of the beforementioned activities such as the "debate" (although it vastly differs from the debate and topic that was initially proposed by me; and actually vastly differs from any theological debate that I have ever witinessed), speaking at conferences, or in this case our annual ministry cruise constitute "pimping". As our goal in any of these endeavors is to examine our presuppositions and positions in the light of God's Word, I hope that reverence and respect for the weight of these issues would be respected. To that end, I sincerely hope that a debate format such as the one originally proposed this past February will be used so that all four parties will be able to carefully and thoughtfully present their positions and sharpen one another, for the sake of the body of Christ, during your time together.
I look forward to putting together a meaningingful, scholarly debate together with you and Dr. White in the future that would be similar to the ones that were proposed in November of 2005 and February 2006 prior to the Liberty announcement.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Michael O'Fallon
President / Director of Sales
Sovereign Cruises LLC
www.sovereigncruises.org
877-SOV-CRUISE ext. 3
I do pray that all involved will allow for a tried and tested fomat in the debate proceedings with a clear and definitional thesis statement.
I wasn't aware that a Christian gentlemen pimped anything whatsoever. Sounds more like another sort of "Gentlemen's Club" to me, and one that I am glad that you are not involved with, Pastor Tom.
As an addition, I just want to add that the implication that being paid for doing ministry is somehow prostituting ourselves is just ridiculous and offensive. I am grieved that you have had to endure such insult, pastor. The Lord will judge between you and him for such careless and graceless words.
Tom,
This debate is going to be a disaster and you should back out of it. I have stated my position several times on this blog and I hope that you will take it seriously. This debate will end up doing more harm to the movement that you are working for than it will do good. I was very impressed with the Mohler/Patterson debate and felt that it moved the conversation forward in the SBC. As both Mohler and Patterson pointed out, this is a debate among friends and we should remain cordial. The upcoming debate in Lynchburg has already turned sour and I feel it will turn into a complete debacle. Bowing out of the debate would obviously allow the Caner's to claim victory and that is fine. Goding through with it in my opinion would be worse.
I really like you Tom and I agree with a good deal of what you are trying to accomplish but why make a devisive issue or more divisive by participating in such a debate. Who's mind will be changed? What purpose will be served? How will such a debate bring glory to God?
Dr. Ascol,
I agree with Michael, this is a sorry state.
My first, second and third reaction to all this is yuck! Is it still possible to 'be the light' by participating in this? Concerning the apparent 30% of us who think that you all ought to back off... when does this begin to represent casting pearls before swine?
Not that my opinion is worth much, but...
I'm starting to think that its time to pull the plug. I don't see much that would be good and edifying coming out of this debate and am not sure it would be worth the time and preparation it would require.
The participants will be talking past one another. You will present reasoned, logical, biblical arguments. They will, in all liklihood, use bombastic rhetoric and showmanship to play to the partisan crowd. There's also the real danger that the debate could turn into an opportunity for snippets and soundbites to be disseminated that would distort both the issues and make you appear the fool.
Of course you might catch a lot of flak for backing out. They will portray you as intimidated and running away with your tail between your legs. So you'll have to decide if its worth it or not.
I believe we should stand for truth, but this has turned into an argument. My prayer is that you will back out now. I know that is what the Caner brothers are trying to get you to do, so give them their way.
Kristy
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gentlemen, we are afraid to say enemy, but Jesus said, pray for your enemies. They must be recognized as such before Christ's commandment to pray for them can be carried out.
I am really saddened by this sorry state of affairs. Jesus Christ taught that "you shall know my disicples by their their love for one another." I see more rancor than love in this. Where is the spirit of correction in all humility? And the use of the term "pimping" by a Dean at Liberty U. to refer to ministry is reprehensible. Can all the elders in the Liberty faith community approve of this? My ardent prayer is that they take appropriate action to remedy the situation. I am caused to pause and ponder just how Jesus Christ can be glorified by public posting of this behavior on the part of those who name Him as Lord...
It's so sad that someone who calls himself a Christian and a gentleman, could use such immature language in discussing an upcoming debate. However, having heard Dr. Caner preach at my church, I must say I'm not the least bit surprised. I have to join my voice with the others who question whether going through with this "debate" will accomplish much. It's difficult at best to even carry on a reasonable conversation with someone with such an arrogant, swaggering attitude, much less a serious debate over the weighty issues at hand. I will pray for you Dr. Ascol, and Dr. White, that God will give you wisdom in deciding whether or not to go through with this.
Tom and others who have commented,
I understand the disgust and concern caused by the Caners behavior. The pearls before swine comment ran through my head as well.
But when I consider what might be gained by contending for the faith before students who, I'm afraid, are feeding on a lot of junk food, it brings to mind the minister described in 2 Timothy 4.
He's to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."
This is definitely an out of season situation. But James White's comment about having heard from some of Dr. Caner's students in "abject shock" about Dr. Caner's comments in Romans 9 gives me hope that light will be shed by Tom and James and support will be given to other voices at Liberty. How can the scholarly presentation of the doctrines of grace not show the superficiality the the Caner's teaching?
Contend, my brothers!
Michael
Hey, all. I expressed my thoughts on the matter this morning in an email to Dr. White about it. With his permission, I will post it here. I hope that in it, there can be an answer to the question(s) posed about whether or not God can be glorified in it:
----------------------------------
Dear Dr. White,
I have read through the posts on you site over the last day or two about the supposed debate in Lynchburg that is up in the air at the moment. Honestly, I'm not sure what to say about it; it has been a mess. The concerns one writer had about you beginning to sound like Caner -- I was concerned that might happen as well, that is, until I read your response to him over the Romans 9 passage he flat out rejected as truth. In that, you didn't sound like him at all. :)
It would appear that Dr. O'Donnell hasn't moderated any theological debates, which is why there is all of this confusion on his part. He seems to want to treat it like some sort of political presidential exchange, and as you know far better than I, this won't work too well for a theological debate (the whole issue of a well-defined thesis, etc).
So then, the main reason I am writing this email rather than catching you in channel is that you are taking a head count apparently of whether or not a debate will happen, or at least asking people what their thoughts on the matter are. Well, I have to admit that my thoughts run both ways for reasons you've brought to light, but I'll do this:
I'll cast my vote, for what it is worth, for you to pursue the debate. I love what your father said about it.
I'll surely be praying for you about this. What I suspect will happen is that there will be a TRBC building full of Liberty students and church members who are coming to hear "their guy" beat down those "heretical hyper-Calvinists" and they are going to want Caner to show how you've misinterpreted the Bible. Well, it seems painfully obvious that he is not wanting to do that. So, when he gets up and rants, uses terms inapprpriately (and when you and Tom correct him and define them rightly), people will see that he is erring. They will think to themselves, "Ok, they said he used the term wrong. They provided the historical definition of it, let's see what he says," and then Caner will just torch another straw man. Many in the audience will be shocked; "Surely Caner will refute them -- surely he will..." and it will never happen.
Then, when you and Tom discuss the Scriptures, beautifully exegeting them and demonstrating clearly the truth of the doctrines of the grace as they rest on the Scriptures alone, these same people in the audience will say, "Ok, the Calvinists (not hypers mind you, Dr. White, because rational people will have stopped using Caner's mischaracterizations at this point) are providing Scripture references. It even sounds like they are interpreting them properly, surely Caner will show them how badly they are using the Scriptures," and then it won't happen. Dr. Caner will NOT use proper hermeneutics at all, and his fans, now probably former fans, will be shocked and surprised. They'll begin to realize that he has been fooling them all along, and that the truth of Scripture is the very thing he's been railing against now for months.
Maybe, just maybe, God would be pleased to use this debate (which will be very well publicized), to further the Reformation of many a heart and even the Southern Baptist Convention (since most SBCers haven't a clue what biblical soteriology is anyway).
I hope, my brother, that you find this email encouraging, and that you will persevere and press forward this October. My prayers are with you.
A Slave of Jesus Christ,
David B. Hewitt
I am less concerned with the use of the word, "pimped," and more concerned with the attitude of Dr. Caner - though I get what Tom I saying in terms of this debate being used to exploit/propagandize. Caner's combative tone and condescending attitude is more than I can stomach. Thankfully, Dr. Ascol is an encouraging example of patience and humility in all of this. Brother, you have handled this exchange very well. I hate the idea of pulling out, but don’t think staying with it is wise either. I am praising God that I do not find myself having to navigate this issue personally. In light of all this I am praying for you and James and the Brothers Caner as well. Keep standing for truth in the grace of our Savior.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Go through with it. Go and stand with honor, dignity, and grace as you present the Word of God to those who need to hear it. Who knows who might be sitting in that audience to hear the truth and respond to it as the Spirit sovereignly does what He wishes!
The Word never returns void and here is an invitiation - no matter how ungracious it has become - to preach the unhindered, powerful, active, and alive Word of God!!
GO. Please go! Please, please, please!!
~Pastor Phillip M. Way
Dr. Tom,
you guys should NOT be the ones to give in. Make no mistake, you will be seen as giving in and giving up. The only way God will not be glorified in this debate is if it never takes place. The reason I know that is because you and James are good people. You guys are lights in a dark world. The light will overcome the darkness that only comes from human pride and arrogance. Allow the Word to speak for itself and watch God do the rest.
Before you think about quitting Tom, ask yourself this: why in the world would any Christian who holds the truth back away from debating the Word of God in public before an audience who wants to hear the truth? What reason is there?
I would like to thank Dr. Caner for admitting to the substance of the objections about the topic of the debate as demanded by the Caners. Dr. Caner, apparently, didn't bother to think before he wrote about that or a couple of issues:
a. He writes: This is one e-mail that I believe should be posted, but I doubt if you will do it. This will stay private, or scrubbed, much like Brad Reynolds exchanges:
Notice that he mentions private exchanges with Brad Reynolds about some unknown topic. Apparently, Dr. Caner objects to the publication of private correspondence for the purposes of commentary and quoting others' accurately, but feels free to mention private correspondence with Brad Reynolds.
b. In his email to Frank "Centurion" Turk, Dr. Caner replied:
Apparently we have discovered the one topic a hyper Calvinist is not comfortable debating...his own presuppositions.
It seems debating the nature of God and His attributes is not to Dr. White's liking.
Why mention this? Well, one of the problems that folks have had with his thesis statement is that it trades on assumptions about God's character and acts in an attempt to beg the question in favor of those arguing for the thesis and not against it. The insinuation is that if the Calvinist denies the omnibenevolence of God, He denies God is all good and all loving. This is proof of the Caners' counterargument.
However, this is not the Calvinist position. The Calvinist position is that God is not all loving in the sense that He loves all persons the same way, not that He is not all loving or all good at all. Rather the Calvinist argues that God is fully loving and fully good and fully just and fully merciful, fully holy, fully powerful, and fully independent of His creation. All of these play into God's "omnibenevolence," and in fact a good theologian would recognize that there are incommunicable attributes of God that underwrite the communicable and would seek to examine the selected attribute of omnibenevolence (which is not in any standard theology text on Theology Proper that I can find, and I even have Oden's set, so I'm not looking in Reformed texts only), in light of others like God's justice, immutability, and independence. How do these affect how we view His love? This way of looking at God's attributes and His love is not a presupposition brought to Scripture; it is a conclusion derived from Scripture itself, since Scripture includes all of this information. Thus, the objection raised by the Caners trades not only on a straw man of the other position, but it assumes what it needs to prove about the contrary position and falls victim to the grounding objection itself. That is the very definition of a presupposition that is assumed without benefit of argument. What's more, it is used to skew the debate topic in their favor. Dr. Caner is, therefore, guilty of mirror-reading, by imputing to his opponent a standard that he himself holds and then chastising them for failing to measure up. He is doing that which he claims of his opponents in demanding this thesis statement without more clarity. This is a tacit admission, therefore, on his part, that the substance of Dr. White's objections about the thesis statement are valid.
Thank you Drs. Ascol and White for confronting doctrine that has caused me years of anguish. I'm sure you will be helping many other simple folks like me.
Love in Christ, Bruce
Dear Tom,
Some guesses of what might be in store if you go ahead with the debate:
Notice that he denied that there will be charge for admission but not that there will be a video made. It may be that they plan on making a video (and/or DVD) and distributing it in exchange for a hefty donation. The big catch: it will most likely be heavily edited to make you look bad and their guy look good. I've worked as an editor and editors can do amazing things. No matter how good you do in person, you can be made to look bad on an edited DVD.
The crowd won't be with you either. And that makes a difference as to the chemistry.
Instead of simply backing out, why not propose a compromise: a change of venue (to Southern Seminary, with Mohler moderating or, if they think that's too biased, to Southeastern). And be sure to get some promises in writing about the video! That is, if you decide to go ahead with it which I'm not necessarily advising you to do.
Looks like the more contention that can be stirred up about the debate, the more of his upcoming books Ergun will be able to "pimp".
I suggest going to the debate and 1 hour and 50 minutes into the debate james and tom ask the audience if they would like to keep going another hour.
I also suggest that Tom call O'donnell. Even though there will not be a record of the conversation. Heads tend to be cooler on the line than behind the keyboard. I think that would move everyone a little closer to closure on this.
Let me also PIMP my blog HashBlog so that you can see cute videos of my twins and I can use the word one more time.
Hello gentlemen. I am a new post-er but have been following this blog and others for several months. I've been following this debate from the begining and have been overwhelmed with the amount of rudeness, resistance for transparency, and sheer ungodliness that has been desplayed throughout this whole situation. I have been very sympathetic to jbuchannon's ongoing call for you to drop out now before the "movement" will be dragged through the mud. I agree 100% with him that this will likely be the outcome, but the problem is that if you're not there, then it will just be someone else. The Caners will continue their attacks as will those of their thinking. I have every confidence in you and the level of biblical fidelity and integrity that you strive for. I don't know that there would be a better choice to stand the onslaught and then direct everyone toward the Word, giving God the Glory in all things including Salvation. Thank you for your ministry and the teaching you do through this blog.
Ron
I have tried to follow the issues surrounding this debate and the things Drs. Caner have been doing as much as I can. I wish that I could say I am suprised with the actions of Dr. Caner, but like Dr. Falwell, he reveals a certain propensity for being unable to keep his toungue under control. Instead of speaking as a believer ought, he speaks harshly and rashly, doing all short of uttering profanity in his public discourse and yet continues to claim to be a child of God. I do not doubt his salvation, since that is not for me to know, but I do not detect in his writing or his speaking any signs of meekness, humility or gentlness, and this is a troubling thing to see in one who I would like to call a brother in Christ.
I know some might think you and Dr. White should withdraw and a part of me thinks that might be a wise course. However, what good would come from that? Drs. Caner would slander and malign your motives for leaving and his words on the matter would travel far and wide through the pages of Liberty publications and other outlets sympathetic to his brand of Christianity. I would encourage you, Tom and James, to persevere, contend for what is right, put up with the slander that is yet to come but do so with an assurance that comes from Him who saved you and be gracious beyond measure.
I want to echo sentiments that I first heard from Dr. Mohler: if we really claim to understand and believe the doctrines of grace we should be the most gracious people on earth. I want to encourage you to continue on, attend this 'debate,' represent the truth of the Gospel and do so as one saved by grace, sustained by grace and destined for glory because of grace. Always seek to exhibit grace beyond measure.
No matter what, the Caner's will claim victory. But if you can simply go and exhibit grace you will have won a victory more potent than anything the Drs. Caner can print about or claim to have achieved.
To those who want Dr. Ascol to attend the debate,
as I mentioned earlier, it will not just be the people present in the auditorium who will see it but most likely the debate will be vidoed, heavily edited, and then circulated, perhaps in exchange for donations. That they've already admitted that they'll somehow make money off of it and yet they're not charging admission seems to me to lead to the conclusion they'll use audio or video of it to their advantage. I believe it is very important that there be some kind of protection over audio and video reproductions of the debate, perhaps that it not be edited in any way. Otherwise, no matter how good Dr. Ascol does in person, he can be edited to made to look (or sound) like a bafoon. Beware.
This controversy has cleared up many difficult issues I've had. Just by reading the interactions of the many brethren one can glean many truths. Please continue - I NEED TO KNOW MORE. It's very liberating for someone new to "The Doctrines of Grace" God Bless all of you.
Though Ergun "may" be regenerate, he has taken the broad road of taking arms against the truth. His primary motive seems to be shock and awe with a manner that smacks very much like the "pulpiteers" Martin Lloyd Jones lamented in days gone by.
Finney was an enemy of the truth. Arminius was an enemy of the truth. Pelagius was a heretical enemy of the truth. I now conclude, Ergun, has, by his own arrogant, self-absorbed, and ridiculous assertions, positioned himself as an enemy of the truth.
"You shall know them by their fruit" (works?)
"For satan himself appears as an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (fruit?)
Less anyone think I'm to abrupt, may I ponder the question - What would qualify as an enemy of the gospel were Paul making the charge?
CR
Tom,
Having on a second to comment, I have not read all the comments, so if this has already been said or out of line with the discussion I apologize . . .
There are several factors I assume that would determine whether to debate or not to debate. Ultimately, will any of this glorify God and explain/defend the gospel? Aside from personal repute or winning an argument, will the Spirit of Christ be exhibited not only in His Truth but in His fruit?
What troubles me is the idea that evangelical Christians cannot debate one another. Debate is deemed a divisive exercise and should not be. If we cannot debate with maturity, respect, and grace, then the issue is not with debating but with the one in the debate. This has been the case here; however, I am afraid that the whole idea of debating is going to get the black eye with the larger audience who will think that nothing good could come out of it. I maybe wrong, and I hope that I am.
Also, I can't help but think what this past year has shown me when dealing with Arminians (or "biblicists"). While there are some Arminians who are conversant and willing to discuss the matters while showing love for one another, many simply want to mischaracterize us or redefine us according to their terms. Furthermore, Calvinists are charged with killing churches, being a virus, anti-Great Commission, etc. There are sites like BaptistFire (now gone), the flyswatter, and the Caner brothers slandering and mistreating their Calvinist brother. It is fine if they disagree, but the underhanded tactics is simply deplorable whether you are a Calvinist or not. But what shall I say also of the numerous pastors who have consistently and persistently constructed straw men and in so doing attacking a Calvinism that doesn't exist? Yes, Calvinists have become the whipping boys in the SBC.
With the recovery of the gospel, I pray that there will be the ability to have healthy discussion and meaningful interaction with those we disagree. Ultimately, the issue is not whether we can debate or not but whether we can handle the truth.
WHEN, not IF ~
the "debate" occurs ~
Drs. Ascol and White can expect the same three responses that Paul received after preaching the TRUTH in Athen, Greece (Acts 17).
Have one or more friends video the "show" and if the Caners (and Falwell) edit and distribute their version in an effort to discredit the TRUTH voiced by Drs. Ascol and White....
the unedited edition can be used to
prove the dishonesty, unfairness and lack of Christian integrity of the Caners and their company.
Personally, I would never hesitate to preach/teach the TRUTH anywhere
God directed. I have been doing it for more than 53 years.
What an opportunity to display Jesus Christ and present the TRUTH
to many (MANY) who have never heard
scriptural Christianity!
I write this with hesitancy and a grieving heart over this issue. I wonder if a non-believer would happen upon these blogs and see the exchanges by believers. What would their response be to this childish behavior by Dr. Caner. I believe that Tom, you and Dr. White, must prayerfully seek the guidance of the Lord in this manner to see if it is advisable and glorifying to Him to continue. Has this become a contest about "winning" under the disguise of getting the truth out to a captive audience at TRBC? I hate to say anything negative about another brother in Christ, but I do believe that Dr. Caner is showing his true colors as a bully and one who is "predestined" not to listen to reason. Can you guys seriously go into Lynchburg and expect to get not even a fair hearing, but any type of hearing. Does the format of the debate the way it stands now even allow for true exegisis? Not really. It will become a bunch of bombastic slogans and eloquent fundamentalistic rhetoric coming from the Caners, as you and Dr. White attempt to gently and humbly seek out the truth from the TEXT. That is my concern. This has become an issue over personalities, character, and behavior and not about the TEXT. That is why this debate was scheduled in the first place. I believe that Dr. Caner (while I believe he is an inerrantist and respects the Word) will allow his Arminian tradition to cloud any serious exegetical study of the key texts of Scripture. Let's face it--on a logical and exegitical level, Dr. White will trash him to pieces in a heartbeat. He knows he has no chance.
Here's my recommendation--do a joint book like Dave Hunt's "Debating Calvinism" which will force him to articulate his thoughts in writing and not in a public home turf forum. Tom, you can address the historic Baptist positions, Emir can address his with the Anabaptist tradition and it can be published by Broadman and Holman as a way to open up the Calvinism debate in the SBC. THis will get personalities aside and get the HOly TEXT in the forefront. Who knows, maybe the Lord will grant all of you wisdom to say no to continuing this debate.
I am absolutely shocked at the spirit and intellectual vacuity of Dr. Caner. His attitude bespeaks a terrible state of heart, and I am simply shocked at the accusatory tone against Tom that he evokes in his comments.
This from someone who works at Liberty University? How much fundraising goes on in the name of Chirst at Liberty? He is criticizing the use of a cruise dedicated for the purpose of Biblical teaching.
I can recall many instances when Jerry Falwell and others at Liberty have promoted events, offers for degrees, not to mention the entire PTL scandal as something for which money was exchanged in return for some sort of service.
He does not provide a good reason not to debate on the issues, and he certainly proves he is no Christian statesman worthy of the honor of addressing the Southern Baptist Convention.
I would encourage you to seek a debate, and I would hope that the Caner brothers would rise to the occasion to actually focus on key texts in Holy Scripture rather than a pseudo-earnestness about being "Biblical" and "Baptist."
As C.S. Lewis said, "I'd sooner live among people who don't cheat at cards than among people who are earnest about not cheating at cards."
Likewise, I would rather hear sound reasoning from these men rather than continual talk about sound reasoning from them.
Indeed, this is why the SBC is as it is today.
Truly, a shame, but I do believe change is coming.
Unfortunatly, no one is surprised by how the email conversation has gone with Ergun. Thanks for handling the situation with class Tom.
I think the debate should proceed. I believe this to be a serious subject that the SBC needs to address. However, my take on this is very different than many of yours.
I personally believe that Dr. Caner would do an outstanding job and would certainly win the debate. First, because of his superior debating skills. Ergun has a brilliant mind and is very skilled in the area of debate. And second, he would win because his view is indeed Biblical. Ergun rely's on scripture to influence his theology, not a man made theology to influence scripture.
I have read with amazement the self righteous attacks,name calling and misrepresentations of Dr. Caner in this blog. This blog certainly feeds the notion that Calvinists are arrogant. That statement by Chris r that "Ergun is now an enemy of the truth" is one of the more rediculous statements I have ever read on this blog.
One misrepresentation is the assumption that Ergun is an Arminian. If anyone has heard him speak on this subject he makes it very clear that he is not an Arminian. However, so many people just make room for a person either being an Arminian or a Calvinist. Ergun simply states his point that he is neither, he is a Baptist. Why does his identifying himself as a Baptist alarm so many of you? Is he not Presbyterian enough?
So I say, proceed with the debate! The truth will prevail.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
We need to be careful about the speech on these postings. We do not have the right to question Dr. Caner's salvation. This is going too far. Let's heed James' warning in Chapter 3 about taming the tongue and seek to possibly correct a brother in love without making claims upon his eternal salvation. That is God's perogative alone, not ours.
Tom,
As I said to you in correspondence some time ago, this is a project by the Caners to drop a bomb on SBC Calvinism. The "pimp" comment removes all doubt in my mind. Whatever happens that night will be far less important than what the Falwell media empire does with the taped result. It will be a weapon against the Founder's Movement for years to come.
The Founder's Movement has never operated by demanding debates. I understand why you have accepted this invitation from your friend. I would urge you to consider what will be done to SBC Calvinism with the edited tapes. This is a project that will be edited into you saying and supporting things you did not say and do not support. It will be distributed to support the war on Calvinism in the SBC.
There is a battle here for principle and truth. But the end result will be major collateral damage.
Consider this carefully.
Your friend,
Michael Spencer
I am a student at Liberty's School of Law. I will be very disappointed if the debate does not occur. Caner and company may or may not realize it, but they are fostering a real hostility among the undergraduates against Calvinist "Infectors." The "monergist brigade" is small and under fire here at Liberty, so we are urgent to see this debate happen. It wouldn't matter to us that the debate was rigged to favor the brothers Caner. We just want to see people show up and demonstrate to our antagonistic brethren that we are not alone. You can’t imagine the boost to morale that we will get just by having Drs White and Ascol enter boldly into the lion’s den. We are Calvinists after all, and are not worried about God’s ability to safeguard the presentation of His truth under hostile circumstances. Please pray that this event occurs, and please come in droves. God bless you all.
Short and sweet: perservere, Dr. Ascol. I hope you and Dr. White can attend to, if nothing else, open the scriptures for the Armin.
Ben Keller
I have been in church all my life. I went to a Christian school for 12 years, and Bible College for 2. After all that, my understanding of Calvinism was that it has something to do with "once saved, always saved." It took a space-filler program on a Christian TV station at 2:00 AM to introduce me to real, biblical Calvinism. If you have the opportunity to talk to an auditorium full of young Bible College students who likely have never heard Calvinism properly presented, then for their sakes I say "Do it!" If God can use a Christian TV station at 2:00 AM, then he can certainly use you.
You know far better than I that the results are in the Lord's hands. Don't let the Giant of Despair cause you to lose hope. He is a loud, obnoxious bully. Ignore him. There are thousands who think the world of Dr. Caner because they have not heard any different. For their sakes, go. The prayers of the saints are with you.
"As I said to you in correspondence some time ago, this is a project by the Caners to drop a bomb on SBC Calvinism. The 'pimp' comment removes all doubt in my mind."
Michael, I couldn't agree with you more...
"Whatever happens that night will be far less important than what the Falwell media empire does with the taped result. It will be a weapon against the Founder's Movement for years to come."
Michael, I couldn't disagree with you more...
I too have no doubt Falwell, the Caners and others involved over at Liberty want to drop a bomb on Calvinism, but let me assure you, no amount of editing can change what is going to be said. Take it from an video editor. How could I manipulate what has been said? How could I have Tom saying something different than what he says or make him sound different than the way he sounds or look different then the way he looks? Sure, I could have more shots of him reacting to Ergun than Ergun reacting, for example, to James if he were to say something he disagreed with. But as for manipulating words, there is no way. The same is true if I was in charge of editing over at Liberty and being pressured by Ergun to make him look better. If he were to go off and says something like “I’m sick and tired of Calvinists, they all can just go to Hell” there is no way to edit what he said or make him look better saying it. If Tom says, “I would like to thank Liberty university for inviting James and I to be here..." there's no way I can make him look bad saying it.
Tom, when you hear brothers like John say "no matter how good Dr. Ascol does in person, he can be edited to made to look (or sound) like a bafoon. Beware" don't worry, that cannot happen if you and James stay professional and courteous.
I am stupified. I can't believe what the Caners said in that 22 page correspondence. Unbelievable.
It is late on the West Coast , , , ,Wiley is probably in bed and I am grieving the loss of my wife's grandmother who was buried in Augusta, GA, this past Saturday. I have just met Tom at the SBC in Greensboro; I have re-introduced myself to Tom Nettles (I had him for Church History at SWBTS) and to say that my son had taken his course at SBTS last semester ( he said: "he sat to my left"); I have seen Dr. James White in two debates on the West Coast (Douglas Wilson and Shamir Aly) and I have to say that I was proud to have him as a brother in Christ; I am of the opinion that this debate or dialogue must go forward for the sake the Truth! I encourage every one who reads this posting to honestly fast and pray for this situation that as already has been stated that "God be Glorified and that the Truth be spoken." There is no reason to back down for the truth of the Gospel.
By His Grace and For His Glory . . . . .
Brothers,
This Thing Is getting a Little out of control. I hope some one can show the Caners that they are just hurting the Gosple and there own ministries by acting the way they have been acting. Brother Tom March forward Christian Soldier I will be praying for you and Brother White. A little side note for Brother Will Langford You need to study the doctirens that you and your champion of free will are speaking out aginst before you open you mouth about the truth or un truth of it. You must know both side of the coin. You cant be ignorant of the one or the other. It is your biblical duty to be fully equiped. Also the fact that you are defending the Caners just shows me that you havent even read the files on the corasopdances between the two partys. So I Hope you do and mabye you will see what is actualy going on. Once agian thank you Brother Tom For Stanting Firm in the Faith.
Sam Bell
Fredericksburg Tx
Free Grace Baptist Church S.A Tx
Dear Dr. A,
I urge you to go to the "debate." When you take the stage with the goal of faithfully discharging your trust, the Master who appointed you as a steward will be your defender. If your opponents try to make you look foolish, the rock they are trying to roll on you will roll on them.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Dr. Caner's behavior makes me embarrassed of the fact that I attend Liberty University.
However, knowing Dr. Caner, he probably wasn't trying to use the word pimp in its literal context, but instead was probably trying to show how much modern 'young' lingo he knows...he prides himself on being popular with his students, and goes to enormous lengths to keep it that way. A friend of mine told me of a friend of his who hangs out with Dr. Caner outside of school, who was very impressed by the fact that he uses curse words on a regular basis, because it shows that he's not as "uptight" as some of the other professors. (Note: I do NOT condone the behavior of a Dean of a Seminary who has a potty mouth) I think that by the word 'pimp', he just meant that Dr. Falwell was really going to try to make the debate high profile.
I know a lot of your brothers in Christ on this page want you to back out, but I BEG of you not to. If these men knew the degree to which these students blindly follow Dr. Caner in everything that he does, I think they would agree that this needs to happen. The Liberty University students need the truth to be proclaimed, and they need to see it in this way. Dr. Caner doesn't want to do this debate, but he also doesn't want to be the one to back out. He wants you and Dr. White to back out so that it makes him look victorious. I know that pride doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things...that's not what I'm concerned about...I'm concerned about my fellow students. I'm serious...they drink in everything he says, taking it as gospel because he has a Ph.D. and he's the Dean of the Seminary, and he debates Muslims. They don't bother to question anything he does because they hold him above reproach. I KNOW that this debate needs to happen, and we all just need to pray that God will open the hearts of the students so that they will see who is being calm and scholarly and speaking God's truth, and who is yelling and screaming and using one-liners to elicit cheers from the audience. Yes, it will be rowdy and maybe uncomfortable...you might encounter some persecution, but isn't persecution a blessing?
It seems I am ranting...I just wanted to get my two cents in. :) Thanks for allowing the rant space, Dr. Ascol.
Proverbs 14:7 "Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge."
I have mixed emotions on this. On one hand,k I think you and James should proceed (I like the idea about asking the audience if they want the debate to go longer), on the other hand, James has put a lot of time into making things right (which is understandable), but no doubt could have been spent preparing for other things or finding an opponent who actually wants to debate.
My Brothers,
Just a bit of fantasy fiction I penned when the fireworks began on this debate over a month ago.
Frankly, I think it may still be appropriate to revisit (perhaps for the majority, the first time) since the temperature rises once again over an engagement which, in my view, appears unlikely to ever Glorify our Lord. This very well could send the Calvinist Resurgence back to the 70's. Is that what you want?
Once upon a time there were two young men who lived in entirely different parts of the planet. Being born about the same year, as time passed on, both received a special new birth from Heaven with both embracing the Bible’s Christ with sheer delight!
And were they excited! In fact, neither could get enough of Him, His teachings or His Church.
Nor did this excitement about The Bible’s Christ fail to take notice of the Church Leaders. Each man’s Church loved him, nurtured him and supported him.
And, furthermore, as each man internally sensed that The Bible’s God was calling him to a specific function to the Bible’s Church, each man’s Church externally validated that inner call by visibly commissioning him to Church Leadership.
Of course, this leadership did not come without its due toil. Each man dedicated himself to a lifetime of study, scholarship and teaching. No mountains were too high to climb or valleys too wide to cross. The Bible’s Christ was much more significant than any obstacles he faced. Each spent much time preparing himself for what The Bible’s God had called him to do.
Time passed on; but though most of the truths each learned were the same, there were some differences that began to forge. Indeed the differences became more and more pronounced. So much so, that, even though the two had never met, they began to speak to each other about the differences.
Both men felt a little awkward as they spoke to each other for they really had never had much communication between them. And, even though so much similarity existed in the views each had independently forged about the Bible’s God, their only point of communication was their differences.
So, they kept trying to build a relationship between themselves based on the only thing they knew: their differences. A series of conversations took place but they didn’t go so well. All they could seem to talk about were all they knew about each other: their differences.
Emotions increased and finally any hope of meaningful relationship between the two young men rapidly slipped away. All that was left for them would be a public display of their differences and allow others to decide who they thought to be correct.
As a result, each of them went to his Church Leaders and spoke openly of the matter to the assembled wise men. As they listened, some began to note their concern that such an open display of such difference would not assist the Bible’s Kingdom in advancement.
One wise man spoke: Should not brother be for brother and not against brother? What possible help will this display of difference bring to honor The Bible’s Christ as He prays ˜that they may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” Even more, what possible display of love is this for the world to see?
Other Church Leaders joined with many questions. One wise leader said: My dear son. How far you have traveled with us. Your abilities The Bible’s God bestows through grace is beyond all we have seen for many, many years. I have watched you grow and mature. No one could ever question your knowledge or your passion to The Bible’s Christ.
But I must ask you, my dear soul: Are there not enough unbelievers to whom you may turn to cast down their arguments, pillage their arsenal and ravage their farms where they grow their poisonous crops to destroy The Bible Truth? Is there not? I beg you, tell me plain. Why must you plow The Kingdom’s Field?
One Church Leader brought up a near universally known engagement between Whitehall and Williams, two of the Church’s greatest saints, each of which, the two young men respectively claimed as his greatest example.
Do you not recall, the Wise leader asked the young man, how Whitehall thrice begged Williams not to make the differences between them known and how much hurt it could cause the Bible’s Church?
And, even though each man was respectful to listen to all the questions the Church Leaders posed, in the end both men insisted they air the differences publicly. They insisted on open debate.
After the Church Leaders of each man had met in closed session, they came back to them and conceded the debate. They said: Thus you have requested and thus we agree. Let the debate take place as you have sought.
But, know our dear son, we must also place what we believe must be requisite for the debate to happen. Do you so submit?
With that, each young man felt glee within. Now finally the truth would be known! The differences would prevail! And, each cared little what the requisite would be, for both were willing to submit to torture, persecution, or even to death for the differences to prevail.
So, upon agreeing to submit, the Church Leaders gave the debate requisite to each of the young men:
We believe that it would be best not to openly debate your brother about whatever differences you have. But we also agree to allow you such freedom and bless you as you go. In turn, you have agreed to submit to our requisite which we state to you now:
Since you are openly debating your brother, we require you--based upon The Bible’s clear call to love your brother, make peace with your brother and live in true brotherly fellowship and keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace make amends with him, putting aside all ill-wills against him, counting him worthy of the calling with which he is called, and counting him better than yourself.
We require you to, before any open engagement takes place, make sure you stand right as brothers with one another so that the debate is seen as between friends for whom The Bible’s Christ died and not enemies of The Bible’s God. It will be then and only then that we bless you in your desire to debate your brother.
Upon hearing that, both young men walked away from his meeting contemplating in his heart what he would do...
With that, I am...
Peter
Tom-
I may be the dissenting voice here, but don't do the debate. Your description of a burlesque show is exactly on target and no one wants or needs to see Ergun's legs.
Whatever format or thesis is chosen it will be a screaming, finger pointing, playground free for all. Everyone who has read the email exchanges already knows how the Drs Caner behave, there is no reason to give Liberty the opportunity to profit from it. Theological discussion is not desired by them; self promotion is.
Dear Dr Ascol
I have been following this whole email
thing from across the pond and have been shocked by the antics of mr caner. It reminded me of the antics boxers go to to pyche out there opponents (Ali Vs Foreman) that type of thing. In my opinion and for what its worth I would go ahead if only for those students who hang on his every word. Incidentally i listened to mr caners sermon on romans 9 and could not help thinking, emotional soundbites for the masses.
I have listened to a number of Dr whites debates and heard him live and have found him to be an impecable christian gentleman, and who treats his opponents with the utmost respect even when they have not offered the same in return.
Finally hold your ground and let Gods Truth Shine 1Peter 3v15.
Dan From across the pond
Quite honestly, I don't think the issue here is that Dr. Caner does not want to have a scholarly debate on the doctrines of grace, I think the issue is he cannot and he knows it. That would go a long way towards explaining his actions. Puffing up and becoming belligerent is a common defense technique in the animal kingdom used to hide weaknesses. Its used in the hope that the opponent will walk away thereby avoiding the disaster of a confrontation. People sometimes use it too.
Apparently Dr. Falwell is still in the dark about Caner's ability to effectively defend his position or else he would not be excited about 'pimping' the debate to the whole world. He'd be scared to death that someone might actually see it!
OK: there is definitely something wrong when Michael Spencer and I agree on something, so let's think about why the iMonk and I agree that Dr. White and Tom Ascol should, given no changes in conditions, drop out of the debate in October.
[1] AOMin will not be in control of the recording that night. Rich has a 15-year history of integrity with recordings of debates (that is: living up to his promises that he will provide an unedited master to the other party). Given the kind of pettiness witnessed so far, the odds that the Caners/Dr. Falwell/Liberty will give Rich an unedited master are against.
[2] Given their brazen license with facts in e-mails which are publicly available to review, I have little or no doubt that they will take license with the video of this debate. All the need is one sound bite where Tom or Dr. White says, "Of course God does love all men equally becuase God will send some to hell for punishment," and they will turn the debate on its head in the editing room.
[3] There's no way the moderation will be balanced. "Fair" is such a bizarre word to use for a moderator because his job is not "fairness" but "impartiality". The current moderator is not an impartial person in this matter. The odds of White & Ascol getting even 40% of the mike time is low.
[4] I respect Dave H's optimism about the open-mindedness of the crowd, but he's wrong. I think of the Tim Staples debate, and if Staples' students could behave the way they did, how exactly does anyone think the students of the Pit Pull of Evangelical debates will behave? The decorum fo the crowd will turn this exchange into a circus in no time flat.
[5] Format. The format is "free for all" right now. Unless one is going to bring a bull horn or a chain, one is not going to win a free-for-all,
5 good reasons to walk away. At this point, the hope that the views will be aired out in a valuable way is completely gone. If Ergun Caner cannot respond to the substance of an e-mail written in real concern for the content of his objections, why would he respond with substance in the debate.
Good heavens: "read my book" looks like Socrates compared to what is being enountered here.
Sean,
I noticed my comments were deleted. However, I simply ask whether or not the comments concerning what John specifically said in Revelation concerning liars. If that is too bold, then please explain why. To call the man to repentance of lying is biblical. Whether or not he is saved may or may not apply. In either case, he does need to hear and understand the true gospel of grace.
Hi Michael Spencer,
You're absolutely right. The video and audio can be edited to make it appear that it was something it was not. The person who claims to be a video editor and denies that simply lacks credibility. If host says something crude, that can simply be edited out. These days little things, like vocalized pauses, can be easily and seamlessly edited out. What actually transpires and what is presented on a video or DVD can be two entirely different things. And just having some friend with a video camera making your own video won't be sufficient. Founders doesn't have the reach and the media. They could have a slanted version of the debate circulating out there (for a hefty donation) and Founders would only have a few copies of a sloppily done, little-known video. If the debate is going to go ahead, then there should be written (contractual) assurances about what will be done with the video and the audio.
My dear departed friend and mentor, R. F. Gates, was full of Godly wisdom and discernment. When he would observe someone ranting and raving on the level that Ergun Caner has been doing for some time now, he would ask, "Now did that fellow have to get saved in order to be able to act that way, or could he have acted that way as an unbeliever? Did it take the grace of God to 'change' him into what he now is?"
The more I read and listen to the bluster of Ergun Caner, the more I think about a character out of the old Uncle Remus stories -- Tar baby.
Bill Ascol
Brothers and Dr. Ascol:
Somehow when I read through this I began thinking about Paul and his determination to go to Jerusalem in spite of what all his dearest friends and church members said (after I was done being ticked off, I mean you just don't treat people that way). Truth be told, there's trouble in Jerusalem brother whether you get there by Pentecost or not. The difference here is that there is no Ceasar for you to appeal to, no way out of the flogging thats probably going to take place. As it stands right now, its going to be rough . The thing is that you simply never know how the Lord will use the things you say to affect others. I am at best a layman and unlearned when it come to these matters you all discuss here, but its a great encouragement to me to read them--my thanks to you all.
But I know this. God is who He says He is in His Word. I have see Him take a blind, stupid fool with just a bit of the Word of God in his belly and light a fire under the hardest hearted sinner. If there was ever group that needed some "consuming fire" it’s these folks.
I'll leave you with this:
Ezekiel 2:4-5 (NASB)
4“I am sending you to them who are stubborn and obstinate children, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ 5“As for them, whether they listen or not—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them..."
Yours for being flint-headed...
Josh
Tom,
At this point I think that a debate should be either cancelled or at least postponed. The environment for the debate will be hostile rather than Christian or, at the least, civil. Before resuming plans for the debate, I think that three things should be in place.
First, there should be a more neutral site, as another suggested, Southern Seminary or Southeastern Seminary. Second, there should be a different moderator than the one proposed. Al Mohler, Danny Akin, or Timothy George would be my suggestions. Third, a format which would allow for a thorough and thoughtful discussion of these important doctrinal differences should be in place.
If these things are not allowed, a debate may have more of a Jerry Springer atmosphere than a Christian discussion.
Tom,
As one who has been greatly affected by Founders and your ministry I would like to add my lowly 2 cents worth.
My interaction with you via email (when you allowed me to quote you extensively in December '05 issue of the newspaper article I write monthly) and our brief conversation in the Burbank Airport prior to the Shepherd's Conference, as well as your posts on this blog, have left me with nothing but admiration for you. So on one hand, I shudder to think of you standing before the Drs. Caner and voluntarily submitting yourself to what will inevitably turn into a character assasination, if it doesn't begin that way from the outset.
On the other hand, your mature, grace-filled, Scripturally-laden presentation (arguments) will cause the Drs. extreme heartache due to their inability to volley in like-manner and will publically reveal their true colors/character. This will undoubtably also reflect poorly on Dr. Falwell and Liberty.
All that to say, you have chosen to withdraw and part of me says you've done the right thing. But there is a part of me that wishes you to stay the course.
The question I'm asking myself is, why do I want you to continue as previously planned? Is it because I want the truth of God's Word presented thoughtfully and accurately and falsehood revealed or is it because I want to see egg on the Drs. faces? I hope it's the former. I'm afraid it's the latter. And that, of course, is not a good reason, nor one in which you would approve I'm sure.