Category: Inerrancy

Article IX

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I want to make sure you all know that this weekend I will not be posting on Friday night at least due to my being a speaker at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics. If you happen to come, please be there for my talk on “Should You Believe In The Trinity?”

Tonight, in our look at Inerrancy, we’re going to be looking at the ninth article. Let’s go to the text.

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

This is a funny point for me to write about after reviewing Dawkins’s “The Magic of Reality.” If you read that review, within that book, Dawkins writes about why is it that the writers did not tell us about electricity or include a cure for cancer in the text. This is a fairly common objection found in your usual internet atheist.

Aside from prophecy to get people to repent, God was not really beaming down information into the heads of the writers. I do not think that Paul was sitting down to write an epistle and then just wait for God to suddenly turn a light on in his and help him to dispense great theology.

I think Paul was just a great thinker and that the Holy Spirit in some way guided his thinking. The Spirit did not tell him what to think. Now there could be a slight few exceptions to this, but they would certainly be just that, exceptions.

Did the writers write from a limited basis? Of course. That hasn’t changed in fact for 2,000 years since all writers write from a limited perspective. That does not mean that they wrote inaccuracies. If that was the case, every major science paper would need to be labelled inaccurate since all scientists today have a limited perspective and could be false.

This article concurs that God worked within the limitations of the people. It is a modern idea that the people in the Bible should have written with modern ideas in mind. An example of this is when people look at the listing of a bat as a bird in Leviticus. A bat isn’t a bird! True, but a bat has wings and the word used then meant “winged one.” We should not fault the Bible because it did not have a word for “winged mammal.”

Thus, when I get done looking at this article, I once again have to say that I agree and I think that this is an important contribution. It is also a reminder of how we need to look at the historical context for the Bible to best understand what is going on in any particular verse. Thus, in conclusion, we support article 9.

ICBI Article VIII

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. First off, my again thanks to a kind contributor who made a sizable donation to our work today. It is much appreciated. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our look at Inerrancy by looking at the eighth article of the ICBI statement. It reads as follows:

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

This again is something important to note and something obviously misunderstood. We do not hold to a dictation theory. There are some very very few evangelicals who have held to such a position, but when one reads the writings of the writers of the Bible, they can usually tell that there are stylistic differences.

Isaiah, for instance, is highly poetic in what he says. Micah has quite a few puns in his prophecies. The Psalms have a wide variety within themselves. When it comes to the NT, some of the books are basic in their Greek, such as 1 John being one of the first ones that Greek students learn to translate. Luke and Acts, on the other hand, are ones that are quite difficult to translate.

Paul is highly logical in his thinking. He goes from point A to B and then to C. This is also one of the reasons that Peter would say that Paul’s writings are hard to understand, as many of us when reading the great thinkers of the past do have a hard time understanding what it is they are saying. James, on the other hand, is a more simple writer who prefers to use more examples from every day life. He writes about horses and ships and springs of water and uses analogies of farming.

Presuming that the same John who wrote the gospel also wrote the apocalypse, there is definitely a great change in style from one to the other. John’s gospel is one that tells a story in a more straight-forward narrative position with an emphasis on who Jesus is. The apocalypse contains much imagery that relates to events that take place sometime in the future from the time it was written, how distant you think it was depending on your analogy, but all agree the book contains much symbolism and it’s one of the ones commentators fear the most. However, I would also say that a large emphasis is on who Jesus is in it.

The importance of this to Inerrancy is also that this can explain many so-called contradictions. The writers wrote with their own personalities and in their own words. This would be especially true if Paul used a scribe, as he most certainly did at times, and could be even that Paul would just say what he wanted said, let the scribe put it in his own words, and then write a signature to the letter which would be along the lines of “I’m Paul and I approve this message.”

Thus, we agree with Article VIII.

ICBI Article 7

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through lately the doctrine of Inerrancy and taking a closer look at the ICBI statement. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at article VII. It reads as follows:

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

At this one, I can agree to it, but I would appreciate if we had had more. For instance, Ben Witherington has written about the act of prophecy in his book “Jesus The Sage.” Of course, it is doubtful we could know about this since I question that revelation like that is going on today.

The denial is quite important however. The Bible was not based on people making lucky guesses. Prophecy was not just someone looking at the events of the time and making predictions. After all, when you have prophecies like those of the seventy weeks of Daniel, it’s hard to imagine about how those could have been predicted. The same with the numerous other prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. There are no doubt some that could have been filled intentionally and by planning, but not all could.

The purpose of such however was not just God showing off, but it was God showing that he knows the end from the beginning and therefore Israel ought to trust Him. Of course, there was the importance of them giving reasons to trust Him and of giving messages to other nations giving them the opportunity to repent.

We can too often approach such prophecy as if it is not really meant to tell us about God, but that is the primary purpose of it. Very little of what the prophets did was actually prophesying, in the sense of foretelling the future. Most of what they did was in fact leading the people to be righteous. They were meant to turn the hearts of the people back to YHWH.

The importance of it being accurate was because it was from YHWH. If someone made a prophecy and it did not come true, then that prophet was shown to be a false prophet and the penalty for that was death. God protected his Word very closely. If someone’s word did not come true, they were not from YHWH and were guilty of leading Israel into apostasy.

The bottom line in this one then is that all Scripture again comes from YHWH and by His inspiration, the prophets were able to know things that they would not have known otherwise. While it would have been nice to have seen more written on the nature of Inspiration and interaction with more scholarly works on the subject, we can conclude with saying that we agree with this article.

We shall continue next time.

ICBI Article 5

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I apologize for the delays in writing. I have been busy. I also want to thank a kind reader who sent me a very encouraging message today. It is greatly appreciated.

I’m going to continue our look at Inerrancy tonight with article 5 of the ICBI statement which reads as follows:

We affirm that God’ s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

This is something I can agree with easily a well. I do hold that there can be seeming contradictions between the Scriptures, but those are more apparent and not real. It can be difficult understanding the relation between Law and Grace for instance. Or there’s the eschatological debate of “Is there a distinction between Israel and the Church?”

At the same time, we do realize we are not a religion like Islam with one book that came down very quickly in a relatively short period, but a book that has a written history consisting of around 2,000 years or so, depending upon what date is given to Job and the Mosaic writings.

Since I have mentioned Islam, it could be asked if we have the problem of abrogated verses. No. We do not. While we do not live under the Theocracy of Israel any more, we do still acknowledge a rule of God. There is debate over how that is displayed in the world today depending on your view of eschatology, but all Christians affirm we are not in a state where we have to offer sacrifices and such.

However, does that mean that the laws that were given about sacrifices are absolutely useless to us? Not at all. We may not have to undergo the Levitical system today found in Leviticus, but that does not mean that we can cut Leviticus out of our Bibles, and it’s not just because there are moral passages in there. The passages on how to offer up offerings are important as well since we can find images of Christ in them and we can learn about the nature of God, forgiveness, how great it is today, and about the history of Israel.

It is important to include that revelation on a normative basis has ceased. Some Christians do think God still does speak some today, but few would say it is normative and what is said should be written down and included as Scripture. This would also present a problem to groups like the Mormons who believe in a living prophet today and who believe in extra books being Scripture outside of orthodox works and it would be a problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe the Watchtower is a continuing channel of truth today giving meat in the proper time.

So we conclude then that we can agree with article 5.

We shall continue next time.

ICBI Article 4

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Today, I’m going to be continuing our look at the topic of Inerrancy and seeing what is said in the fourth article of ICBI’s statement. This article reads as follows:

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

Again, I really do not see any problem with this and I would just like to comment. There can be no doubt that the fall tainted humanity so that there are consequences. Perhaps our minds do not reason as they should in some way. We have no evidence however that Adam was a super-genius before the fall nor does Christianity necessitate it. Thus, making such judgments is difficult as the data is really non-existent.

We do realize there are inadequacies in language as we indicate when we speak of something as so great as that words cannot contain it or there are just no words to describe it. It is the problem that the message we wish to convey is so incredible that the words do not seem to be sufficient containers of meaning.

I think immediately of the work of Dr. Habermas with near-death experiences as he talks about people who have an experience that is heavenly. They’ll often try to describe it and say “No. That’s not it. When I say that, you think of something else instead and that just won’t explain it.”

Language was what God had to use to make a revelation such as we find in Scripture. That is something that could be passed down and handed on to other generations. Of course, there are difficulties with such a procedure. Peter himself said that some of Paul’s writings were hard to understand.

We too often come to Scripture with the idea that it must surely be easy to understand because it is God’s Word. We say this while at the same time saying that God is magnificent and beyond our comprehension. You cannot really dumb down God as it were. Now I do think salvation can be learned from the Scripture, but I do not think that the Bible itself fits into the box of easy to understand.

Does that mean that there was a mistake in using language? No. It just means we have to do what we so often hate to do, work harder. If we believe that the message of Scripture is valuable however, we will do it. This will mean we can seek to learn the original languages as much as possible, understand the social context of the time, and get a grasp on other factors like textual criticism, philosophy history, etc. that are all relevant to understanding the biblical text.

Thus, we conclude with a hearty approval of article 4.

Inerrancy Article 3

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I am going to be returning to a look at Inerrancy. We’ve been going through the Chicago Statement seeing what was said in there in order to come to an understanding of Inerrancy and seek if there are ways improvement might be sought. Tonight, we look at the third article which reads as follows:

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Much of this is meant to deal with Barthian doctrine. To begin with, I have no doubt that the affirmation is certainly true. Of course, to say that it is true is not to end the matter. We must look at what it means for that to be true and what the ramifications of it are.

To say that all the Bible is revelation by God means that all that is in there is meant for showing who He is and leading us to sanctification. Of course, it does not mean that everything in there is true, such as when it reports the lies of the devil, which is rather a true report of a lie, or HOW it is true. For instance, Genesis 1 is true, but does that entail true according to an old-earth view, a young-earth view, or a framework view?

Neither of these can be determined at this point, and that is just fine. All that needs to be said is that if it is taught in Scripture, we can be sure of its truth, which is also quite important to those of us who want to know the truth of salvation and the second advent of Christ.

As for the denial part, we agree with the denial. The Bible is what it is in virtue of itself. It does not become true when someone believes it to be true. Rather, someone comes to the conclusion that the Bible is true and as a result they affirm its truth. I would also say Inerrancy is arrived at the same way. If the Bible is Inerrant, it is Inerrant whether someone believes it or not, but that lies in the text and that can be discovered by men by a study of the text. If someone does not approach the text thinking it is Inerrant, a study of the text should be able to satisfy them that it is.

The Bible does not change based on how we respond to it. It is what it is and what we do cannot change that. There is no experience that we have that can change what it is. An experience can change the way that we perceive the Bible, but what will happen is that we will either move to a truer or falser view of Scripture. The Scripture itself does not change. We change in relation to it.

Thus, with article 3, we have no problem. What about article 4? Well that’s for next time.

ICBI’s Statement

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, we’ve been looking at the topic of Inerrancy and right now, I’m taking a closer look at what ICBI concluded. We fortunately saw last time that they admitted they were a brief meeting and thus, some work would be left to do in the future. Hopefully what is going on here is a start of that work. Even if there is disagreement later on, there is no need to start all over again. There can be no doubt some good work was done concerning ICBI, but there is still much to do.

There’s not too much here and I will put up a link at the end. To begin with, there can be no doubt ICBI wanted to give the highest view they could to Scripture. I agree with that, but we should be careful we don’t worship the Bible, which I think ICBI would also agree. The Bible is a revelation, yet I have met Christians who actually seem to think John 1:1 is talking about the Bible.

The first point wishes to stress that the Bible is from the God of all truth who speaks the truth. That is then the purpose of hermeneutics. The reason for interpretation is to try to find the truth. In any case, if not the Bible, we seek to find the message the author wished to convey. In the case of Scripture, we know the message that was wished to be conveyed was true. (Excepting of course statements like the lies of the devil being recorded. In this case, we have a true report of someone making an untrue claim.)

The next point teaches that the Bible is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it commands, and embraced in all that it promises. We agree. In fact, this is a great fault in us in that often we have made it a point to know doctrine without knowing the Lord of doctrine. We can get so caught up in the apologetics community in knowing the fine points that we forget to really learn the impact of what we believe. We can spend so much time defending the Trinity against Jehovah’s Witnesses that we forget what difference it makes.

The third point is the only one thus far I think I’d raise some qualms over. For one thing, I do not see any testament in Scripture to the Holy Spirit authenticating that the text is true. I am cautious of this seeing as I think there are other means and I think this one can be badly misused by Mormons. Second, I also do not think the Holy Spirit tells us the meaning of a text. I believe it is the Spirit that convicts us ON the meaning of the text. When we realize a promise of God, the Holy Spirit can use that to help us celebrate and praise him. When we are convicted of a sin from the text, the Holy Spirit can bring that home to us.

The fourth point stresses again the truth in all that Scripture teaches in all areas including our own lives. Again, I do not have a problem with this. As we have discussed however, the problem more often than not can be asking what it is that Scripture is really teaching and before we do that, we often need to see what lies within orthodoxy. Do young-earth and old-earth creation both lie there? Does theistic evolution lie there?

The final point is a reminder to not lessen Inerrancy. With this, we do not have disagreement. However, the danger as has been shown is to move Inerrancy from the Scriptures to our interpretation. We do not wish to lessen the Scriptures or Inerrancy in this look. I have no problem saying I believe the Bible to be true in all that it teaches. The question to ask is “What is it teaching?”

That is not the subject matter really of our discussion. It might show up some, but that is the work of the student to figure out, to which we should all be in a sense.

The link to the statement can be found here:

Click to access ICBI_1.pdf

We shall continue next time.

ICBI Preface

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve started us looking at the ICBI statement and going through and seeing what I think about each portion of it and what the ramifications are concerning the Geisler/Licona debate. Tonight, we look at the preface.

I do agree with the start definitely that Scripture is the authority and that has always been an issue. What Scripture says for the Christian should be taken with the utmost seriousness, which is something that makes this debate so serious. We want to know the message God wishes to convey to us through the original authors.

I do agree that the affirmation of Inerrancy is important. Note that the start says that it is being affirmed afresh, but each generation needs to make its own affirmation if need be. For instance, with Christology, Nicea was not enough. We also needed the council of Constantinople. Then, a new belief arose and we needed the Council of Ephesus. Finally, another heresy arose and we needed the Council of Chalcedon.

Of course, there are always going to be heretics and denials and there will be those who have not learned from the teachers of the past, but when the current debate was not found to be adequately dealt with in the past, then it was time to look again. In this case, we have an issue and since three signers of ICBI have different views, we need to look again at what was intended. We cannot just say one person is right. We need to find out why they are or are not.

In the next part, the writers acknowledge that the statement was made briefly in three days and despite what certain parties think, the statement itself says that it is not to be taken as a Creedal statement. In other words, ICBI is not infallible. That is reason enough that we can take a closer look and revise if need be. It is also reason enough for not using ICBI as a club.

Note also that the document is not offered in the spirit of contention, but in humility and love, with the request that that keep going in any dialogues that come out of the document. Unfortunately, this is not happening. The ICBI statement is being used in a way directly opposed to the way it was meant to be used according to the statement itself.

Finally, the preface says that response is invited to see if it needs to be amended. Again, it has been said that there is no personal infallibility for what has been said.

At this point, my thinking is that this is fine and all, but I fear that much is being made out of the three days when further refinement is necessary, especially since my ministry partner, J.P. Holding, has pointed out that most signers were pastors and/or theologians and not biblical scholars. Now a pastor and a theologian needs to know the Bible well, but that is not the same as being a biblical scholar. The pastor and/or theologian instead relies on the data of the scholar. Now one can be a scholar and be a pastor and/or theologian, but that does not necessitate one being so.

We shall continue our look tomorrow.

The Future of Inerrancy

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve spent a lot of time lately writing on the Geisler/Licona debate. I have stated I am Licona’s son-in-law, but I would like to make a few points clear.

To begin with, everything I say here, I say of my own free-will. Yet at the same time, I have made it a point to be objective. My father-in-law and I do disagree on some points and we have discussed them back and forth. Yet in this, while I am not ready to sign on the dotted line with his interpretation, I am open to it, as I am with it being both historical and having apocalyptic symbolism. Still, I am against the idea of him being labeled as denying Inerrancy.

I will also say that when I talk about the future, there are immediate ramifications of this. This has been quite difficult on my family, especially with my wife having her own stress over this. We’ve never had good finances in our marriage as I got laid off three months before our wedding. This puts us in a bind now even further. For new readers, if you do like what is going on, I do urge you to consider making a donation to what we do here at Deeper Waters to keep up a real defense of orthodoxy.

As for the future, I think we’ve all seen something in this debate. We’ve seen how to argue and we’ve seen how not to argue. Even if Geisler and Mohler were right in their points, the consensus across the net from what I see is that using ICBI and ETS like a club is not the right way to establish that. Nor is the right way to be found in the denial of scholarship.

Many on the net are now stating they do not want to join the ETS. Personally, I don’t blame them. I have no desire to join now either. However, let us be clear that we still need to be evangelicals in unity. We need to stand up for the great truths that have made the Christian faith what it is.

A lot of people now are asking “Well what is Inerrancy?” I think this is a good question and it is not a simple one. We know we believe the Bible is a book of truth, but at the same time, we don’t think inerrancy means you take everything necessarily literally. Of course, some passages you do take literally, but of course, there are some you don’t take literally. Has the simplistic idea of “Literally unless needed otherwise” done more harm than good?

While we do not want to defend what Geisler and Mohler are promoting, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let’s instead realize that Inerrancy needs to be even better explained. There have been changes in the scholarly world since ICBI. While we can respect what went on then, we realize some more study has been done. For instance, while we agree with what was said at Nicea, that does not mean Nicea was the pinnacle of study on the incarnation.

Thus, while Geisler and Mohler are making a mistake, let us be sure that we do not make a mistake in the opposite direction. Let us make sure we have a definition of inerrancy that can allow for apocalyptic interpretation, but at the same time not a definition where anything goes.

Of course, in this definition, we will always be open to new eyes realizing that the younger generation just might have found something we’ve missed. As I told my friend last night, someday, we will be the older generation of apologists and we will want to make sure we deal with the younger generation in a way unlike what we see Geisler and Mohler doing.

When they come with ideas that seem contrary to the traditional ones we’ve grown up with, let us encourage them. If scholarship shows that those ideas are false, then they are false, but the student will be all the more benefited for having done the research. Biblical studies will also learn that which is not true. If the idea is true, then we can thank the student for bringing to our attention something we’d been seeing wrong and all will be blessed. If we dismiss them with a threat, we are saying that we do not care for scholarship and running from the academy will never serve the church well. It never has in the past after all and there is no need to repeat history.

Part of good scholarship is always being open to the possibility that you could be wrong about something. Now to be sure, the more you have studied an issue, the less likely it is that you will be wrong, but either way, it will be beneficial to you to be open to the idea.

Unfortunately today, it seems that if something is traditional, then we dare not mess with it. Many of us are thankful the Reformers did not take that stance, but yet at the same time we do with the Reformers what they did to the Catholic church. They were not infallible and would not wish to be. Let us be clear on this. No one human being is infallible save our Lord. We have an infallible text. We do not have infallible interpreters.

What will we need in the future then? Study. More of it. If new councils are to be formed to discuss Inerrancy, and I have no problem with that idea, they need to be blessed by having conservative Christians across all the fields. We need scholars in philosophy, theology, history, Greek, Hebrew, Science, Sociology, Archaeology, etc.

We also need them from all belief systems on the conservative spectrum. We need futurists. We need historicists. We need Preterists. We need Calvinists and Arminians. We need old-earthers and young-earthers. We need cessationists and we need those who think miraculous gifts are for today. Provided one holds to orthodoxy, we need them to all come together and say “We disagree on everything else, but on this we can unite.” Can’t be done? We’ve done it with the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the physical resurrection.

In saying that, I am not saying I believe that Inerrancy must be a test for orthodoxy. I don’t. I think it’s important, but at the same time, beliefs about Scripture are not salvific. We must be sure that we do not make the Bible an idol as we seek to study it. However, since it has long been said that the Bible is without error, the burden is on the one who thinks he knows better than the authors and that’s a heavy burden.

And speaking of heavy burdens, let us be willing to put them on the young scholar who does think he can show a long-held belief is false. If they really want to, by all means try. If we are believing something that is wrong, then please show us so that we can correct it. If it turns out we are right, the student has at least learned the effort of research and reaching a claim based on the evidence.

Will there always be disagreements among us? No doubt there will be. That’s inevitable. The question will be how are we as Christians going to handle those disagreements with one another? I believe the actions of Geisler and Mohler in using ICBI and ETS as a club only stiffen the divide. If you think I am wrong, then I simply ask that you browse the blogosphere and watch what is going on. Why are so many talking about leaving the ETS? Why are so many talking about being sick of seeing open letters? Could this all not have been handled better?

The future belongs to us and our forefathers worked hard to get us where we are and we dare not disregard them. We are not the only generation the Holy Spirit has worked through. Unless Christ returns, we will not be the last either. We are simply carrying on a work from those who came before us. We will seek to correct them when they are wrong, but so will those after us which to correct us when we are wrong.

This is also an awesome responsibility and we dare not take it lightly. Let us make sure Scripture never loses its high place. Those who came before us often willingly died so we, the ones they would never see with their own eyes until the after-death, could get to carry Bibles and study them. We do not treat that book with the awesomeness it demands. Yes. I include myself in that group as well. We do not appreciate enough the rich work that the prophets and apostles wrote for us.

While I believe Geisler raised his charge wanting to preserve Inerrancy, my thinking is that what it has led to is actually the reshaping of Inerrancy. Note that this is not the abandonment of Inerrancy. At least it isn’t on my part. It’s saying that if your idea of Inerrancy is not enough to include someone following what they believe the author really intended the text to mean based on research, and this to be a well-known orthodox author who takes his research very seriously, then your idea could bear some modification.

Peter Kreeft once said that apologetics is the closest we get to saving the world, and really that is what we do. If we believe the Christian faith is the only hope for the world, then those who are defending that faith are doing what they can not only for the faith, but for a dying world in need of that truth.

That could easily lead us to arrogance thinking we are the heroes of the story, but let us not forget it should lead us to humility. God allows us to do what we do. He does not need you. He does not need me. He does not need Geisler or Mohler or Mike Licona. Rest assured apologist. If God were to zap you from the Earth this moment, His message could still be defended just fine. Do what you can, do it well, and enjoy it, but remember that at the end of the day, you are a servant doing what you have been told. God does not exist for the glory of your name. You exist for the glory of His.

Let us not look down on those who are not apologists either. All play a part. I think all should have some basic sill in apologetics, but not all are meant to study it professionally. I believe we should be thankful for counselors, expositors, teachers, evangelists, preachers, etc. Of course, someone could be a combination of these, but let us keep in mind what Paul said about the body in 1 Cor. 12. One part is not better or worse than another and all should serve regardless of where they are.

If you, like me, are serving in apologetics, then serve to the best of your ability. Shine as much as you can. God didn’t place you on this Earth to live a mediocre life. Yes. You are to avoid pride, but the way to avoid pride is not to have nothing that you could be prideful about, but to have a holy and contrite heart.

We have a mission before us. We have a divine calling ahead of us. We have a purpose in the Plan. Let us make sure that when the torch is passed on to the next generation, that it is not only still burning, but that it is burning brighter than ever before.

James White on Mike Licona

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. A friend pointed me recently to a Dividing Line broadcast where James White talked about the whole Geisler/Licona debate going on. I have since listened to the podcast and wish to put up some thoughts on the matter.

To White’s credit, he never once does say that I recall that Licona is denying Inerrancy. Nor do we ever hear that ICBI or ETS is being used as a club. Instead, he wishes to focus on the issue of if the event described is historical or not. If only Geisler and Mohler had taken a similar approach.

Let’s look at some points that he does say.

To begin with, on a recent broadcast of Unbelievable?, Licona appeared on there with Ehrman discussing their different faith journeys and the conversation got to Inerrancy. My wife and I thought it was incredibly ironic how that happened as we were listening but the host, Justin Brierley, was discussing if abandoning Inerrancy meant abandoning Christianity. Many people seem to think that when Ehrman abandoned that doctrine, he ceased to be a Christian.

Licona’s position was that that is not the case. You do not have to be an Inerrantist to be a Christian. Does anyone really disagree with that? (I fear some do) Licona is an Inerrantist. So am I. However, it is not an essential to being a Christian as much as it is important. This does not make him a reluctant Inerrantist. This simply means that he is stating the facts.

The next issue is if it is a waste of time to argue with non-Christian scholarship. White later makes the point that Licona isn’t writing a dissertation here, but then says maybe it was his dissertation. That in fact is the case. Of course, he edited it some, but he mainly took the work he did in his dissertation and put it in book format for the audience. In that case, yes, it was essential to interact with non-Christian scholarship.

And to that I wish to say that we must not run in terror from something just because it comes from a liberal viewpoint. Liberals can be right in seeing an insight into the text. They just don’t believe that that is really a true insight. For instance, they can say something about what it means since Paul believes in a physical resurrection of Christ and how the conservative can see that without embracing that position themselves.

My wife and I disagree on some secondary doctrines of Christianity to which when she asks me about a position that I do not hold to, I honestly try to say “Well a person who does hold to position X would likely say.” I don’t try to make it sound bad or refute it. (Well sometimes, I might offer a counterpoint) I want her to just know what the other side believes. In fact, we plan on having lunch with my pastor sometime soon who does hold to a differing viewpoint on a secondary issue that my wife is asking about some because I do want her to get both sides.

This also gets us to the point of asking if we should filter theological sources as White thinks. Do we only want to get what conservatives say? White does mention going to Fuller and being glad he read what he disagreed with and that someone who wants to be educated should do that. That is an attitude to be commended. White’s concern is that the average layman gets a commentary on Matthew, doesn’t know the names in there, and reads a liberal view thinking it’s conservative.

This is a real concern to have, but the answer to this concern is not to dumb down the commentaries, but to beef up the laity. That the laity does not know the debate is in fact the problem. Of course, I don’t expect the layperson to be as proficient in the debate as the scholar is, but the layman should have at least a basic grasp of the issues and be able to tell who is coming from what position or be able to find out somehow.

White does speak of apocalyptic literature and uses terms of natural phenomena to describe it. He says that sure, there have been times where he’s seen the sun go dark. However, that is the very question at issue. Does a text like Acts 2 mean the sun will literally go dark or that the moon will literally be blood? White does say that the writer did not mean the moon would become a glob of plasma, but does he even mean that it will look like it has? This is the issue.

White does agree that apocalyptic literature is definitely used in the Bible and points to Matthew 24 as an example. The problem with what he’s said about the sun however is that he’s taking the apocalyptic literature literally which is exactly what one does not do with apocalyptic literature. The question is “If the sun going dark and the moon being blood does not refer to something happening literally to those bodies, it still means something. What is that?”

That’s not my issue right now, but it is a point to be raised for readers of the blog to come to their own conclusions with for now.

Also, the question at issue despite what White says is not “Is this imagery being used in Matthew 27?” That is a real question to ask, but that is not the question. The question is “Is Licona violating Inerrancy?” To demonstrate that it is historical will give reason for Licona to switch views, but it will not mean that based on his reading, his earlier reading was in violation of inerrancy.

However, as said, to White’s credit, he is using the text and interacting with it and with Licona’s view. He is not raising the challenge of Inerrancy. Once again, would it not have been well on Geisler’s part if he had taken the same approach? Note I do not say this as a fan of White. I’m just giving credit where credit is due.

White does make an issue that Crossan and Borg are sources, but does this mean that we should automatically throw out liberals as having any insight into a text? If one finds a good insight into a liberal do they have to say “Darn it! I need to find that in a conservative somewhere!” (Of course, there will be a problem if every conservative thinks the same thing.)

White also says that he’s just looking at the text and he doesn’t see what Licona sees. I have a problem with this. Let’s look at how it goes.

Geisler, Mohler, and White look at the text and do not see what Licona sees.

Obviously then, it’s not in there.

Licona looks at the text and sees something different.

Licona is out of line with inerrancy.

Licona however does see something and what’s the proper reply then? It should be “We don’t see it, but perhaps we need to read more of the literature and study it and see if we do see it.” The problem is when there is a problem with using extra-biblical material to deal with a text. Why not study the genre of the time to see how something was written. Is it really a reply to say “Well Licona, I know you believe this, but I just don’t see it.” Is Licona to immediately say then “You don’t?! I guess I have to change my view!”?

Wouldn’t it be great if instead we had all taken this as an opportunity to explore the text deeper. (It seems in the major arena, only Licona is interested in doing that.)

Finally, does Licona do this because this text is an embarrassment? No. Why would Licona who has stood before a public audience in a debate talking about modern-day miracles find this embarrassing and thus, well it has to be something different? Let’s even suppose for the sake of argument that he does. So what? That means his interpretation is automatically false? No. It would mean he holds a right view for bad reasons, which is entirely possible.

In conclusion, I honestly have to commend White for not using the same tactics as Geisler and Mohler and it would have been great if they had done otherwise. I think the approach taken is more along the lines of that which will enrich the evangelical community rather than tear it apart.