Notice that Lumpkins relies on secondhand information. He continues his attack on Justin Taylor and others based, not on his own reading of Love Wins, but based on hearsay information–what Boyd says Bell says.
Is Peter Lumpkins’ recent supporting role in the defense of the sub-Christian cultus and its leading figures, hip and ho-hum, like Scripture twisting, prosperity teacher, Joel Osteen wannabe, Crystal Cathedral envying, Ed Young booty loving, Steven Furtick, and the established heretic, pseudo-intellect and truth redactor Rob Bell, nothing new? Is there reason to note his support of Molinist heresy-hawker “Who So Evah Will-o-the-Wisp” Keathley, a “leading educator” in the SBC who doesn’t have to keep his big mouth shut? Should we, or can we, forget Peter’s love affair and continued stupid endorsements supporting “I ain’t got no shame”, ever Geislerized, SBC champion liar, fake Muslim, language impersonator, part-time burqa presser, and lover of men of questionable character himself, Ergun Caner? Is it turning out that Peter just prefers bad company? It is not like he’s drunk on himself, is it?
At the end of this video Ergun in one of his most telling anecdotes, puts down his own son as being a deceptive little jerk of a kid hell-bent on rebellion. I don’t know what Ergun did that was so wrong, but none of my children would light the rags on fire. Not one. That confidence comes from knowing them because I trained them to obey. The answer to what went so wrong with Caner’s kid perhaps is revealed as you listen to Ergun.
You cannot help but understand him to say that God tempts his own children to sin- God gives them access? Meaning, as Caner has set the parameters, it is God who puts sin before his children so that they might choose it if they will. I cannot tell you how many times I have had Arminians say exactly the same thing. I have, in fact, had friends who discount Calvinism say they do these things purposely to their kids. My brother who as a member of the Way International was taught that this is the way you can test the spirits- set them up. I have even had SBC pastors tell me that God can do as he pleases, both good and evil.
Does God give us equal access? Check this out:
Genesis 20:6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.
Even though the king’s heart was determined to go into Sarah, God stopped him.
Now the opposite can be true:
Ezra 7:27 Blessed be the Lord, the God of our fathers, who put such a thing as this into the heart of the king, to beautify the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem,
Even what is not naturally in a king’s heart the Lord puts there:
Proverbs 21:1 The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.
Even where man is free to choose, God so directs his ways so that he will do as God decrees:
Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.
In all this though we know that:
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
God always works in such a way that the heart of the man remains free according to its nature to choose according to its desire. God does not tempt, he controls the choice by the conditions so that the purposes of God will always be:
Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
The story of Jacobs kids is remarkable. The whole story is when we begin with Abraham and God’s defining the history by controlling all Abraham’s choices, even a bride for his son, Isaac and his blessing of Jacob, and of course, Jacobs son being sold into slavery to begin the saga that was given in a prophecy to Abraham. All these things, even to the birth and life of Moses, Pharoah’s hardened heart, all of it, done according to the foreordaining decrees of God. Yet, in all this, God does not once temp man with evil. Not once..
That is not what Caner said. In his example, God has allowed access by presenting before man both good and evil so that he may freely choose from one or the other. Caner is right, his evil little boy would have done the evil thing anyway. But he didn’t need Ergun’s temptation to do so, or so says James. He would have found the oil, the rags and the matches and torched the house even with mom and dad asleep in bed. That was his nature. Funny how Caner would not agree that man’s nature rules out his libertarian freedom to choose just anything, then, he falls into his own contempt when he says that his son would do according to his nature, what his nature dictated, and not as he could freely choose.
Yes God controls the desires, yes he orchestrates the circumstances, but never does he grant man the option of doing either evil or good as Caner’s god does. To the contrary, he always commands the good, and never allows free access to evil. It is the devil who has presented evil before man and that against God’s commandments. In Ergun’s scenario, his god commands abstention but purposely sets before a child the object of his evil desire. Ergun presents God as a man who is fallen, or worse as the devil, who tempts others to sin.
Jerry Falwell, ah, what can be said. The quintessential carny who got filthy rich manipulating the emotionally laden. James White is correct, there was nothing to amen. Lies, fraudulent exegesis, theatrics, manipulative speech, tools of a Christian evangelist? Not hardly. These traits we see exemplified by the Devil’s machinations revealed in Scripture. Mentor and minted, two chubby cherubs from the same father. “God has provided all you need…” so says Falwell. But he, like Caner, falls upon his own self-contradiction. As White notices, Jerry Falwell has to make the Calvinistic appeal about what that provision means in prayer so that Falwell asks that God would do as I demonstrated above, interfere with the free-will, cooperative, synergistic choices of man. Left to his free-will, (that is free-will as defined by anti-Calvinists), if God did not control the circumstances and yes, even put it into the heart, man would not choose Christ. So we can thank God, that through the Holy Spirit, even the Great Jerry Falwell could not pray without God sovereignly putting into his mouth even that truth which Falwell denied.
It is important that we do not let Ergun, his creators, or his handlers, get away with the fraud they have been perpetrating upon the vulnerable for so long. A follow-up post will explain more of why that is so very critical in today’s atmosphere. For now, James White says it rightly. This is not a man who was something good that went bad, he was bad, and continues to be so:
The Myth of Free Will by Walter Chantry.
It makes you wonder… he’s been lying since before 911… He gives so much credit to his wife it begs to wonder just what kind of woman would put up with that for so long?
I mean, how can she trust anything that he said, like “I love you. Will you marry me?” Who’s me, who’s I? Is it Michael or Memhet, Barack or Barry? Persona or person? Did she marry the phantom, or the opera?
Then again, if she trained him… ahem… what does that mean? That she trained him to perform the balancing a ball for fish act? Holy Mackeral Baptist Man! That she showed him how to glue a rubber nose on so it couldn’t be pulled off? Didn’t work! To be a quick change artist? To be a character actor? She did well, there, there is no doubt.
His wife is most likely a wonderful woman. She knows him best, right? Cooks him possum. Yummy! If anything we can surmise about her, if she is not complicit, is that she has more endurance and patience than Abigail. That’s her Nabal to bear… I suppose.
One other thing. It is amazing that he is speaking to a crowd that should eshew the hyphenated American motif. But there’s Caner, hyphenating all over himself.
His people? No. His past wasn’t one of an oppositional Muslim boy. He was raised, American. Probably to the consternation of his father. He was a typical, could-care-less American teen, as can be plainly seen by his fotos from that time. And now, he is an American revivalist selling his snake oil sermons. The components of the oil haven’t changed. He is still telling the testimony of a mythical life he never lived. The reality: he’s an over-fed, too well compensated, Finneyesque showman of the most common Southern Baptist algae ooze; a canival barker getting rich pulling the strings of emotionally laden, politically bound, marionettes whose spiritual fortunes hang upon how well America prospers. After all, how then shall they live in the style they are accustomed? Christ is the furthest thing from their minds. But, Christ makes a good draw at this kind of shamanic circus. Americanism is nothing more than a pseudo- Christian sect.
Yeah, Caner is still lying in wait for a buck.
You may think that I am mean, a profanely, juvenile slanderer. Yet, the fact is that Caner is back on the stage. He and his toadies, the shaman with roadies, making hay greasing palms, without ever repenting of ripping off his audiences for years. And about his wife… Remember, we asked this very same thing of Hillary and Bill. When a public figure, such as Caner, puts up his wife as a shield, she becomes a public figure open to the same accountability as he, and not outside the bounds of commentary. Beside that, go read 1 Timothy, and see if an elder’s wife is immune from the very same scrutiny to which he is subject.
So… if you want to take me to task for hammering him so hard, or implicating his wife, save your fingers and go listen to Tammy Faye. She just didn’t understand it either: “What did we do?”
Emergent, Charismatic Third Way, Word Faith, The SBC Great Commission Resurgence (in fact any of their Million More In ’54 schemes), scores of other how to get things from God schleps, The Values Voters- when it comes to church growth via the pop christian genre, it is all the same, and it is not the Gospel.
Oh! Pulpiteers. That makes sense. They’re entertainers. Church growth through emotional appeal manipulators, Finney clones, big tent, center ring performers. They’re not preachers, teachers, or evangelists in the biblical sense if the unrepentant Ergun Caner is on this list. Ergun’s rubber nose faux persona really does sum it up nicely. If those taking center stage with him don’t care about his refusal to admit purposed lies and deception, what else can be said except that this won’t be a conference, but a circus.
According to the News & Advance:
“The punishment was commensurate with the problem, so we’re ready to move on,” Towns said about Caner. “I really don’t want to talk about him. I want to look toward the future.”
Those who were previously touting the way Liberty handled the Caner situation as “exonerating” Caner – are they going to stick with that?
What I cannot figure out is why LU cannot find a more suitable replacement. My guess is that they weren’t looking. My guess also is that the officials included Elmer Towns in appointing Elmer Towns and most likely the Board was directed by Elmer Towns to appoint Elmer Towns. I have a feeling that there was no candidate search and Elmer’s large frame is merely meant to hold the seat open until Caner is fully restored to it. Otherwise, why not someone from LU’s teaching staff? Was there no assistant dean? No one in the wings? No one else qualified? Then why not go outside? The whole thing stinks.
Yes, the slip of the tongue is telling. It was punishment, at least that is what it appears to be, plain and simple, for lying. But they never thought he would get caught in the first place. As a supposed erudite scholar, are we to believe that Towns knew nothing of the falsehoods? He had no knowledge of Islam, none? He could not discern the discrepancies? By what fiat did he hire Ergun, then? The proponents of exoneration will remain silent, because to comment on the decision as punishment would expose their sycophantic support of Ergun as fact.
Elmer Towns has been for decades one of the leaders in the Church Growth Movement, allied with everything that is abhorrent in it, e.g., his friend and partner in crime in that realm, C. Peter Wagner, et cetera. His dabbling in the mysticism of that movement is well documented, by Towns’ own publications. He even published his own spiritual gifts survey to be used in relationship to it. Of his necessary compliments to growth is the visionary leader, ergo, Ergun. Charismatic leadership, not necessarily qualified leadership, is foundational to the CGM. Accountability is secondary, growth is the main thing, to parrot a title by Elmer.
What most characterizes Elmer is his methodological pragmatism, certainly not his exegetical expertise. Which accounts for his own form of Methodism’s perfectionism. But judging the size of Caner, Falwell and even Towns, his books on fasting weren’t their favorite reads. Manipulation of God through techniques for personal gain has been Elmer’s calling card all along. The reality, profits from books and publications has been his meal ticket. All this accounts for Ergun’s appearance as a revivalist and the compromise of Scripture in pursuit of the value in increasing the numbers of givers and buyers. There is no way that Elmer is going to sacrifice his child, LU, for his step-child Ergun. It pays too well. But the fact remains, Ergun is a large factor in the center-ring antics of the exploitive methods championed by Towns and Falwell. To turn Ergun out without at least the appearance of some form of reconciliation would be an admission that the whole scheme behind LU is a fraud. We can look for one of two outcomes: the silent slipping out the back door in a voluntary change of career venue, which is highly unlikely since Ergun was hand-picked by his mentor Jerry Sr., and because Caner holds the goods on LU’s knowledge of his history and methods- nothing more vengeful than a lover scorned; or, we will eventually see the concocted story that Caner has been through a restorative reconciliation process and upon its completion was fully forgiven. Then “punishment” will take on the a new nuance in the by-line as restoration. Caner will be presented as remorseful, contrite, repentant and even more humble than before. And the peeps will eat the cotton candy with relish without regard to the previous rot caused by it.
I think Dr. White puts it well… let the punishment fit the…
Just imagine if Caner came out and told the whole truth…
Or, as natallmc intimates, what if he was to make things up about LU’s complicity in the same vein as he represented himself or Islam, whoa… unholy jihad, Liberty Man. How might they defend conversations that took place off record, behind closed doors? I mean, he said, she said, and Caner’s the top draw, not Falwell Jr., or Towns. His currency, as we noticed with his defenders, far exceeds theirs. That’s the problem when you create a monster, he might just destroy the lab.
In other words, they better not pull the choke chain too tight.
In this, ahem, parable, Peter Lumpkins not only makes a caricature of Calvinism, he denies what all Christians believe. Predestination. That is, Peter not only puts himself at odds with Calvinism, but in his nonism, he puts himself outside of all historic orthodoxy. Though Peter is correct to point out that his nonism teaches that Christ is a failure, his phony parable also paints the picture that God has no clue as to who will and will not be saved. In that Peter takes the leap into the abyss of heresy by making God progressive in knowledge in time. Not at all the way Hubmaier saw it. In other words, Peter makes God no different from a mere man, becoming by experience what he knows of himself. But, he does even worse:
Bob would not listen, however. He rebuked the officer even more. He told him to leave and that he’d rather sink in the boat than to be carried to safety by the officer. Again, the officer pleaded with Bob: “Bob, there is not much time, now. The boat is sinking; the sharks are coming; and you will not be spared. Trust me, Bob. Just trust me.”
Upon this, Bob’s countenance began to change. He calmed down a bit. In fact, he said to the officer: “What do you want me to do? I am willing to do anything to get out of this boat and be spared.”
As you will notice here, Peter misleads his readers. For in the “plea,” is the embedded command, “Trust me.” In other words, Peter makes the Policeman (God) a liar when in the following passage he says that Bob asked “What do you want me to do?” To which God responds, “Nothing Bob. Not a thing.” That directly denies Scripture, and it denies what Calvinism teaches. For we teach that we must surely do something. Peter does another thing. What men never realize is the danger that they’re in. As with Isaiah, when the reality of the danger is truly known, the man perceiving it, is saved. And as Jesus pointed out in referring to Isaiah, only those who have been given eyes to see will see and seeing they will turn and be saved.
We understand that Peter just doesn’t get it. That he believes that believing is not something that we do. That in his delusional state, he believes that he hasn’t lied, nor made God a liar. But there it is. In his own words. And the thrust Peter’s parable is that God is impotent, incompetent, beside being a liar. Man is left to his own device, his own “trust strength” inherent in him, to save himself by the prevenient grace given, the rope, the officer, the helicopter, et cetera, rather than being save by God outside of man’s merits, even the merit of faith.
With that Peter needs to repent of his blasphemy.
But let’s continue. Peter placed in his post this picture:
It might be said that Hubmaier was the father of Arminius’ Arminianism, or perhaps a definitive influence on Molina. Both, most likely. An excellent article on the comparison of Arminius and Molina can be found here. Hubmaier preceded both men by nearly a century. The discussion was the currency of Scholasticism of the time. Of the commonality, is the fact that theirs, Hubmaier, Arminius, Molina, was a philosophical system, not a biblical one.
Let me quote at length Kirk R. MacGregor:
Thus Hubmaier begins by drawing the typical Scholastic distinction between voluntas absoluta (the “absolute will” of God comprising his power to do whatever he chooses, unconstrained by any law above himself) and voluntas ordinata (the “ordained will” of God amounting to his merciful choice to act toward humanity according to precepts he has freely instituted). Then Hubmaier employs these dialectics of the voluntas Dei to address the question de ratione praedestinationis (concerning the basis of predestination). For Hubmaier, God may choose to gratuitously elect a few to salvation apart from any foreknown faith on their part, for whom the ratio praedestinationis is God’s voluntas absoluta. However, God operates according to his voluntas ordinata in electing the vast majority based upon his foreknowledge of their free response to the gospel, which selection principle he has revealed in Scripture. Hubmaier highlights Mark 16:15; John 1:12; 3:16; 1 John 2:2; and Revelation 3:20 as examples.
It should be emphasized at this point that Hubmaier’s formulation of voluntas ordinata depends upon the assumption that God possesses counterfactual knowledge, or cognizance of the truth-value of conditional propositions in the subjunctive mood, i.e., propositions taking the following form: if something were the case (when in fact it may or may not be the case), then something else would be the case. Thus God, in Hubmaier’s view, has foreknowledge of future contingents, including the decisions reached and actions performed by free creatures. Significant in Hubmaier’s use of the two wills is his refusal to speculate concerning the voluntas absoluta; while he makes a number of allusions to God’s absolute power, they are brief and tangential to his arguments. Although Hubmaier is, on the whole, preoccupied with the voluntas ordinata and the principles according to which God agreed to typically act, it appears that the voluntas absoluta is not merely the realm of unactualized possibility, as the reformer recognizes that God “can be merciful to whomever he wants without any injustice.” This is evident elsewhere in his treatment of a select number of people, such as Balaam and Cyrus, whom (in his exegesis of Num. 22:21-35 and Isa. 45:4-5) he believes are known to have been saved without reference to their foreseen response to grace.
But Hubmaier tends to circumscribe such anomalous occurrences within narrow limits, such that the operationes Dei externae are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, knowable. In the redemptive realm, for example, the sinner can rest assured that it is impossible for God, given the eternal order freely established by his will, not to predestine someone whom he foreknows will respond to his grace.
So, Hubmaier declares that while God might consign Judas or Caiaphas to heaven, no injustice would be involved in this display of unrestrained mercy so long as he is forbidden by his voluntas ordinata from driving away Jacob, who wrestled for his blessing, or refusing to grant forgiveness to the repentant David. Taken together, the function of Hubmaier’s appeal to voluntas absoluta is to devise a coherent justification for a limited set of clearly (in his mind) substantiated peculiarities inexplicable from the standard order, which special pleading serves to heighten not God’s capriciousness but his mercy, as every proposed exercise of voluntas dei absoluta yields salvation and not damnation.
Turning at this point to the voluntas ordinata, Hubmaier formulates two new categories into which God’s ordained will may be subdivided, namely, “the conversive will concerning the one to be converted (voluntas conversiva a convertendo) [and] the aversive will concerning the one to be turned away from (voluntas aversive ab avertendo).” The reformer defines the voluntas conversiva as God’s desire (without taking human free decisions into account) for all persons to be saved, as well as God’s decision to elect all who believe in Christ:
He turns himself toward all human beings with the offer of his grace and mercy, not sparing even his only begotten Son, but giving him up to death for us all so that we might not be lost but receive eternal life.
Hubmaier insists that the voluntas conversiva in no way restricts human freedom to accept or reject salvation: “The choice lies with [humanity], for God wants them, unforced, sober, and without compulsion.” Hence the voluntas conversiva is God’s revealed desire to show mercy to humanity.
By contrast, Hubmaier defines the voluntas aversiva as God’s will to abandon in time and to reprobate from eternity persons whom (outside of those specially saved by the voluntas absoluta) he discerns through his foreknowledge would freely choose to reject his offer of prevenient grace. It should be noted that there is no contradiction between the voluntas conversiva and aversiva, since God, in his temporal dealings with all humans—including those whom he had already reprobated from eternity based on his foreknowledge that such persons would ultimately reject Christ—gives sufficient grace for salvation to each person, in keeping with his voluntas conversiva and through the Holy Spirit, up to the moment in time when that person decides to irrevocably reject such prevenient grace.
Hence the voluntas aversiva is God’s revealed decision, as an all-righteous being, to justly dispense punishment to the unrepentant in time and eternity. So for those who would “not accept, hear, or follow after God, he himself turns away from them, withdraws from them, and allows them to stay as they themselves would want to be.” These two categories provide Hubmaier a rubric for interpreting scriptural passages concerning God’s eternal intentions for humankind. On the one hand, texts affirming God’s universal salvific will as well as his promise to save those who place faith in Christ, such as 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16, refer to the voluntas conversiva; on the other hand, those teaching “that God wants to harden the godless and damn them” allude to the voluntas aversiva. Hubmaier summarizes his overall categorization of the various aspects to the divine will as follows:
God’s voluntas absoluta yet remains upright and omnipotent, according to which he can do whatever he desires and no one should question, “Why are you doing that?” His voluntas conversiva is a will of mercy. His voluntas aversiva is a will of his justice and retribution, of which we are guilty with our immoralities, and not God….
…At this juncture, the full scope of Hubmaier’s schema comes into play, as God, through his voluntas absoluta, elects a few individuals to salvation despite his counterfactual knowledge that they would fail to respond to his prevenient grace. According to Hubmaier’s twofold split of the voluntas ordinata, moreover, God elects all whom he discerned would freely appropriate his grace in line with the voluntas conversiva, and he both reprobates all whom (apart from the handful of persons specially saved through his voluntas absoluta) he discerned would freely spurn his grace and decides to stop supplying such grace to them in time, starting at the moment when they would irrevocably reject him. Finally, God completes the act of predestination by choosing to create the world, which decision has typically been called by theologians spanning back to Augustine the “divine creative decree.”
And thus, Hubmaier did not agree with Peter, in the least. Hubmaier was a predestinationist, meaning that the helicopter was sent to save only Bob. He was not a laissez-faire, volunteerist like Peter. True enough, Hubmaier’s two wills theory and his appeal to counterfactuals is just as much heresy because as it is with all who deny God’s absolute knowledge, Hubmaier’s god could never truly know the identity of the elect from eternity even though he claimed so. Just like Peter, he makes God not God by stripping him of most of the attributes that make him God. At least Hubmaier held the True God in the highest respect, rather than making him a Policeman, though he may not have recognized himself as demeaning Him. At last Hubmaier was a philosopher, not an exegete, using “special pleading,” to establish his case, not Scripture. One thing is for sure, Hubmaier was no non-Calvinist. He was a pre-Arminian, perhaps, a pre-Molinist, for sure, but definitely did not take to being known by his nonism.
Nonism I have pointed out before is just a spineless attempt to avoid any culpability for ones traditions and beliefs. It is no wonder then that Peter is such a fan of Ergun Caner. Perhaps Christian is something Peter should add to the list of his self-descriptive nonisms.
Here’s another guy who joined the chorus of irrationals who cover up for Caner.
Harris claims Caner is a prophet? We’re supposed to turn a blind eye to lies in the name of Christ for the sake of:
Ergun Caner: a needed voice in a troubled world?
…puleeez, another editor of truth is not needed.
J. Gerald Harris thinks an apology is repentance? How sad that he would call his rag the Christian Index, then. Caner doesn’t just need to apologize, he needs to admit that he defrauded his audience, then work toward reconciliation and restoration, or bow out and fade into obscurity like dozens of other charlatans have. But under whose ecclesiastical authority would reconciliation and restoration be done? Liberty is not a church.
Harris misses the fact that Caner wasn’t the scholar that he claimed to be, even in print, and that his testimony is not at all what he claimed it was. Regardless of his conversion from some sort of Islam, the whole cloth of Caner’s testimony is filthy with only a smattering of fact. So Harris joins in the deception along with the rest of those who could care less for the truth by confirming Caner. By saying: “Caner’s integrity and testimony was fully substantiated by the committee,” Harris demonstrates a wholesale committment to obscurantism or is delusional. The reality is that they did nothing of the kind. The finding was critical, not favorable, anyway. He wasn’t exonerated, but he wasn’t filleted as he should have been, either. Liberty’s real problem is that they were not forthcoming enough nor requiring enough to prove their dispassion. Obviously, they have as much to lose as Caner. If they would have been honest, they wouldn’t have lost their credibility. What is curious is the likes of Harris. What is his dog in this fight? What is his payoff?
We can understand that those who support Obama are fanatics, blind subservients, only in the hunt for the sake of being on the same bandwagon… that is what populism is all about. What is not understandable is why anyone under the banner of Christ would turn the bind eye to the matters of fact except that it is the body politic- or perhaps a cause célèbre par folie à deux, a celebrated shared delusional cause.
Isn’t that what is said about Ergun? Isn’t that what he has said? He’s doing the work of Christ right? That he needs to get back to work? It may not have been sex, but Ergun is guilty of fornication with the truth and raping his audiences. It really isn’t really a Christian ministry, is it? Bill Clinton wasn’t really being presidential, was he, so was he president? When the liberals are cornered, and their policies and ideologies are found to be the evil that they are, what has been their tactic? Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush… Create the illusion that it is another’s fault, that is doesn’t always mean is… and other such puke.
Ergun Caner is a Bill Clinton clone. Tim Guthrie, just like them. The similarities between the tactics of left-wing political activists and the activists who support the ongoing deceptive practices of Finneyesque evangelicalism as is exemplified by Ergun Caner is astonishing. Never do they cease to falsify the facts, falsify Scripture, all the time claiming innocence simply to sell a cheap knock-off product to an unsuspecting audience. When Ergun, Tim, Peter Lumpkins, Geisler and the rest of the SBC, pre-emergent, anti-intellectual, obscurantist, reactionary hyper-fundamentalist pseudo-Christian carnies speak, no doubt they speak Belialese. A good example of the deception and deflection can be found in David Allen, a Caner clone.
Why did Judas betray Christ? Money, fame, affiliations, connections? In any case it was the devil that had seized Judas’ mind. What we see from Peter Lumpkins and his ilk is no different. James White has done nothing wrong while all along the Caner crowd is chanting, “Crucify, give us Ergun.” James White has exposed the rotted bones in Caner’s sepulcher. That is all.
Tim Guthrie makes one of those factual statements that are self-contradictory. Obviously, he spent a little too much time around Ergun Caner. Listen to White’s program here. Weigh the facts, then balance them with cognitively dissonant Tim’s lapsus calami. Just like his hero, Tim trips on his own tongue.
More, during my and Dr. Caners tenure on the board, I never had any contact with Dr. Caner relating to the ministry of Watchman Fellowship or anything else; I never spoke with or emailed Dr. Caner at all regarding anything. There was no contact. None!
…But we all need to grasp with clarity the seriousness of bearing false witness against a brother or sister in Christ; or anyone else for that matter. My conversations with Dr. Ergun Caner have been minimal at best until this year.
Until this year? Minimal? So which is it? Tim never had any contact with Caner, or he did? There was no contact. None! Looks limp wristed when connected to, My conversations with Dr. Ergun Caner have been minimal at best until this year. This is familiar territory in Caner speak.
The whole point Tim, is that you and Caner are connected. Beyond that, even if you have only greeted passerby like, you tend to display attributes that would lead anyone to believe that if you do not have a romantic relationship, then you’re Siamese twins.
The whole problem with the Caner scandal and the scandalous bitch pups that have gone in to heat in their defense of the alpha male is the simple lesson taught to children about how little lies become big ones. In the case of Caner, it has been a giganormous lie that has the potential of consuming the Liberty/SBC universe and doing far-reaching damage to the name of Christ and the evangelical community at large. Incredulous as it may seem, Tim and the sycophantic chorus of Geislerians purposely entered the black hole of Caner’s bravado and gravitas. I suppose, they were thinking that it would not tear them apart, also. That’s just plain dumb. Worse than that, they want to drag everyone else in with them.