Steve,

yes, the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for investigating, proving the all things,
yes, a child does trust more simply, and I think that has some what to do with innocence, purity and recognition of authority, and an uncluttered heart – simplicity. and it is true that any good parent would want their little ones to learn well.
peace in Jesus

Wouldn’t a sinner, albeit with a fallen heart, when granted a glimpse of Christ in his majesty, fall before him as Paul did on the way to Damascus? Though some may be ‘enemies’ of God, many simply hunger for a god unknown. What are the ‘benefits’ of heaven? Free dental care? There is only one. The eternal presence of God. When allowed to glimpse that, who wouldn’t choose it? It is simply not a credible proposition to claim when you say “we wouldn’t want to be in the presence of God” once He had permitted us to glimpse his glory.

You assert “unbelievers would want to avoid hell. But, they aren’t going to bow the knee to God”. I think most people would bow the knee to Stalin if it enabled them to avoid Siberia. Who, of their ‘free will’, would ‘chose’ hell as an eternal resting place KNOWING what it was (as opposed to speculating what it might be).

The maps can’t be as clear as you claim or else EVERYBODY would be heading in the same direction. Asserting other religions don’t work doesn’t cut it. ‘Based on the evidence’? What evidence? All you can say is that you find Catholicism more to you liking.

As for telling Almighty God upon whom he may – or may not – have mercy, what doctrine they have to subscribe to before His Holy Spirit is with them, seems to me rather presumptuous. It seems more like a grasping for the human power of a gatekeeper than an adoration of our Heavenly Father’s absolute power and love.

For among other things, the scripture says, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And “The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

Hello, thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.

re: “Who, having been granted a beatific vision, would not want heaven.”

The sinner and fallen human heart. In our natural state, we’re enemies of God, so even if we wanted other benefits of heaven, we wouldn’t want to be in the presence of God.

re: “What current disbeliever, given a glimpse into hell, would not choose to avoid it?”

True, unbelievers would want to avoid hell. But, they aren’t going to bow the knee to God without a new heart.

re: “The problem does not reside in the destinations, but in the maps at our disposal.”

As an apologist, I think the maps are relatively clear. Atheism doesn’t work and nearly every other religion (but the ones that deny reality as we can sense it) can be ruled out. Christianity is the only worldview that holds up.

That’s just based on the evidence… but then we (believers) have the witness of the Holy Spirit, our relationship with Jesus, and Scripture to get into the details.

Hi Ian, thanks for commenting and sorry for the delayed response. I agree with you overall, but have to disagree a bit with what seems like a bit of disparagement in regards to education? Remember that in Acts, Scripture commends the Bereans for their diligence in checking out what the apostles were teaching them (Acts 17).

Also, when Scripture speaks of believing like a child, I’d say to think of it more in terms of trust, not a child’s lack of learning. They trust their (good) parents because of the relationship, but I think any good parent also wants their children to learn as much as possible.

Maybe that isn’t what you were meaning, but I just wanted to comment on that. But, you’re certainly correct that we have to depend on Scripture and the Holy Spirit to even appropriately do any of the above. So, I guess among brothers (and sisters) that’s a given. But, it’s still important to keep in mind!

But as God promised, He gives a new heart and new spirit to all who would believe in the Son of God according to the Scriptures. The old heart for such a believer is (should have been) crucified with Christ and buried with Him in baptism.
This is why Paul can say I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.
Paul tells us that we who are so crucified and buried with Christ need to count ourselves dead to sin and alive to God.

The human mind loves to dissect everything and compartmentalize it all, But Christ Jesus simply wants us to believe like a child what is written in the Scriptures.
While we are ‘free’ to choose to examine every point of Scripture in a complex way, and read numerous books written about what people think about Scripture (and strangley enough God can use that too) Jesus said we ought to become more like children – simple faith, and depend on the work of the Holy Spirit to empower us with that simple truth of Scripture.
And this is what we can see in Peter’s first sermon. This guy did not have letters after his name, nor was he learned in ‘theology’ of the day, but he was filled with the Holy Spirit to such an extent that thousands were turned to the Lord that day. These men had been with Jesus and the religious folks could see it. Perhaps he had something we have not attained to.

Paul was trained before he was brought face to face with Jesus, but he counted all his training as dung.
Both these men were no dumb dumbs concerniing the Scriptures.
What mattered more to Paul and Peter was reality and truth in simple terms through the vibrant fellowship they had with the Father and the Son.

Theology is the study of God, and we can best do that by spending time in His word and in His presence. AS the apostles said a long time ago – We will give ourselves to the Word and to prayer. Isn’t this what we need more of, brothers?
My point here brothers is that we ought to meditate on the Scriptures and depend more on the Holy Spirit to illuminate and breathe on the minds of those we seek to help.
And we have free choice to do or not to do, and we can set our will to do that thing too, until we come into the fullness of the stature of Jesus our Lord and God..

Thanks for pointing this out. It should be fixed. (And, I’m sorry it took so long for me to do so!)

Hi Lora (and sorry for not replying for so long),

I suppose Lutherans would fall into the Calvinist camp, but Luther was in this debate a bit before Calvin, so maybe Lutheranists. 😉 But I think Calvin worked out the doctrines more in detail and into the theology of that tradition than maybe Lutherans. I’m going a bit beyond my church history knowledge here… but it seems Lutherans (at least in my upbringing) left a bit more ‘mystery’ in aspects of this discussion, or didn’t stress the outworking of the details as much.

Since Frank falls more into the Arminian camp, I think he would typically blend the two points I’m trying to separate above (i.e.: will and choice) and speak of the freedom we have to choose Christ or walk away from Him. Arminians generally talk about how love is impossible without free will, so God had to create this freedom so we could truly love Him or not. (I also think he subscribes to a concept called Molinism or ‘middle knowledge’.)

If we separate will and choice, though, I think the issue gets more clear. In our fallen state, no one is going to choose to be with God or love Him, as our will are opposed and hostile towards God. But, once our wills are put back in right relationship with God, we’ll naturally recognize Him for who He is, love Him, and long to be with Him. No strong-arming us into the Kingdom is necessary.

Sorry I didn’t get back to you more quickly, but thanks for the compliment. I’ve just switched comment systems to try and better engage… though I don’t know if it will notify you in this case (but should for future comments).

Hi Frank, thanks for reading and taking the time to respond! Whether we are in those final days or not, we know historically that there have been ebbs and flows of belief in various cultures at various times. And, I’d agree with the Reformed doctrine of ‘preservation of the saints’ as R.C. Sproul would call the ‘P’ in TULIP.

That said, when I’m in action or teaching, etc. I might sound a bit more like an Arminian, in that I have no privy to God’s secret decree, and an urgency in my tone. I have a job that I’ve been given and have no idea who is who (i.e. elect). So, I’m going to teach the Gospel and use evidence in apologetics, etc. no matter my impression of the person involved… AND, I’m often unaware of a 3rd party these actions might be part of the plan for (if not my target).

So, I think I agree, but I also think we should all be equipping one-another in apologetics… both because that’s what disciples do and because such people become more effective disciples, but it also strengthens one’s faith and conviction. It might be too easy (a major critique of Reformed theology) for one to say that because it’s ultimately in God’s hands, we’ll leave it up to the Pros like Lennox, Craig, and Habermas. While that might seem to fit with the theology, it’s bad discipleship in practice. (Not saying that’s where you were going with it… but I’ve seen those who do.)

Hi Mikael,

Thanks so much for reading and taking the time to leave a comment! Yes, the objection of ‘willing to die for a lie’ is often misunderstood. Many have died for false ideas. However, very few, if any, are going to die for what they know to be a lie. The key word is know. Anyone who witnessed the events and knew Jesus would know what actually happened. They aren’t going to go to their deaths to protect their story if they knew they just made it up.

And, I like how you noted that this one piece of evidence kind of broke through for you. I’ve found there is often something like that… just one thing that really gets ‘under your skin’ and bugs you until you begin to investigate more. BUT, one thing I always caution people is that any belief system (Christianity included) is more like a ‘web’ of information and beliefs. Each strand might be something we’re more or less certain about… but there is a lot of strength (or not) in the whole web. So, while that one point might be your personal breakthrough… be sure to look at the strength of the whole web and compare to the strength of the webs of opposing world-views. In my opinion, that’s where Christianity really starts to shine and other systems fall apart (at least in terms of the evidence…. inner-witness is another thing).

Hi Scott, thanks so much for commenting and I’m sorry I didn’t get back to this more quickly (understatement, huh?).

I suppose you could ask if he believes in things like gravity, quarks, or the Higgs boson. Has he ever seen them? That would be a rather odd reduction, as there are lots of things we believe in that we can’t see.

Or, for example, I’ve never seen you Scott, yet I’m fairly sure there is a person associated with this question out there somewhere on the Internet.

But, before that, I’d challenge the notion that you’re on the witness stand being questioned by this attorney. You’re a peer having a conversation and he’s going to have to answer some tough questions too, like “Who lit the fuse on the Big Bang?”, “Where did life come from?”, or “Explain consciousness.”

And instead of trying to dissect one’s personal prayer life, how about asking him to go after the Resurrection? Or, how about something like the prophecy in Daniel predicting the date of the Messiah (i.e.: Jesus), or Isaiah 53 (both written hundreds of years before the events). In other words, if he’s in the mood to investigate and question something, have him make it something he can actually investigate in a meaningful way. (Not something where no real headway can be made and he can just pretend to be smart and have a superior position.)

Hope that helps a bit.

Hi Richard, I’m sorry I’ve taken so long to respond to this comment, but did respond to your e-mail address shortly after our exchange. It was a pleasure and yes, I hope our paths continue to cross. If you ever want to ask a question or contact me, please use the form on the ‘Contact Us’ page under About. Blessings!

Hi Mariuis,

Thank you so much for your comment and questions, and I’m sorry it has taken so long to reply!

Yes, I think that does represent a cultural shift in morality. I would expect to see such a shift as the culture becomes more secular. If marriage is only seen as a contract, while technically adultery might still be a breach of contract, it loses the weight and significance it would have if seen as a moral issue and breach of covenant.

Regarding murder going the same direction, I’d say that’s a bit different, but also say in some ways that it already has. First, it’s different in that I’d imagine many atheists who believe marriage can be defined however and need not be taken super seriously, would take murder pretty seriously. In that regard, it is kind of it’s own issue.

On the other hand, I do think we’re seeing a softening of the value of human life in a whole bunch of ways, including abortion / euthanasia and especially the reasons given for why these are justified. Whether that will ultimately move beyond the very young or elderly, is kind of hard to say. But, I think a secular view will often come down to a utilitarian view of morality, which we might see reflected in things like health-care limits. While not directly murder, this has somewhat similar outcomes in the how and why we value human life.

Thanks Fleming! I’m no expert on Kierkegaard, but wasn’t he saying that more in regard to taking action vs living in the mind? In other words, it’s kind of like the airplane illustration. You could study aeronautical engineering, become an expert pilot on a flight simulator, know everything about every aircraft, but until you decide to make the leap into action, and go on the plane for a flight (with ultimately uncertain outcome), you haven’t really exercised faith in flight.

I’m more wired on the evidential side of things, I guess (maybe as I’m less in touch with the emotional?), but for Christian apologetics purposes, the emotional is quite hard to share or be very convincing with. Yet, I understand that ultimately it is what is going on behind the scenes as the Spirit takes hold of us. So, I’d never want to de-emphasize the emotional/relational aspect in actual importance.

The problem, from an apologetics standpoint (or an epistemological one), is that the Mormon will likewise claim inner-witness and experience. I’ve heard new-age people say the same, and many other religions. This is where I think the command to ‘test the spirits’ comes in (if I’m using that properly in context), or the commending of the Bereans for checking out what Paul taught them. I don’t know how else to do that but to include reason and revelation. So, I think we’re best to have all three, informed by and checked against tradition.

Thanks for stopping by Rick, and sorry for taking so long in responding!

No, I’ve never been there. I should consider it, but I’m hardly able to keep up at my usual places these days (including my own blog!). Since I also work in tech quite a bit, I’m always getting drawn into various discussions in the tech/science communities. I’ll certainly keep Quora in mind though.

I think a lot of places around the Web could use more Christian engagement, especially Christians who have been trained or have thought through their positions. At places where a lot of Christians do post, I often spend as much time correcting them as the atheists. 🙁

While I’m really encouraged to see Christian apologetics finally getting some recognition and numbers of people involved… we could use 10x or 100x more, easily.

Thanks so much for stopping by, Danny! You’re welcome. Just for the sake of other readers, here is the Natasha’s post we’re referring to: 14 Ways I Teach Apologetics to My 5-Year-Olds http://christianmomthoughts.com/14-ways-i-teach-apologetics-to-my-5-year-olds/

re: Robots – Yes, the Bible seems quite clear that we’re not robots, but also about the state of our wills towards God. I’m not sure how someone can solve that without making a distinction between will and choice. I think they typically don’t, and just glaze over it.

re: neutrality – Yes, I think so. Both in the sense that we don’t often really understand the fallen state (I think most people would go with the, ‘we’re basically good’ statement today), but also within Arminianism, the concept of prevenient grace. The problem, then, as Dr. James White often points out, is whether God brings everyone to this neutral state from which to make the decision. Aside from such concepts being absent from the Bible (as far as I can tell), it would seem God is still picking some to give this semi-grace and bypassing others, or at the very least, giving some much more than others.

Thanks for this article. Would you say that one of our problems in understanding this issue is that we mistakenly assign neutrality to ourselves?

Nobody is filing charge of adultery against his or her spouse and the other party complicit in the adultery.

So, is that equivalent to the change of morality, namely, people don’t feel guilt anymore about committing adultery, and the offended spouse does not feel that he or she has to get justice(?).

Will murder go that way also?

I have often thought about this question as I imagine being on a witness stand and a skeptical, brilliant attorney cross examining me. He focuses on something like prayer. How quickly would he be able to take prayer and reduce it to an absurdity by substituting “God” for “a being you cannot see”? (“So you pray to this being you cannot see. You make requests of this being you cannot see. And walk me through exactly through what this being you cannot see does in response to your request.”) How can Christians defend their faith against reductio ad absurdum and use it against hardened critics of our faith?

Very good news! I seriously need to find time to update my article with all this new info. Some of the judge’s comments are priceless, as well as joke/sinful tactics Ergun’s representation attempted in the Autry case. So, even IF Ergun’s lies weren’t Biblical sin (they are!), his taking a Brother to the pagan courts, especially such a frivolous/faulty case, is. What a dastardly deed, especially given Autry’s situation.

re: captcha – Thanks. I searched quite a bit to find this one. 🙂 It’s called Sweet Captcha. And, I know what you mean, some of the captcha systems are getting ridiculous, and I often have to try a number of times to solve them as well. I couldn’t subject people to that. The only downside of this one, currently, is that it isn’t designed for the visually impaired. However, the developers have that in the works, so hopefully that will be coming soon. (I also had to pick something good for my clients over at my ‘tent-making’ profession, cgWerks ( http://www.cgWerks.com )

It sounds like a decision is expected Friday (May 2).

I guess I’m not buying that as a great reason to remove it. Since it was a good example of what he was writing about, it seems it might be good to leave it to help bring attention to it… not remove it to protect Ergun and others. But, now that he’s aware of it, I guess we’ll see what he does, if anything. 😉

Just in case anyone is curious, here is my original pre-censored comment:

“Great article Ed, and so needed to be heard… both in terms of church discipline, but especially in allowing such failures to be addressed in a proper manner of both accountability, but also support and healing. Both sides are lacking, which just furthers the trend of burying stuff.

I wish, though, you’d spent a bit more time talking about the ‘why it matters’ aspect indicated in the title. I work in Christian apologetics, and not only the failings, but probably worse, the lack of discipline, accountability, and even cover-up is insanely damaging to Christian witness (both evangelism and apologetics efforts). And, much of the Christian community has taken a ‘not a big deal’ response all too often.

Consider what Ergun Caner has done, and largely pulled off, while major Evangelical leaders and institutions just look the other way, or even help cover for him (cf. Norm Geisler, etc.). (If interested, just Google ‘Great Evangelical Coverup some day.) Aside from the damage, this ‘protection’ has emboldened him to try and scrub the evidence, mock those trying to help him, and even sue other pastors (which fortunately, he recently lost one of those cases).”

I don’t regard Ed as part of the “Great Evangelical Cover-Up,” and I suppose it is logical that this is about more than just Ergun Caner–but he just fits the text so well. Or he might if he wished.

I’m not abandoning “the field,” but if you are ever in the Houston area, give me a call. I’m about 50 miles from both Houston and Galveston (to the south from Houston). It is an interesting area (first “legal” Anglo settlements in Texas and currently economically driven by the chemical industry).

Bennett

What’s that quote, ‘all it takes for evil to win is for good men (people) to do nothing.’? I guess I’ve never thought of reward outside of trying to do the right thing. But, I’m not sure how brave I am, as I also don’t have a whole lot to lose (at least that I can see).

While I have many friends who run in American Evangelical circles (especially apologetics), my financial stability doesn’t depend on them (partly just due to my circumstances, partly by design). I’m not a speaker doing the circuit. I suppose if things got bad enough, it could affect my relationship with local pastors or burn some bridges with folks who might otherwise help promote my ministry…. or hurt it in the future if we ever grew to include members in certain geographical areas under Caner’s influence.

But, I guess I have two takes on that. 1) It’s ultimately in God’s hands. so my job is to just try to faithfully do my work, and 2) if this level of corruption continues, it will so damage the system that it wouldn’t be one I want to be involved with anyway.

Once again, despite Ergun’s influence in certain circles, he’s a relative nobody in the big scheme of things. Most people I’ve ever mentioned this to have never heard of him. The problem, IMO, is more with the corruption within American Evangelicalism which allows this to continue and worse. This is simply about the most stupidly obvious example I’m aware of, highlighting how extreme the corruption is.

It corrupts the whole church, from the average person in the pew to Evangelical leaders. THAT’s why it is so important. It’s the lack of church discipline and the cult of personality run amok, squared.

I think that we evaluate reward/risk. I know that I thought about commenting that it seemed that the Caner issue would fit the topic extremely well. Then I thought about how it would sound. I’m clearly a wimp because I moved on.

I think there are at least some in that situation. Since there is no reward, why take the risk. Remember that Caner’s supporters claimed that they had gotten James White blackballed from his adjunct job at (I don’t remember where) Baptist Seminary. Why take the chance. There was considerable discussion on SBC Voices before the postings there (a few months ago).

Got to go.

Also, just an FYI for anyone dealing with some of these super-long URLs…. it’s often because they have a bunch of source and tagging clutter code attached to the end. I trimmed that all off. Usually you can see the URL for the site, then the article name and/or date, etc. Then sometimes a filename with .html or such. Then you’ll see a ‘?’ with a bunch of ‘variable=xxxxx’ type stuff. Often, you can trim everything off including the ‘?’ after that. Just be sure to test it first and make sure it works.

I’ll try to respond to that article a bit later (on the comment section)… certainly mentioning Ergun! I’d suggest any interested in this situation to do so as well. I’ve gotten a bit of push-back when taking such opportunities to link related topics to Ergun, so as to bring attention to it. But, as far as I’m concerned, if people want that to go away, they can HELP in take action.

While I realize that was a general article, I wish Ed had spent a bit more time on the ‘why it matters’ aspect… it seems mostly assumed. And, THAT is one of the big problems with Ergun. A lot of people who acknowledge the points in the matter, seem to think it’s not a big enough deal to address. 🙁

Hi Ryan, and thanks for taking the time to read and comment! I’d have to go back and re-listen to fill in much more detail about the points of agreement (which I failed to note) on legislating morality. But in general, what I mean is that if you think of just about any law, at the core is some form of morality the law is trying to enforce. So, when you legislate anything, it pretty much comes down to a matter of morality. The question then becomes, who’s morality? How do we decide which moral system?

I think the phrase had an original meaning more of ‘you can’t force someone to be moral, but you can only regulate external or resulting behaviors.’ I guess that’s true as far as it goes. But, in more common usage, it seems to have taken on a meaning more like, ‘you can’t so why try?’ or ‘since we can’t decide who’s morality, don’t try’ or even that morality and our laws are two different things. I think especially this latter one is what Faircloth and I would be in agreement on as being ridiculous.

The average Christian is probably just as confused on this as the rest of society, I’m guessing. Then add in some other misunderstood concepts like ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘religious vs secular’ and ‘private vs public square’ and I’m sure something like that comes out the other end.

I’m not sure there is a big difference between Christian morality and general morality, unless you’re speaking of a kind of more radical libertarianism. Maybe an example would help.

As for the culture wars, I think if they are ‘rather useless’ it is due to the ignorance involved in the typical debate over them from both sides. I think the issues ARE incredibly important, but people have mostly just jumped on one ideological stance or the other with little actual thought about the ‘why’ or ability to articulate and defend their position (that’s apologetics, BTW 🙂 ). But that isn’t the fault of putting something moral into legal code.

That is really great to hear! I had to look up the legal term, so just for the sake of others… “with prejudice indicates misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim and forbids that party from refiling the case” (Wikipedia) I heard Dr. White mention it as well, and will have to add a little update to the article with some of the judge’s comments.

Yea, the powers that be want this forgotten, so they will do their best to ignore and deflect it. Heh, hopefully Geisler writes up an apologetic defense of Ergun’s loss in court… now THAT would be funny to read. 🙂

I have concluded (reluctantly?) that Dr. Caner’s supporters can only actively support him. If they do otherwise, then their whole house of cards collapses. Some of them have a significant investment in Dr. Caner being “true.” Others supported Dr. Caner because they either were (or wanted to be) part of an “in” group. In some cases, his supporters just did not respect the opinions of his critics and they were trying to make other people look bad. The efforts of Dr. Caner’s supporters have failed completely (if analyzed) but have been surprisingly successful in holding the group together. Howell Scott (blogs at http://fromlaw2grace.com/ ) is the only person I saw who ever started out somewhat in support of Dr. Caner and then changed his mind as he saw the documents–but he was relatively neutral at the start.

The issue with people who just keep quiet is a bit different. Some are not interested, have no “dog in the fight,” and are just moving on with their life. In my case, there is a combined sense that Dr. Caner’s critics are being unjustifiably attacked and that a person who had done something inappropriate (and thumbed his nose at critics) continues to “get away with it.” There are some who encouraged Dr. Caner in his “new” testimony or who unquestioningly joined with him in the promotion of the new testimony. I don’t think that they did this with knowledge of his fabrications, but they probably feel that they should have done better with checking. In any event, they feel that they look better supporting Dr. Caner than abandoning him to the results of his improvement efforts.

I tell my classes (chemical plant operators) that if they mess up, confess immediately. I feel this is good advice (but the time is long overdue) to Dr. Caner’s supporters. How will it end? All I can control is my actions and I will never listen to Dr. Caner speak or be involved with anything he is involved with. I feel that I know what is true and what is not. And it seems to me that even Dr. Caner is trying to make the improved story disappear—with no penalty incurred for himself. It seems wrong to me for him to benefit from the fabrication and receive no penalty.

But judgment is not my responsibility. It can’t be fun to have what you said about your life under “random” (and justified) attack. He has trashed both his life, his brother’s life, and the institutions that have hired him since he changed his life story. I think that he should just do the job that he has been hired to do to the best of his ability. He should leave the sermons, documentation, videos, etc. up as part of his penance. People who pay attention know what he has done—and what several others have done in support of a lie.

You asked what we should trust from his supporters. I say, “Nothing.” How to deal with those who simply keep their mouths shut is a more difficult problem. They (to some extent or other) often seem to matter to organizations that matter to us. We can remember that they have limited themselves and their influence to an extent. Personally, I will never trust them. But I don’t need to ever interact with them so it does not matter much.

And I have spent too much time on something that I can’t change. I’ve enjoyed the thinking here and will keep supporting anyone who wants to make a run at this “windmill.” Have a good day.

Hi Bennett,

Unfortunately, I’ve seen little indication folks care. A few fairly prominent apologetics bloggers did re-tweet somethings I’ve said about Ergun, but otherwise, it’s been silent or negative. But, I’m not in this for the earthly accolades, so I trudge on. 🙂

I agree about the lack of willingness to expose Ergun or hold him accountable, and no, the reasons aren’t honorable for sure. But, this is much as I’ve expected. I’ve had more than one person with ‘influence’ outside the USA warn me about the corruption within American Evangelicalism, specifically. It’s part of the reason some of these folks keep that group a bit at arm’s length. In other words, the system that is supporting Ergun isn’t exactly unknown…. and it’s ultimately hurting American Evangelicalism and Christianity.

I’d like to see Ergun come to his senses and repent. I’m also not sure that will happen, and unfortunately, his sin is being enabled by this group of supporters. But what bothers me much more than Ergun’s antics, is the corruption within this whole supportive community. It discounts all the valid, hard work they are doing. Given this, what information is trustable coming from this group? What figures this group promotes are trustable? These suddenly become good questions.

I hear you, but that was kind of my point… it’s not a matter of some measurable gain, but of integrity and ‘doing the right thing.’ It’s sad that this isn’t the case.

You might be right about the embarrassment of some of the leaders taking so long to discover the problem, but when Ergun started this campaign, most weren’t familiar enough with Islam to catch him. That’s kind of sad, as glaring as some of the problems are.

But, my guess is that it is simply a matter of good-ol-boys network along with people not thinking his dishonesty is really that big of a deal. They STILL don’t know that much about Islam, nor care all that much about Christian apologetics, so the damage he is doing seems small in comparison to what good they think he might do.

Yea, Ergun is working REALLY hard to clear the Internet. It must be wild to have to have some of the conversations with churches where you’ve spoken to get them to pull stuff. And, even going to the point of suing people to get stuff pulled is kind of nuts. And, as that isn’t working 100%, he’s starting to say that people have edited his audio/video to make him say things he didn’t. Ignorant or uncaring people will probably believe that as well.

My conclusion (since I’ve been “at this” since roughly 2010) is that no one with any “influence” is willing to say that “the Emperor has no clothes.” There are many who know the truth of what you have written (nice summary, by the way) but no one feels any obligation to speak up. I can think of several reasons why this might be the case–none of them particularly honorable.

But there will always be someone new who finds this issue and says something. A few will sort of support them. Some of us will “second” the truth of what they have posted. And then things will just be silent until the next person finds the issue.

I’m not sure what I want EC to do. Acknowledge that he lied in a big way and benefitted nicely from it? It isn’t going to happen (IMO). By this time the group who has tied themselves together on this can’t be abandoned. He just has to “ride it out” and that seems to be going fairly well.

Bennett

Some support EC because it gives them reason to say nasty things about those who criticize him. These almost never make any defense of EC but simply devote themselves to trashing anyone who has a problem with his tales.

I suspect that EC’s tale was tested on some of his mentors before it was released to the “public.” I think that it was not fully fleshed out when it was tested but the testing has caused some who might “disown” him to stay silent–and this encourages others to do the same. This would also provide a possible explanation for why some people inexplicably support EC even when the argument makes little sense. And besides, the story worked for about 10 years before anyone complained–and seems to continue to work in certain “circles.” We tend to believe what people say about themselves from a pulpit.

But even Caner himself seems to have a problem with his story. He seems to be working to clear the first decade of the 2000’s (as it pertains to himself) from the Internet. And he is making progress. But we say that the Internet never forgets. This may be a test case for that statement.