WHO: Dr. James White, writer and founder of Alpha & Omega Ministries

WHAT: Winter Bible Conference - A Faith Worth Defending

WHERE: Rockdale Community Church, Conyers, GA (DIRECTIONS)

WHEN: Feb. 5th-7th, 2010 (Friday 7pm - 9:30pm & Saturday 9am - 5pm)

WHY: Because we are all commanded to be prepared to give a defense

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

REGISTRATION: Registration for this conference is free and open to anyone. As the Lord leads, donations in any amount will be accepted at the conference in lieu of a set fee. Please check out the Conference Schedule and be sure to fill out the Registration Form if you plan to attend. Make sure you complete a separate registration for each person who will be coming.

NOTE: Sunday, Feb. 7th is not actually a part of the Conference schedule, but Dr. White will be teaching a joint Sunday School class that morning before delivering the sermon during morning worship. You are more than welcomed to return Sunday and join us for Sunday School and worship if you would like. FYI, we observe the Lord's Supper every week at RCC, and wanted to let you know so that you can be preparing your heart and mind for that portion of the service if you decide to join us on Sunday.

We hope you will make time for this great opportunity to focus on the subject of defending the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. May we all contend earnestly for that faith.

Contact Brian Thornton for more information.

Michael Kruger from RTS Charlotte concluded his review of Jesus Interrupted with these words:

In the end, Jesus Interrupted can be best summarized as a book filled with ironies. Ironic that it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be "right" (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is "right;" ironic that it dismisses Papias with a wave of the hand but presents the Gospel of the Ebionites as if it were equal to the canonical four; and ironic that it declares everyone can "pick and choose" what is right for them, but then offers its own litany of moral absolutes. Such intellectual schizophrenia suggests there is more going on in Jesus Interrupted than meets the eye. Though veiled in the garb of scholarship, this book is religious at the core. Ehrman does not so much offer history as he does theology, not so much academics as he does his own ideology. The reader does not get a post-religious Ehrman as expected, but simply gets a new-religious Ehrman--an author who has traded in one religious system (Christianity) for another (postmodern agnosticism). Thus, Ehrman is not out to squash religion as so many might suppose. He is simply out to promote his own. He is preacher turned scholar turned preacher. And of all the ironies, perhaps that is the greatest.

I don't know if Dr. Kruger knows Ehrman personally. I would not say I do, either, in the sense of really knowing the man. However, when you spend as much time as I did studying his teachings, listening to him speak in various contexts, reading his writings, in preparation for our debate, and then meet him in that context, you get past the "Yeah, I saw him in a TV clip once" level of knowledge. And the above litany of contradictions (not just ironies) I think flows from a deep lack of self-reflectiveness on Ehrman's part. Not only does he truly believe his own PR, but I have rarely heard Ehrman self-conciously raise issues of reflection upon his own position. That is, when I speak, you will always hear me say things like, "Now, having said that, others have suggested..." or "But how do we respond to this issue our position raises?" But once Bart speaks, well, what else is there to say? When he says "scholars have determined," well, by golly, scholars have determined! He does not see what Kruger notes above: he may have abandoned any logical or meaningful foundation for dogmatic pronouncements, but he still makes them, this time, on his own authority. And since many in our modern culture bow down in adoration at the great gift he offers (reason to disbelieve), after a while, you get used to being taken as the final authority.

This explains an element of our debate from January that did not fully strike me until I watched the debate months later while showing it to one of my GGBTS classes. During the debate I am focused completely upon the specific points being raised, and am not nearly as sensitive to tone and behavior (one of the reasons I rarely get caught up in emotions and the like). As I watched the debate with my class, I was taken aback by Ehrman's dismissive attitude, not only toward me (that is to be expected, I don't sip lattes with French textual scholars), but especially toward the audience. He truly was preaching at them, but, at the same time, did not seem to realize he was. There was such a striking contrast between his profession of pure scholarship, being a historian and not a theologian, and the fact that anyone could tell he was preaching. But he could not see that, and that is what I mean by a lack of self-reflection. It also struck me that his self-chosen appellation, "happy agnostic," does not seem to be as much description as hope. He seems caught in a spiral of his own making: the only way to continue to grow his popularity and his book sales is to become more and more gratuitous in his attacks upon his former faith (that is the nature of the fame engendered by apostasy), but that only drives him farther and farther away from his own self-claimed academic neutrality and fairness. He has to become the mirror image of what he is so obviously intent upon denigrating, hence the ironies listed above.

There are few things more disgusting to me than unwillingness to be honest and forthright in your faith. If you believe X, then confess X, and don't be ashamed of X. So when I was directed today to an "interview" that "Servetus the Evangelical" did recently about his apostasy and self-promotion, I was almost made ill by the fact that they used electronic means to mask his voice! Amazing, just amazing. Whoever this fellow is, one thing is for sure: he has a credibility rating of absolute zero, and has now begun digging downward into the negative numbers. Once again, if there is, in fact, anyone in the "evangelical" community who knows the identity of this apostate who is seeking to convince others to follow him in his denial of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, I implore you by all that is good and decent, expose this man for the sake of the fellowship of faith.

Sorry, but that seems to be the way to identify it. I noted last night the 2009 National Conference on Apologetics, and how the one thing clearly not open for discussion would be...the Gospel. Why? Because Rome's gospel, evidently, is to be viewed as "acceptable" by those heading up the conference, since they are inviting Roman Catholics to speak and debate (not be debated). I asked last night how this works, since it of necessity dismisses the Gospel as being central to the apologetic task (let alone definitional of how you go about doing apologetics!). Well, Frank Beckwith, who is surely definitional of one who promotes the "Mere Christianity" model, just noted on his blog:

What a wonderful example of Christians working together to offer a reason for the hope that lies within us! I am talking about the upcoming apologetics conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, the 2009 National Conference on Christian Apologetics. Participants include many of my friends, including Protestants Gregory P. Koukl, William Lane Craig, Gary R. Habermas, and Hank Hanegraaff as well as Catholics Benjamin Wiker, Peter Kreeft, and Dinesh D'Souza.

Well, add Benjamin Wiker to the list of Roman Catholics speaking at the Conference. Think with me for a moment: "Christians working together to offer a reason for the hope that lies within us" must mean that a constituent part of the hope that is within us is not the Gospel, since we do not share a common Gospel. Or do we? I would have to ask those who will be speaking at the conference, including some I respect as sound apologists, do you share the same hope as Peter Kreeft? Dinesh D'Souza? Or am I the last odd-ball left who thinks Christianity without the Gospel is an empty religious system?

Greetings from Great Falls, Montana! I really wish the wind was whipping and it was like 20 degrees, but alas, it is a gorgeous day in the 60s. Oh well!

So while traveling yesterday I started a little firestorm by asking a simple question: why does Ergun Caner claim to be a leading apologetic figure when he doesn't do apologetics? More to the point, if you make particular claims about what you have done in the field, shouldn't you be willing to back up what you claim about yourself? Seems pretty obvious to me, and I'd think everyone in the Christian community would agree that there needs to be some level of transparency on the part of folks in leadership, and whether you like it or not, Caner is the President of Liberty Seminary. I'm sorry folks don't like it, but when you claim to head up a program of "Global Apologetics," seek to get folks to study under you, etc., then you should be able to back up your self-promoting claims, should you not?

Folks, over the years I have gotten myself into a lot of trouble by seeking to be consistent. It would be easy to play the "everything is wrong on your side of the fence, but nothing is wrong on mine" game. Lots of people do it, and that is how you "get along." I could have ignored Dave Hunt's ignorance of Reformed theology and gotten a lot more invitations to churches as a result. I could have ignored Norm Geisler's Chosen but Free, and I could have ignored Chuck Smith's attacks just recently, too. But when I stand in front of a group of Muslims, or Catholics, or whoever, I want to have a clean conscience. If I say to a Catholic debater, "You are wrong because of your inconsistent exegesis of the text, and here is why," I don't want him to be able to come back, "Yeah, well what about all the folks on your side of things who do the same things? Why don't you ever point that out?" I do point that out, which is why I am rarely invited to the "Big Circuit" of conferences and get-togethers.

So when I first responded to Dr. Caner on "Reformation" of doctrine vs. "Revolution" in soul winning, I was simply addressing an important problem in synergistic evangelicalism today (and Caner, if he's anything, is a synergist). But when I saw his own self-promotion on his website, I simply had to ask a basic question: where's the proof? And when I asked Dr. Caner directly via Twitter, things went silent. Then I found out why. When you ask him to show you all these debates, in forty states, eleven countries, with leaders of all these religions (especially Muslims), this is what you get in response:

Given that the last tweet shown here, "Pray for bitter Christians but do NOT get infected by them. Remember: Mules cannot kick & pull at the same time" was the first one posted after my questioning of him, some have assumed that is all the answer I will get, and that, together with the action he took to block my following his tweets, would seem to indicate that this is the case.

Which leaves us with Dr. Caner's claims. I was just directed to a newspaper article on Caner in which it is reported that he claims to have done 61 debates with Muslims (this was in early 2006). That is very impressive. Since Dr. Caner will not answer the question for some odd reason, could the Muslims who have debated Dr. Caner contact me and provide me with details as to how I can obtain these debates? I know a large portion of the currently active Islamic apologists in the US, and not a one of them has ever mentioned debating Ergun Caner. In fact, I could not help but chuckle this morning as I watched a video link that was sent to me wherein Dr. Caner was giving his testimony as a former Muslim (who converted, it seems as a young teenager). The person who created the video was not fair to Dr. Caner, that is for certain. But, he did point out numerous mistakes in Caner's presentation (including confusing the opening lines of Surah Al-Fatiha with the Shahada), and right at the end Caner referred to one of "our leaders," Shabir Ally, "before he died." Shabir Ally isn't dead---if he is, someone is writing e-mails in his name since I've been in correspondence with him over the past month. Clearly, Caner was confusing Shabir Ally with Ahmed Deedat.

Now, the fact remains that Ergun Caner claims to have done many, many debates--at least 61 with Muslims alone--but when asked to provide any of these debates, what do we get? A smattering of "interviews" (none of which were with Muslims), and a few folks insisting that "debate" is a very vague word anyway, so that maybe he is just including every discussion he has ever had with a Muslim (if that is so, who goes around keeping track of exactly how many times they said "Howdy" to a Muslim?).

So why should anyone care about this? Well, let me tell you why I care. I labor in this field. I invest my life in apologetics, and I am working very hard to be a good student of Islam, and a good representative of the Christian faith to Muslims. So I have to be consistent. If there is someone running about the apologetic landscape making claims about his activities that simply do not stand scrutiny, then someone needs to speak up about it. The things that Ergun Caner says in his interviews and videos are often intended to create outrage. Speaking of "towel heads" and using the other kind of mocking language he does is hardly helpful. But here's the simple conclusion of it all: I have no reason to believe Ergun Caner has ever engaged in a formal, meaningful debate with any leading Islamic apologists, and I'll be perfectly honest with you: I hope he doesn't. I do not believe it would be beneficial. But at least I can look a Muslim in the eye and honestly say, "I have called for Dr. Caner to be open and above board about his actual history in debating your representatives, and he has flatly turned my requests for information on that topic down. I do not believe anyone should claim to have done such things when they cannot back up their claims, or when they have to so alter the meanings of words that every conversation they have ever had on a plane somewhere becomes a debate."

So, for all those who think that I'm a terrible, horrible, mean, nasty man for daring to challenge Ergun Caner to back up his own PR, you go right ahead and think that way. I happen to believe that it is far more important to be transparently honest in seeking to give a sound, consistent reason for the hope that is within us to the Muslim people than it is to cover over a professing Christian's as yet unsubstantiated claims.