I wrote a few things back in July of 2010 in the comment box at this link:
http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-all-fuss-over-caner-and-liberty.html [link now broken, apparently–CD]
It is not necessary to bog oneself down in the Caner debacle, but in a nutshell Caner has been lying about what kind of Muslim he was prior to his conversion to the false gospel of universal atonement. The lie perpetuating started not too long after September 11, 2001. There are plenty of things that document this, like recording of talks Caner has given over the years. Anyway, here is the comment I had made some time ago:
The facts speak for themselves. James White is right — Caner lied. How long has Caner been perpetuating this lie? Can a regenerate person make a trade of lying (cf. 1 John 3:8-9)? If Caner is judged to be of the devil for practicing the sin of lying (v. 8), would this be akin to advocating some sort of “moral perfectionism”?
Some clueless dolts here refuse to understand that the initial rebuke for a public sin is to be public (cf. Galatians 2:14). Did Paul here violate the principle set out in Matthew 18:15-17?
Will anyone judge Caner to be unregenerate if he “fails to hear” as Matthew 18:17 says? The Calvinist “churches” cannot exercise discipline with Caner because their hands have been tied with the string of schism. But what of Caner’s “church”? If Caner’s “church” refuses to discipline him for blatantly and openly violating basic principles of morality, then will Caner’s “church” be judged by them as a Synagogue of Satan? Matthew 18:17 says that the one who “refuses to hear” is to be judged unregenerate. What of the “church” who also “refuses to hear” by refusing to discipline?
Of course, I am NOT saying that either James White or Ergun Caner are true believers–they are NOT. Caner–and by extension all who believe like him (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heresyarmin.htm)–are self-righteous boasters who stumble at the stone of stumbling and are offended at the rock of offense. Their boast is NOT in the cross as what makes the difference between salvation and damnation, but in their own efforts. The truth that the work of Jesus Christ demands and ensures that all for whom He died will be saved is an offense to them.
It is the view of James White — and by extension all who believe like him (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm)–that the theology of the efficacious cross-work of Jesus Christ “matters,” but it is not an essential life-and-death matter. For he believes that there are some saved people who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception.
Thus, he doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is truly a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. He (and the other like-minded fashionable Calvinists) believe that Jesus Christ is a little pebble that can be stepped over, or even stepped on, without any consequences (contra Matthew 21:44). These “tolerant Calvinists” do not believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ is an essential gospel doctrine, let alone the very heart of the gospel.