President of Liberty Theological Seminary Blocks Christian Apologist on Twitter

Today marks the three year anniversary of a historical debate that was supposed to take place between Dr. Ergun Caner and Dr. James R. White on “Baptists and Calvinists.” The irony is that on this very same day, October 16th, 2009, Dr. Caner blocked Dr. White from following him on twitter. Some Christians are left asking, can’t a Southern Baptist get along with a Reformed Baptist? What’s the story behind the Caner/White conflict? As always, history tells the story.

The conflict between Dr. Caner, the President of Liberty Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, VA, and the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries Dr. James R. White goes as far back as April 2006 (although perhaps to even 2005, see page 23). Dr. Caner preached a very strong anti-Calvinist sermon at Liberty that left many students (and theologians across the board) in shock. In the sermon, Caner redefined what was historically known as “hyper-Calvinism,” and introduced a host of common misrepresentations regarding historical “5-point Calvinism.” Dr. White reviewed the sermon several times on his webcast The Dividing Line (also on youtube here) to document these errors. At one point, Dr. Caner made an even more radical assertion, saying that “Calvinists are worse than Muslims.” Caner has not retracted this statement, nor will Caner publicly refer to White as a Christian.

The conflict finally culminated into the planned debate: Monday, October 16th, 2006, 6pm, at the New Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. A debate on Calvinism. The debate was jointly agreed upon between James White and Tom Ascol (favoring Calvinism) and Dr. Ergun Caner and his brother Emir (critiquing Calvinism). Ironing out the details, however, was another matter. The four exchanged a series of letters regarding the topic, format, and setting of the debate. Words were exchanged between the moderator, Dr. Bret O’ Donnell, and White before things got further off the tracks:

On June 21st, 2006, O’ Donnell wrote to White:

…There is no rulebook for the format. I proposed a format traditionally known as “long-table parliamentary” debating that I believe fairly allows
both sides to make arguments and respond to each others’ positions. That format was supplied to you in detail from Ergun Caner…The debate you wanted was for three hours. I suggested a compromise since that is too long for most audiences to sustain (I believe either side would have a hard time
convincing an audience anywhere to attend a three hour debate)….I am happy to moderate and will be fair to both sides and advise both sides about how to handle the format of the debate, but am not interested in working with either party in an atmosphere where individuals won’t conduct themselves professionally…

James responded:

First, I agree. I have never seen such unprofessionalism in my life. I have engaged in nearly sixty moderated, public debates on a tremendously wide range of theological issues. I have debatedRoman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, a wide, wide range of garden-variety heretics, atheists, secularists—and never in sixteen years of that activity have I had anyone make setting up a single debate so difficult, so time-consuming, so rancorous…

I have asked Ergun Caner for information on how I might obtain his debates, and was initially ignored, and eventually was told they were not in the “big time” anyway, whatever that was supposed to mean…before getting to the debate issues, you raised the fact that Christians should be able to arrange a debate in a much better atmosphere. I agree. But I remind you, Ergun Caner has yet to answer a simple question put to him repeatedly: am I a Christian? I accept his confession of faith. I call him a brother. He will not call me a brother….

I’m sorry, Dr. O’Donnell, Ergun Caner did not, in fact, provide anything near sufficient detail for proposing a format that, to my knowledge, is unheard of in theological debate. I have offered to provide examples of theological debate for review, and have been consistently ignored in the offer. We just did a tremendously useful debate at Biola University with one of the leading Islamic apologists, Shabir Ally, and I assure you, the format was not a parliamentary one…

Every one of The Great Debate series on Long Island has been over three hours in length. Most people don’t want them to end when they do. I do not know what theological debates you have been involved with, Dr. O’Donnell, but the ones we do attract people from all over. I have heard of folks who want to attend this debate who would be coming from California. You do not fly from California and then complain about the debate lasting three hours. You want a lot more than three hours…

Dr. Ergun Caner entered the dialog and responded to James by saying,

…All you have to do is show up. The reason this has been so difficult is because you didn’t like it, and could not manipulate it…

Obviously, Dr. Caner had no intention of jointly agreeing on the rules of the debate. James replied to Ergun:

…Excuse me, but outside of the location, format and resolution is something both sides are supposed to agree to, sir. You have provided an incoherent resolution that while humorous to most who have tried to make heads or tails out of it, is simply useless; you have likewise demanded, not “provided,” a format that is not used for theological debates. Why?…

Ergun Caner replied:

…Dr. White, as one who debates so often, you should know- attempting to change the topic of debate is a concession of defeat…And thank you for proving my thesis concerning manipulation.

The conversation quickly devolved into a more aggressive exchange giving special attention to the theological issues of Calvinism. More unfortunately, Ergun’s attitude de-evolved into mockery:

I do love the fact that Dr. Falwell is willing to give this debate as big a stage as possible…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?

After the “dust settled,” Dr. White wrote an email to Ergun’s brother Emir Caner to try and establish some common ground. White highlighted what basic issues needed to be addressed and what he would like to see happen. He suggested the following:

1) Make the debate Ergun Caner vs. James White.

2) Let us arrive at a clearer, jointly agreed to thesis statement that will make the debate
clear and understandable to the audience.

A) Both sides have sufficient time in opening statements to make their case.
B) Both sides have time for rebuttal.
C) Both sides can engage in in-depth cross-examination of the other on the case they
have made in their opening statements.
D) Both sides have time to make closing statements.

3) Let us utilize a debate format that is actually designed for theological inquiry fitting
Christians rather than one designed for political dialogue. (James White, July 13th, 2006)

Emir responded, and concluded his email this way:

James, this email is already longer than I had intended. You requested to debate us. We accepted. We were clear from the inception that we were not interested in the formal format or a narrow thesis statement. If you believe that these stipulations we require are not acceptable with you (and/or Tom), just simply say so. We understand. And there are no hard feelings here. (Emir Caner, July 13th, 2006, 11:44am)

The question is clear: why is communication between James and the Caners so difficult?

Dr. White’s suggestions reflect his extensive 70+ debate experience, while Dr. Caner’s reflects most likely his and his brother’s own apologetics experience. By “debate,” White means a public interaction that involves three characteristics: (normally) two participants, a thesis statement or question that is the focus of the debate, and a time for cross-examination (direct question-asking). White’s ministry is centered around this activity, providing dozens of formal debate DVDs and MP3 downloads available for purchase. Attendants and followers of White’s ministry have found this format particularly useful.

The Caners, on the other hand, understand a “debate” in much different terms. A debate is much more of an “interview” or “discussion” that doesn’t have the structure of a “formal debate.” This is evident because Dr. Ergun Caner’s twitter profile says “[Caner] has debated leaders in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Bahai, Taoism, and many cult leaders in forty states and eleven countries,” (emphasis mine) and yet the only public material provided regarding Ergun’s debate claims is a series of 8 interviews (none of which involve Islam). Emir’s public profile doesn’t even mention the word debate.

In short, neither of the Caner brothers has any audio or video recording  available demonstrating that either of them have or will participate in a formal debate.

At 12:16pm James replied to Emir:

Dr. Caner, am I interpreting this statement correctly to conclude that you have no interest in even discussing the parameters of this debate? I.e., we determine these things, you either show up, or you do not? Are you including under the term “stipulations” that you “require” the thesis statement, the time frame, and the format? Please elaborate.

At 12:18pm, Emir replied:

James,
The thesis, time frame, and format were discussed. For example, in regards to the four person format, you agreed to the four person debate and personally asked Tom to enter the fray. We do believe all these requirements are necessary in order to engage in the debate we  feel best suits the audience and topic. If you do not agree with us concerning these matters, we understand. Please know there are no ill feelings here. We simply disagree on these matters.
Truth is Immortal,
Dr. Emir Caner

It appears as thought neither of the Caner brothers are willing to even entertain the idea of participating in an event where their beliefs could be publicly challenged, at least if we are to understand that the Caners have no intention of participating in moderated cross-examination. In a “debate” without the questioning during the cross-examination, neither opponent actually has to direct their claims head-on as one would in a dialog. That is to say, a debate without cross examination is no more than an interview or a monologue, which is precisely what the Caner’s had in mind when they referred (and continue to refer) to a “debate.”

On October 8th, 2006, James White wrote on his blog:

Dr. O’Donnell has verified with Dr. Falwell that there will be no debate on Monday the 16th. Dr. O’Donnell wrote, “Given that the two sides cannot agree on the terms of the debate in a spirit of compromise he concurs that the debate should not occur and therefore there will not be a debate on October 16 agreeing with the decision that was announced on Friday by Dr. White.” As Tom Ascol immediately pointed out on the Founder’s blog, that was not, in fact, the reason. The reason was that we had a signed agreement for a three hour debate; the debate had X amount of cross examination; the debate was fair in that it began with one side, ended with the other (neither side had the first/last speaking advantage). But twelve days out Brett O’Donnell of Liberty University assumed what can only be called dictatorial powers over the entirety of the situation. He unilaterally dismissed the agreement reached primarily through the interaction of Tom Ascol and Emir Caner, removing each of the very items that we had requested to get things “back on track” back in July.

Dr. White publicly documented both in text the exchange between himself and the Caner brothers, which is the only complete public sources available for this exchange. The original (and quite energetic) exchange leading up to the debate between Dr. Ergun Caner and Dr. James R. White can be found here. White’s 1.5 hr response to Dr. Caner’s original sermon against Calvinism can be viewed here.

On October 14th, 2009, Dr. Ergun Caner tweeted the following message: “Conservative churches do not need Reformation of doctrine. We believe…We need a Revolution of soul winning.”

Dr. White tweeted in response: “What you win them with is what you win them to.”

Finally, Dr. Caner’s first tweet after White’s tweet was: “Pray for bitter Christians but do NOT get infected by them. Remember: Mules cannot kick & pull at the same time.” And then Dr. Caner blocked Dr. White.