Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Norman Geisler Still Defends Ergun Caner (formerly President of Liberty Seminary)

Recently I did a post on the Liberty Baptist Seminary Board's findings after investigating Ergun Caner, their President. They removed him from the Presidency but retained him on the faculty. Norman Geisler, the well known Christian apologist, posted the following on his facebook page:

An extensive independent investigation has exonerated Dr. Ergun Caner of all the false charges made against him by extreme Muslims and others and has been retained as a Professor at Liberty University. In spite of a few misstatements (which we all make and he has corrected), nothing has diminished his testimony and orthodoxy as one of the great Christian voices of our time. I totally support him.

Frankly, I am not surprised because Geisler and Caner are friends (see the picture below where they are "cutting-up" with each other). People, even Christians, will excuse their friends from behavior that they would condemn in other people. While this is understandable from a human point of view, does it make it right? Does it make it okay for a Christian, who is supposed to be committed to the truth, to excuse lying on the part of a fellow Christian who happens to be a good friend? I don't think so. I think it only shows the duplicity of Norman Geisler.


  1. My favorite statement to come out of all of this is "factual statements that are self-contradictory".

  2. People like Geisler are like politicians - they will excuse and wave away anything if there is some real or perceived apologetic benefit in it for them. A "Muslim" that converted to the Lord is worth more than a factually misspoken fraud.

  3. So much for there being only one 'truth'. The postmodernists must be blushing with pride at this defense by Geisler.

  4. misstatements, eh? Greek for lies? :)

  5. I'm actually learning a lot from this EC thing, although I'm sure we're all getting tired of it.

    First, Ken, I think you are correct about Geisler. I looked up "duplicity" and found that it means "deliberate deception." I read and re-read what Geisler said. Every single sentence is untrue!! Except for "I totally support him."

    The whole paragraph is a total misrepresentation of the truth. It is purposely deceitful in my opinion. Anyone unfamiliar with the details of the case would read it and say, "Oh, great! Praise the Lord! It was all much ado about nothing and he's been found innocent and he's still a professor!" That's what Geisler wants people to come away with, obviously!!

    It IS deliberate deception for the CAUSE of Christ, I think.

    Also I've read people explaining "factual statements that are self-contradictory." At first I thought it was just a nicer way to say that he lied. Which it is. I think it's meant to be a softer or maybe just a more detailed, accurate way to say he lied. Probably because lawyers advised them to be careful in their wording in order to protect Liberty University as EC's employer.

    But what I learned is: EC made two statements-factual statements-statements that represented facts (supposedly.)

    Like if I said:

    "I was born in France."
    "I was born in the USA."

    Both could be false, or one could be true and the other false. But they are self-contradictory. They can't both be true. So I'm lying either part of the time or all of the time.

    So, along with LU putting out a statement that you have to read closely to see what they are saying and putting it out on Friday afternoon like all politicians, you have Geisler being duplicitous so the average Joe will come to a WRONG understanding of the case. It's all very unimpressive. Yet, they want others to come to Christ also. To be more like THEM????

  6. One more thing-we've come to expect "lawyer-speak" from politicians. But this Christian university and this well-known Christian both do the same thing as the politicians do. They are no different. Aren't they supposed to be different?

  7. I've seen Caner on TV once or twice. There's a reason he bills himself as "The Evangelical Pit bull". The most gracious thing I can say is that I don't care at all for his personality.

    Absolutely everything that comes out of that subculture disgusts me. What would God say, I wonder, if he asked me why I hadn't received his son as my savior, and I told him, "Because I couldn't abide anyone delivering the message!"?