Has the Intellectual Pit Bull Stepped Out of the Doghouse?
Initially, Ergun Caner refused to debate James White, but rather preferred to correspond through email. The correspondence can be found here. This is in response to the shenanigans of the Caner brothers on the infamous Founder's post (324 comments thus far) in which they spew lies, slander Calvinists, display ignorance of history, and effectively avoid every question posed to them (at the same time ingoring the answers being given to their questions). White was out of the country at the time and corresponded through Ascol until he could arrive back to address the issue himself. So how better to respond than to offer a debate at the Pit Bull's own playpin in front of 9,000 of his own students, in his own backyard. I know how pitbulls are in their own turf, and we will see if there is any bite to the bark. We will see because it has been reported (Daniel Randle) that White has hinted (on his radio show) that the debate is going to take place in the near future (probably by the end of the summer). Along with the "not-a-debate" deal with Drs. Mohler and Patterson, this could be quite an eventful summer. On another note, I find it interesting the reason why Caner refuses to debate White. Gene Bridges points to a published email correspondence between Caner and a pastor where Caner says thus: "I find your e-mail interesting, in that, at least three times as many e-mails, pastors/laymen have commented on Dr. White acting petulant, with all types of provocation, all in the cause of getting me to debate him so he can sell his latest book (which, interestingly enough, is on the exact text he wants to debate!)" Again, he says, "I will debate any topic of Calvinism, at any time and place, at a time of my choosing. NOT when someone cries that he wanted to pick the time. That is not debate; that is posing." Oh, so Caner doesn't wany White to have a book published subsequent to the debate. Hmmm, it seems that they know something about debates and book publishings (see their books and debates on Islam). Besides that, what kind of excuse is this? Any place at any time - qualified by his discernment between the times and seasons of debating and posing. Furthermore, Caner appeals to Elmer Towns' treatment of Calvinism (on his website), which does more to reveal the competence (or lack thereof) of Towns and why he is such a star over at BaptistFire. Bridges goes on to address some of the statements of Towns and concludes that he (and his cohorts) are functionally Pelagian because they place both election and regeneration outside the chain of grace. Bridges makes a pointed statement with which I will conclude this post: "If Elmer Towns represents sound argumentation, we have to wonder if it is wise for Ergun Caner to debate the issues at all." To read the responses of bloggers to the Caner brothers, click here.