Tag: inerrancy

Embellishments and Legends

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. C. Michael Patton of Credo House at the Parchment and Pen blog has been writing lately on the Geisler-Licona debate and recently wrote on sound bites that are being used. Since then, Mike Licona has also been on Chris Date’s program, the Theopologetics podcast, to which I will be providing a link to at the end of this blog.

Some such sound bites are about the topics of legend and embellishment. Let’s look at them.

“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes. We may also be reading poetic language of legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt 27:51-54) and the angels at the tomb (Mk 16:5-7; Mt. 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-14) [pp. 185-186]

Look at those terms. Could possibly be mixed with legend? We may be reading poetic language? Such talk can certainly scare some Christians. What about this?

“A possible candidate for embellishment is Jn 18:4-6″ [p. 306, note 114)

A possible candidate for embellishment? Is this saying that the text contains embellishments?

Fortunately, on the podcast that I have referred to above, Mike has taken a stance on whether he thinks there are legends and embellishments and has answered “No.”

So what about the above quotes?

Oh they’re in the book for sure. Much has been said about them. In reviewing one of Geisler’s statements, he says the text gives no indication that this is not historical. However, Mike also has not said that what happens is not historical. Which then again raises the question, what is going on exactly?

Something I try to do when I evangelize to a skeptic and when I teach others to do so is to grant as much as I possibly can to my opponent. I want to take the worst-case scenario and still demonstrate Christianity from that. Now of course, if some item in the list definitively contradicts Christianity, I cannot grant that. I cannot say to an atheist “I’ll grant you that God doesn’t exist and demonstrate Christianity.” After all, Christianity essentially teaches that God exists. If there is no God, there is no Christianity. Could Jesus have risen from the dead however if the NT contained some errors, for instance?

I don’t see why not and you should have no problem with it either. After all, the resurrection has to pre-date the NT and when the early churches were formed, they did not have a NT to read from. Let’s suppose the NT had never been written. Would it still be true Jesus rose from the dead? Yes. We’d just have a great lack of evidence. Let’s suppose Paul slipped up in some letters. Would Jesus have still risen from the dead? Yes. Let’s suppose the gospels have contradictions Would Jesus have still risen from the dead? Yes.

In essence then, Mike is writing an academic work to people in Academia and he’s playing by the rules of the game and saying “Okay. Let’s approach the text your way. We’ll approach the text and we’ll be open to legends. We’ll be open to the possibility that we could be reading poetic language. We’ll be open to the possibility of embellishment. Now let’s see what you have.”

This is exactly what I have done when some people have spoken to me. “Well what if macroevolution is true? What then?” Exactly. What then?

Let’s suppose macroevolution is true. Does that mean Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? Not at all.

Well what if the universe is eternal?

Yes. What if? Does that mean Jesus didn’t rise from the dead?

What if there’s a multi-verse?

Does that mean Jesus didn’t rise from the dead?

Unfortunately, people are just looking at the statements and thinking Mike is making a categorical statement that X is an embellishment and that the Bible contains legends. There’s also an idea that an event described must be historical or it is a legend or a myth. That does not follow either.

And the sad reality is in doing what they’re doing, they’re not availing themselves of a great work defending the resurrection. In fact, it seems that once one of these sound bites is quoted then it’s picked up on every other blog that’s of the same mindset.

Sound bites can be very dangerous. Authors can have their views completely misrepresented by just looking at one quote and disregarding everything else. This is especially true if there is no surrounding context to the quotation. Of course, we do have to quote at times, but on many of these matters, it is highly recommended that someone check the original context.

Are we against being open to legend and embellishment? I hope not. After all, how can we tell the atheist he needs to be open to being wrong if we’re not willing to do the same? Let the case be brought forward and follow the evidence where it leads.

We shall continue next time.

The link to Chris Date’s podcast can be found here.

Literal Is Best

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, I’d like to continue our discussion on how we read the Bible. For a lot of people, we hear about the importance of the literal hermeneutic over and over. Now to be sure, there are several parts of the Bible that are straight-forward, but does that mean a literal hermeneutic is best? I think an interesting example of the problems with saying that should be applied consistently can be found in the gospel of John.

First off, in chapter 1, is John the Baptist Elijah? He answered no, but Jesus says in the synoptics that John was the Elijah to come. Is there a contradiction. No. John the Baptist was not a reincarnation of Elijah as if he was literally Elijah appearing somehow again, but he was a prophet likened to Elijah enough to be considered his forerunner.

In John 2, Jesus tells the temple authorities that if they destroy this temple, he will raise it up again in three days. They immediately say that the temple took 46 years to build and he was going to raise it up again in three days? Jesus was not speaking of that temple however, but the temple of his body.

In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again. Nicodemus replies thinking that Jesus literally means being born again and asks how a man can be born if he is old. Can he literally climb into his mother’s womb a second time in order to be born?

In John 4, the Samaritan woman comes to Jesus and Jesus tells her that he has living water for her so she’ll never thirst again. The woman is immediately thinking about the water of the well and asks him how she can get this water so she will never have to come to the well again.

In John 6, Jesus tells the crowds that unless they eat his body and drink his blood, they have no life. It is at this point that many people walk away thinking that he is giving them a hard saying and he even asks the twelve if they will go too. Of course, Peter speaks on their behalf saying that Jesus has the words of eternal life.

In John 11, Jesus tells his disciples that they need to go and wake Lazarus up because he has fallen asleep. The disciples think that Jesus is talking about actual sleep and tell him that if he has fallen asleep, he can wake up, not understanding that Jesus is talking about death.

Throughout the book of John, Jesus regularly uses metaphoric language and John regularly uses words in his gospel that can have a double-meaning. When Jesus speaks of the Spirit in John 3, there is an ambiguity as the same word can be used to refer to the wind, for instance. Good Johannine scholarship can show several such examples.

When we get to John 16 in fact, the disciples finally tell Jesus that at last he is speaking plainly, the word that is used in John 11 when he tells his disciples plainly that Lazarus is dead. It seems if anything then, Jesus did not often speak in literal language and throughout the book, the people who misunderstand him are the ones who take him literally.

Now in all of this, this is not to disparage the idea of reading a text literally often. The idea however is that if we are ones to say “The literal reading is the best reading” then would we not be the ones in the book of John that get the message of Jesus wrong regularly?

Just something to think about.

Is The Bible Simple To Understand?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. There doesn’t seem to be much going on on the Inerrancy front at the moment, so I thought instead on a somewhat related note, I might look at the question of if the Bible is easy to understand. One objection often raised is that the man on the pew can easily understand the Bible so why do we need to add a lot of complicated stuff?

Fair enough. Why don’t we take a look at a fairly simple verse we all grew up with? I will quote it the way I remember it.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Of course, most of us recognize John 3:16. This verse has been called the gospel in miniature. It’s my understanding that even Martin Luther called it that. I have no problem with it. We can pick up the Bible, read this verse, and understand that God loves the world. He loves it so much, He sent His son to die for it that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life.

So keep in mind, nothing I say in this post is to detract from the beauty and simplicity of this verse, and there is a beauty and simplicity in much of the Bible. If you want to be saved and know who God is, you don’t need to have a degree in the Bible. You don’t need to be a high-ranking theologian. You can do that with Scripture alone.

However, while there’s a simple message that can be grasped here, let’s look and see if there are some hard questions we could ask as well.

To begin with, who’s saying this? Is this still Jesus speaking, or is it John narrating on the meaning of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus? I’ve seen arguments that go both ways.

“For God.” Who is God exactly? What does this mean? Does this mean the same being as in the Old Testament? What is He like? Is He triune? Does he switch roles? Some of these questions might seem strange, but they could all have an impact on Christian history. Marcion thought the OT god was an evil being. Arius would say the Son was not fully God and therefore there is no Trinity. Someone like Praxeus would say God is one person and therefore there is a switch of roles. Of course, the doctrine of the nature of God is rich with content and every theologian could spend their lifetime working on it and not get anywhere near fullness, as not even eternity will do that for us.

“So loved.” What is this love? Is this like the sexual love that I have for my wife? Is this like the family love I have for my parents? Is this like the phileo love I have for my friends? Does this mean that God has emotions? If He does, how does He love? If not, then what does it mean to say God loves? Can you have love without emotion?

“The world.” What does this mean? Are we not after all told to hate the things of this world and that love of the world is opposition to God? Are we not told about the corruption of the world? If the world is corrupt, why would God love it? Does this mean the material world? Does God love material objects? Does this refer to the Roman Empire? Why would God love the Roman Empire? Why would God love the world beyond Israel anyway? Is not Israel His special people?

“That He.” What does this mean? Are we going to say that God is a man? If God is a man, does He have a male body and if so, is He designed? Is this something that is perhaps sexist? Does this mean that God could be masculine, but if God is masculine, is He opposed to the feminine? Why do we say God is masculine, if that is the case, if male and female are both made in His image? If male and female are both His image, why does the text not say “That He/She”?

“Gave.” What does it mean for God to give something? Does it really cost anything for God to give something since He is the maker and Lord of all? If we are speaking about the sacrifice of Christ, can we really call it a sacrifice if Christ was to be raised three days later?

“His Only Begotten Son.” What does this mean? Does this mean that Jesus is the Son of God through sexual means? If not, how can Jesus be called the only begotten? Are there not others who are called sons of God? Isn’t Adam a son of God? Aren’t angels sons of God? Weren’t the kings of Israel and Judah considered to be sons of God?” Are we not as Christians considered to be sons of God? How is our sonship different from Jesus’s?

“That whosoever.” Are these whosoever free or not? Does whosoever apply to only the elect, or does it refer to anyone freely? If I am a Calvinist using this verse, should I be careful lest the person I am talking to is not one of the elect? If I am an Arminian, do I really believe that it’s possible that everyone could be saved? Would that mean Christ died in vain for some?

“Believes.” Does this refer to having intellectual assent? How can this be since we are told that the demons believe and tremble? But if belief does not refer to intellectual assent, then to what does it refer to? Is this an act of the will and if so, is it done freely or by irresistible grace?

“in Him.” What does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it mean that I have to acknowledge that Jesus existed? Can I accept Jesus as a good man? Could I even accept Him as a resurrected man but not the God-Man? Does this verse then say anything about how I should act in response to this belief?

“Should not perish.” What does it mean to perish? Don’t we believe in Hell usually? Is Hell a place where people perish? Isn’t it a place where people really live forever in pain and/or shame? Does this verse refer to total destruction then? Does this mean that people have the freedom to avoid perishing?

“But have everlasting life.” What kind of life? Do I really want to live forever? Don’t people who exist in Hell also live forever? What does this say about salvation? The verse nowhere says “salvation” or “justification.” What does this say about sins? Do we have anything in this verse about sins? Will this everlasting life be in Heaven or will it be on a New Earth? Is there a difference between those two?

These are all questions we could ask. My point has not been to raise these to answer them. I have no intentions of doing such. My point is that yes, the Bible can be simple to understand at times, but at the same time, those simple verses have a rich complexity and too often in debates, we can say “Well it looks plain and simple to me.” Maybe it does, but that does not mean that it is.

To get the diamonds out of Scripture, we have to do some digging.

A further reply to Tim Rogers

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. As it stands, I didn’t do a blog yesterday due to my coming down with the flu and I’m still in recovery. As I’ve told my Mrs. before however, I am not one who is prone to just lie down and rest. I have to be doing something. Thus, today I am writing a blog once more. Today, I’d like to reply to Pastor Tim Rogers who wrote here. Note in this that he said the following:

As one examines the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy there is this understanding that a large group of highly intelligent men sat around in a room for three days and hammered out a statement they all could sign. Mike Licona’s son-in-law, Nick Peters alluded to this over at his blog–Deeper Waters as he was calling for an openness to anyone interpreting the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in any way that suits their fancy;

“However, as I said at the start, this was put together in a 3-day period and should not be the final statement, just like Nicea was not the final statement on orthodox Christology.”

I am amazed that he would compare the statement in Chicago to the statement on orthodox Christology. It is this comparison that he concedes a major point of his argument. Why? Notice the comparison of the Chicago Statement to the one statement that every scholar begins when the debate of the Trinity is presented–The Council of Nicea. Does Peters really believe that all of the various writings that flow from the Nicene Council are hallmark statements on the doctrine of the Trinity? Even those who try to define the Trinity go back to the Nicene Creed using the intent of the council to define the doctrine.

Interesting to note that I did submit a reply to this on his blog that was not allowed to go up. Pastor Tim is free to post here. I’m free to respond here. Just letting that be known up front.

Anyway, so let’s look at what I said. In each case, I was taking a concept that I believe is biblical, such as Inerrancy and the deity of Christ. (Note, I did not say the Trinity. The Council of Nicea was not about the Trinity but about the nature of the Son. Of course, if the Son is not of the same substance, there is no Trinity, but that does not make the council about the Trinity.)

Do I believe that all the writings that flow from Nicea are hallmark statements on the doctrine of the Trinity?

Again, that was not about the Trinity, but to answer the question, no. I also see no way that Rogers got that from my post. My point which I stated was that neither were the final word. I don’t see that being disagreed with. It would have been nice had Rogers interacted with the point that I had made rather than a point I didn’t make.

Furthermore, would I go to Nicea to show the doctrine of the Trinity? Not at all. Creeds do not establish the belief that they support per se. They do not give an argument for it. They just make a simple statement of what the belief is that has called for that creed. The Chicago statement does not argue for Inerrancy. It simply tells you what the believers think Inerrancy is.

As one who has interacted with them, I can guarantee Rogers that were he to start with the Council of Nicea to establish the Trinity, the Jehovah’s Witnesses would quickly dispatch him. To be fair, I do not think Rogers would do this and I think that he would go exactly where I go first, to Scripture.

However, while that is what I believe he would do, these statements from him do get problematic.

Thus, when one speaks of the Trinity the first place one returns is the Nicene Creed.

And in the comments sections:

Whenever anyone debates the doctrine of the Trinity they go to the Nicene Creed. Certainly we can see the Scripture contains the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But instead of rehasing that entire debate was move to the Council of Nicea for the simple reason they have released the defining statement concerning the Trinity.

Once again, I wonder what reading Rogers is doing. The original Nicene Creed ended with saying “We believe in the Holy Spirit.” The Council was not about the Trinity but about the deity of Christ. I fear that Rogers is doing what commenter Darren said and placing the creed and thus ICBI on the level of Scripture. (Incidentally, if Rogers wants a creedal statement on the Trinity, he can go to the Athanasian Creed.)

Do I think Rogers is intentionally doing this? No. Do I think he really places those works on par with Scripture? No. However, his words seem to indicate otherwise and he needs to finely nuance those better. As I have said, when I debate the Trinity, I will go to Scripture first.

I do agree that ICBI was not written in a vacuum, but I do not believe it was the final word either. Even after Nicea, there were other councils on Christology. We had to really flesh out our doctrine. If someone showed a contrary idea, then that needed to be debated instead of just pointing to earlier statements. The great danger is that we can think our statements are infallible, when as Christians we should be looking to Scripture.

Rogers goes on to say however:

This is the problem with Dr. Licona’s affirming the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy but then denying the ICBI commentary of the statement. There are three living framers of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and all three insist the ICBI Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics is the authorial intent of the Chicago Statement on Inerrency. Though we have multiple apologists trying to express their own views of the Chicago Statement it makes no difference.

At this point, one is reminded of Francis Beckwith’s comment that if he were Freudian, he would be thinking Geisler has a case of Pontiff Envy. Let’s ask some questions. How many of these are NT scholars? How many are qualified to judge Licona’s work? Why should the rest of the world submit to these for all time?

The only reason someone should believe something like Licona’s case is not because it is in accordance with ICBI, but because it is in accordance with the Bible. If it was the case that ICBI said one thing and the Bible said another, then as Darren rightly points out in the comments section, so much for ICBI.

When I see something like what is quoted above, I do think of the statement often attributed to Augustine, and whether it is historical or not and how it is to be interpreted I leave to the historians, but how he reportedly said “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.” Now we have “ICBI has spoken. The case is closed.”

To which Rogers has said “I am not open to debate! You can make all the arguments you want! It doesn’t matter!” Well I’m not like that. Frankly, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses have the better argument, I would want to believe it. If the Trinity was false, I would be thankful to them for pointing that out to me.

I am convinced it is true however, and that is not because of a study of the Nicene Creed, but because of a study of theology centered heavily in the Scriptures. I do not mind using extra-biblical material such as Jewish Wisdom Theology from Second Temple Judaism since the concept of the Trinity did not come out of a vacuum. (To be sure of course, the Trinity has already existed, but our understanding of it did develop.)

It is for that reason I do not hesitate to enter the debate. I love it when Jehovah’s Witnesses came around. My wife and I were once about to head out to see her parents when the doorbell rang and it was Jehovah’s Witnesses. We had no specific time to see my in-laws so I believe we did meet with them for a bit. If my memory is faulty there, we arranged for a later time, but I always love it when the Jehovah’s Witnesses come by and I do not bring up Nicea at all. If they do, I do what I can to bring us back to the Bible.

Rogers however is apparently saying that he’s not even going to examine the data. ICBI is right. Now keep in mind one can believe in Inerrancy without holding to ICBI. In fact, Inerrancy was around long before ICBI so unless Geisler and others wanted to say the ECF, the medievals, and the reformers were not inerrantists, they would have to agree. Note that Henry Morris would not sign the ICBI statement as well since it allowed for an old-earth, which he believed denied Inerrancy. Does Morris deny Inerrancy? Would he think Geisler does?

The problem with not being willing to examine the data is that your opponent just has to be wrong somehow! Now of course, if your position is true, your opponent is wrong somehow, but if you have to say a priori that he is wrong without examining the data, then you have a problem. I do not doubt that there is a flaw in the argument of the atheist, but it is still up to me as an apologist to examine the argument and the data that he presents and do my best to find that flaw.

Is Rogers willing to examine the data? That’s a good question to ask, but as I said, I fear there has already been an answer.

Even if those who signed the statement at the time agree that Dr. Licona affirms inerrancy they must deny the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics in order to do so. Thus, those agreeing with Dr. Licona who were original signatories on the Statement of Inerrancy must either admit they are denying the Statement on Hermeneutics or they must provide evidence they disagreed with Summitt II, and if no evidence is provided, they must admit they originally signed the document under false pretense.

But we have repeatedly an idea that we must take the text literally, but what does that mean? If we go to 2 Samuel 22, we have a poem no doubt as Rogers recognizes, but it is a poem describing historical events. Is Rogers going to say that that poem is literal? Does Rogers think God hitched up an angel and came flying down shooting arrows at David’s enemies?

What about Exodus 33-34? A normal reading of this passage would tell us that God has a body and that no one can see His face, but Moses was privileged enough to see His back. There is nothing in the text that indicates that the passage is anything other than historical, but is Rogers going to accept that God literally has a body?

In fact, descriptions of John the Baptist start out with quoting Isaiah 40:3. However, what is the next verse?

“Let every valley be lifted up,
And every mountain and hill be made low;
And let the rough ground become a plain,
And the rugged terrain a broad valley;

Does Rogers believe these happened literally? If someone decides that they do not think that the texts are that literal, are they outside of Inerrancy? Do Rogers and Geisler want to say that everyone that is not of a dispensationalist bent, for instance, denies Inerrancy? What of Preterists? Do they deny Inerrancy?

In fact, since Geisler is a dispensationalist, one could ask if it was the case that his eschatology was driving his framing. If so, then there could be reason to take such with a grain of salt. I am not saying that is the case, but it is something we have to be aware of.

The point is that literal is very difficult to understand. There are some Christians that do not take the resurrection in Daniel 12 as literal. There are some that do not see the first resurrection in Revelation 20 as literal. Are we to say that these are denying Inerrancy? If not in any case, where does denial end and affirming begin?

Furthermore, Scripture itself has interpreted Scripture as allegory. Paul sees an allegory between the Judaizers and the Christians in Galatians 4 in the relationship of the children of Hagar and Sarah. If we were to take the statement by the letter, would we have to say that Paul denies Inerrancy?

Perhaps we should instead say “We will seek to interpret Scripture the way that those who were its original audience would understand it.” Of course, this could lead to difficulties for some in the old-earth and young-earth debate as a lot of old-earthers go to the science first and then interpret Genesis in that light saying “Well we know from science that the world is old, so we must interpret these passages differently.” That would be using data however the original audience would not understand. I think the work of people like John Walton however is far more helpful in understanding Genesis as he seeks to use the ancient world to understand the ancient world, much the way Licona uses the first century world to understand the first century world.

And this brings us again to extra-biblical literature. It seems that Rogers has an allergy with the idea of something extra-biblical, but yet does not seem to hesitate to go to ICBI, which is also extra-biblical, and apparently as well Nicea, which is extra-biblical.

I can understand why someone would do that. I do not deny the Bible is above other works of literature and for the NT, it ranks par excellence above other 1st century works, but let us understand this about the NT. IT IS A FIRST CENTURY WORK! It was written in a culture that 1st century people lived in and understood. If not the 1st century Mediterranean culture, which culture should be the one who’s “normal” reading is seen as the best? Why 21st century America? Why not 12th century Japan or 5th century Germany? Why is it our time and place that seems to get priority?

It does seem to some to place the Bible on a higher place by saying it is to have no contact with the world outside of it and it can be understood without any other aids. Well in some ways yes. Someone can pick up the Bible and get the message of salvation. However, if one wants to be proficient in the book, then one needs to study the world of the NT. In fact, to say one need not study to really understand the Bible is a position of arrogance. It is making oneself a pope and saying “All I need is me and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit will tell me all I need to know.” That is not the role of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit does not encourage laziness. I do not say Pastor Rogers does this. I merely say I hope he doesn’t. If he doesn’t however, he should have no problem with what I’ve said in this paragraph. In fact, if he thinks all one needs is the Bible, then he’d best tell his congregation to go home. Why fill their minds with the ideas of what Rogers thinks the text means? They don’t need that. They have all they need in Scripture.

It is also a safeguard of the Bible that I don’t think works. I have no problem putting the Bible up against other pagan works since I believe it will win out in the end. In fact, the early church fathers did this. They agreed that Plato and Aristotle taught a lot of great wisdom on how to live, as they did. I agree with Lewis that losing what I have learned from those two would be equal to losing a limb. However, they also said “But those guys were grasping in the dark compared to Jesus.”

The person who believes the Bible should be open to letting the Bible be investigated with everything the skeptic has. Bring on your objections and let us answer them!

Note also what else Rogers says:

This was a well thought out doctrinal statement and the framers of the statement knew somewhere in the future these statements would be challenged. The framers were already dealing with moderates and liberals who were using, as Dr. Adrian Rogers said, “the same words but different dictionaries.”

Note that Rogers here is poisoning the well by using moderates and liberals as if Licona and his supporters are in that camp. The reality is we despise liberal approaches to Scripture. That does not mean we don’t learn anything from liberals, but it does mean that their system does not work. We stand for true and orthodox doctrine and we don’t discount something just because it’s miraculous. I’ve heard Licona publicly defend modern-day miracles. He has no problem with them. There is nothing moderate or liberal whatsoever in Licona. These are words that are tossed out however in order to automatically impugn the other side. (Note that this is done while referring to us as “brother” also.)

In closing, what Rogers needs to have again is actual dialogue, but it does not seem likely based on what I am seeing in the way he responds to comments and elsewhere on the blogosphere. As I have said earlier, I fear that Rogers’s idea of how to handle debate is simply the use of the big stick of authority. As an atheist once said “Better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it.”

We shall continue next time.

The Future of Inerrancy

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve gone through the ICBI statement and having done that now, I think it’s time that we really talked about the future of Inerrancy. Where do we see the doctrine going?

My commenter, Bryan, from last night says that there are further commentaries on the statement and more and more evangelicals explaining what is meant. There can be no denial of this and definitely, an exhaustive look at this point would be highly difficult. It would be like studying the Nicene Creed. Since it’s been written, there have been several works on it and on orthodox Christology. Creeds are meant to be simple statements that can be remembered, but they don’t really give arguments. That’s not their point.

ICBI is not really a creed however. It is a statement. Of course, we don’t expect it to be exhaustive. However, as I said at the start, this was put together in a 3-day period and should not be the final statement, just like Nicea was not the final statement on orthodox Christology. If anything, the Geisler/Licona debate has shown us that we need more.

I do have a concern that some people are going to avoid Inerrancy altogether. Some of them are not going to join societies now since they fear that they will be the next targets in a hunt. If you check the blogosphere, you can see that this is already going on.

Thus, while I have no doubt Geisler thinks he is saving Inerrancy for the next generation, I believe he is in fact killing it. It is not just Inerrancy that is being killed, but evangelicalism.

Now don’t misunderstand me on this. If the Bible is Inerrant, and I believe that it is, that will last regardless of what anyone does. If the Bible is Inerrant, it is inerrant whether we believe it or not. Thus, what Geisler is doing cannot make the Bible to be errant.

However, if it comes down to Inerrancy being the same as literalism, then you will find several people ready to say “No. I’m not an Inerrantist.” Say it enough over time and soon enough it will be commonplace so much so that people will just take it to mean that the Bible has errors.

How will this kill Evangelicalism? Just take a look at what’s going on in the blogosphere again. Evangelicalism is already taking hits as most atheists are seeing that Mike Licona is a real NT scholar, even though they disagree with his claims, and they do not see Geisler as one, which is true. Geisler’s degrees are in philosophy. They are not in New Testament studies. That’s nothing to disregard Geisler in that sense. However, is Geisler’s name really taken seriously in the world of NT scholarship as a sound authority? The answer is no. Mike Licona’s name is however.

So what does the unbelieving world see? A non-expert telling an expert that he needs to get in line with the party. It’s not about if Licona’s explanation is right or wrong. It’s about getting in line. Now yes, Geisler has given reasons for thinking Licona is wrong, but these reasons are not proving persuasive to NT scholars. Note that the people who have been siding with Geisler are not NT scholars. The people who have been siding with Licona quite often are.

The unbelieving world sees this and says “See? You can’t be objective in evangelicalism. You have to come in line with what the higher institutions say. Why should we trust the claim that the Bible is Inerrant when we know that people have to say that apparently in order to keep their jobs?”

To an extent, they’re right too.

So now Licona could come out and say “I believe the text is literal” and yet an atheist could say “We’ve seen the debate! We know why you are saying that! You’re saying it because you have to! If you deny that it is literal, then you’re going to be cast out by your crowd!” Fortunately, Licona has stuck by his position. He won’t say something unless he believes that it is true. IF he is convinced, he’ll change his mind. Charges of him denying Inerrancy and dehistoricizing the text do not work. You cannot dehistoricize a text that was not meant to be seen as literal and if it was not meant to be seen as literal, it is not a denial of Inerrancy to say that it is not literal. I’m not saying it is apocalyptic. I’m just saying that if Licona’s right, he’s not doing anything that is a denial of Inerrancy. Even if his view is wrong, he’s not denying Inerrancy as long as he’s convinced his view could very well be right.

In fact, if this is the way that Inerrancy is being guarded, then it makes Inerrancy look weak. Take for instance the creation-evolution debate. Those on the creationist side often point to how evolutionists can say they don’t want both theories taught in schools as cowardice on their part and that the ones who is open to seeing both sides is the one who is really sure of his view.

I think there’s some truth to that.

But this is what is going on here. It is saying that we will not allow this other view to be considered. It goes against the traditional view and we’re going to stick with the traditional view. It won’t matter about further studies in the New Testament or the social context. The evidence cannot say otherwise.

But if it does say otherwise, it’s not just Geisler with egg on his face. It’s evangelicalism and then, Christianity.

A better approach for Geisler would have been to tell Licona that he’s allowed to put forward his hypothesis, but if he wants to argue that claim, well there are some strong questions that he has to answer. That’s the way it should be for anyone challenging something that has generally always been understood a certain way. When you bring forward a new idea, it’s up to you to answer the claims and show why your answer is superior.

That only makes it more fun.

What would be the result? Licona would have to dig in his heels and work really hard in order to show his idea was probable and worthy of further research. Geisler sits back and asks the questions. If Licona’s view is true, then we are fortunate that we have a new way of looking at the NT and we can see what else we can study. If Geisler’s is true, well we know something that didn’t work and we have more information on the passage overall. Of course, it could always be the case that years down the road someone will resurrect the discussion again (Pardon the terrible pun) and look for more evidence that has been uncovered since the first debate.

This position holds that if one believes their side is true, they will not have any fear researching it. If all one cares about is truth, they also will not have any fear researching it. Why? Because truth is all that matters and truth is not decided a priori but a posteriori. If all you care about is truth and you research and find your view is wrong, that’s fine to you. You’ve done your homework and you’re better off than when you started.

The constant claims to recant only make this look like an Inquisition when it should be an inquiry. Also note some charges such as the idea that if one text is apocalyptic, then all will be, including 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrection of Jesus.

It would have been nice if those making such a claim had noted that Licona wrote over 600 pages showing why the resurrection of Jesus is not apocalyptic. Thus, for him, not all resurrections are apocalyptic. He says the way to differentiate is by doing research.

As for 1 Cor. 15, that’s a resurrection at the final judgment and not in history. It’s not part of a narrative account of the NT then and would not be read as apocalyptic but rather as doctrine. Of course, there are apocalyptic themes with the final judgment, but that is not saying that there is no real final judgment. There are no doubt apocalyptic ideas connected with the resurrection, but that does not mean there is no resurrection.

It has been claimed that the enemies of Christ have been handed a powerful weapon. Indeed they have! That powerful weapon however is not from Licona. That powerful weapon is from the side that is telling Licona to recant. The powerful weapon is evidence that supposedly evangelicalism is against the investigation of evidence, free inquiry, and the pursuit of truth without begging the question.

This has also happened to one who is really still putting forward his foot in the scholarly world. He is new compared to others, and now the message is sent to others that they could be the next targets if they put forward a contrary idea. The message the unbelievers get then is “Evangelicals are not allowed to put forward contrary ideas, thus you cannot really say that their arguments are the ones they believe because of hard research. They believe them because they have to.”

What new scholar would want to be the target of a hunt by Geisler? Or Mohler? Or anyone else for that matter?

Of course, several of them would salivate over the chance of being challenged. Imagine putting forward a new resurrection hypothesis and being challenged by Gary Habermas. Imagine putting forward a new look at the Kalam argument and being challenged by William Lane Craig. Anyone in that position would be awfully nervous of course about facing such an expert, but would also be able to say “I’m doing enough to be taken seriously by this guy and if my argument can stand up to this, it is going somewhere!” It will be a welcome challenge.

The future of Inerrancy and evangelicalism should be based on a pursuit of truth and not living out of fear.

So what happens here? Our great hope can be that Geisler will finally offer an olive branch to Licona. Licona has already said that he would be ready to embrace him, forgive him, and be as if nothing happened. He should be willing to support a bright scholar making a powerful foray into the field of NT apologetics.

This must be an action that is done instead of something buried under the rug. There are still people noticing that the Ergun Caner debate may have ended, but they have not seen anything from Geisler on it even though he still has some questions to answer about his involvement in the issue. In the age of the internet, this becomes tougher and tougher. Some stories may be forgotten, but on the internet, once something is public, it is public. Once Geisler wrote an open letter, the genie was out of the bottle and was not going back in.

To not give an olive branch would only be seen as pride. Already, one can see on Geisler’s facebook page and on the blogosphere that Geisler’s stock is dropping and people are losing respect fast. The way to gain that respect is to be able to bite the proverbial bullet. It needs to be realized that this debate has caused great harm to Licona, his family, to evangelicalism, and in the long term to Christianity.

We also need to take a look at ICBI again and see what we can do to refine it, and this time we need more than just pastors by and large. We need people who are actually skilled in criticism of the New Testament. We need everyone who is signing that document to be a verified scholar in the field. We need long debate over the issue.

One of the great fears is that this will be something that will eventually lead to belief in an old-earth or a young-earth being essential to Inerrancy, or belief in Preterism or Dispensationalism being essential to Inerrancy. Naturally, not everyone will be pleased, but these could be the people we don’t need to please as they’ve already equated their interpretation with Inerrancy.

I still think the simplest statement would be that the Bible is without error in all that it teaches. So what does it teach? Well Inerrancy can’t tell you that. That is for you to find out based on doing your study. Inerrancy just tells you that when you find out that that is what the Bible teaches, it is true. It is so true you can stake your eternal salvation on it.

And indeed you do.

So where do we go? That’s not for me to decide. That’s for others to decide who are witnessing this debate taking place and for those who are participating in it. Right now, both sides need to be moving towards reconciliation and both sides need to be reaching for that. This can be a chance for evangelicals to show that they are interested in truth. They are against witch hunts and arguing by force. Let us seek the truth and may not one side win out, but may truth simply win out, and rather than asking if the truth is on our side, let us see if we are on the side of truth.

We shall continue next time.

Article XIX

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Per our last post, we have not received a response from Pastor Tim and my posts mentioning my blog were deleted, although thankfully someone else has posted a link to my blog. We’ll just wait and see what happens. For tonight, we’ll continue with our look at the ICBI statement and see what we find in Article XIX, which reads as follows:

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

Let’s get one thing clear, and fortunately I have not seen this being said in the Geisler/Licona debate, but this is not a salvation issue so if anyone thinks it is, they’re wrong. Also, I do not think that one can rightly accuse Licona of holding a watered-down version of Christianity. Licona has spoken out in favor of miracles a number of times and his book is in fact a monumental work establishing the reality of one miracle, the resurrection of Christ.

However, Inerrancy is important, but it is not an essential, and we must be careful to draw the line there. I have no doubt that there are several people out there who do not affirm Inerrancy who have a greater love for Jesus Christ than I do, and I do not doubt as well that I have much that I can learn from them when I read their opinions on the Scriptures.

It’s my belief that Inerrancy is a great help to us in that we can trust that whatever it is that we find that the Bible is teaching, we can be sure that that something is true. The question comes down to “Well what is the Bible teaching?” Inerrancy cannot tell you that. You cannot simply say that because someone has a different interpretation, then they are denying Inerrancy. Young-earthers have said this about old-earthers. Old-earthers have said it about young-earthers. All it does is get the debate emotionally charged with each side now not defending their view so much as defending the idea that they’re not going against Inerrancy and with one side thinking that if that view is shown to be false, then that person is shown to be violating Inerrancy. It doesn’t work that way.

How do we know what the Bible is Inerrant on? Well basically, we can say it is on everything, but we want to know what that everything is. What we must do is what we don’t usually want to do. We must study the text. We will have to work with it and let us not shriek at the mention of that term “Extra-biblical sources.” The Bible was not written in a vacuum. For instance, pick up your normal English Bible. Here are some facets that weren’t found in the originals.

The originals did not have English. They were written in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

The originals did not always have names. Matthew’s gospel did not include his name on it.

The originals did not have chapters and verses.

The originals did not have capitals, punctuation, and lower-case letters as ours do.

So in essence, all of these are “extra-biblical” but we would not dream of throwing them out! (Although I have thought it would be nice to read a Bible without chapter and verse listing sometime)

Inerrancy is a truth, but it is not a weapon and sadly, it has been used like one, much like the word “liberal” has been and the word “Denial” or some variant thereof. Other words include “Midrash”, “Apocalyptic” and “Dehistoricizing.”

Thus, I have concluded my look at the ICBI statement. I don’t have too much trouble, but I do see a statement that needs to be refined. The statement is very basic and is open to many different views on who’s violating it and who isn’t. This is to be expected. We refine our doctrine as we go along in many ways.

Let us make it a point in this debate however to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. While we may not agree with a view of Inerrancy, that does not mean Inerrancy is itself wrong. I hope to blog on this in the near future.

We shall continue next time.

Pastor Tim’s Small Pop

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’m going to interrupt going through the ICBI statement tonight to look at a reply that I saw on the internet yesterday from Pastor Tim, who I believe I have written about before. If my memory is faulty right now, oh well. I started having some dialogue with Pastor Tim on the net early on when this started. Unfortunately, the mindset I see there is one I think is highly detrimental to the church. I will be commenting on his blog post and on some comments he’s made in response to notable thinkers who have shown up.

I’ve been upfront with a possible bias seeing as I am happily married to Mike’s daughter. However, there are numerous issues Mike and I disagree on biblically. Right off, I can think of two of them that are secondary doctrines. We have our own back and forth sometimes on some issues, but always in an agreeable fashion. If he was wrong, I would tell him I thought so. On the issue of if the text is describing a historical event or not, I’m not sure at this point. However, I am sure he is not violating Inerrancy.

Pastor Tim’s blog can be found here.

At the start, I see a problem as the well is being poisoned. I think in many ways I can relate to Sheldon Cooper of the Big Bang Theory. Some friends showed my wife and I two episodes and told us Sheldon was most like an Aspie, which is what my wife and I both are. (Aspie refers to someone with Asperger’s) I wonder about the “geeks” chasing after a Nobel Peace Prize however. (Most would like one in one of the sciences.) Pastor Tim say the geeks will accept any theory of truth to be accepted into the world of academia.

Which is obviously why we do what we do. Yep. Those of us who are the apologists aren’t interested in truth. We’re just going to accept whatever we can in order to be recognized. That explains why we’re so popular and Joel Osteen is so not.

It seems that absent from those who are against Mike is the bizarre idea to them that he could actually believe what he believes on the basis of evidence. Surely that can’t be it! He must be swayed by liberalism! He must have a hard time believing in miracles! He must just want to water the text down! Whatever the reason is, it can’t be evidence!

Or maybe it is.

Pastor Tim finds it amazing that Mike was allowed to give his talk targeting Geisler, but Geisler was not allowed to respond. How scholarly is that?

Okay. Who says Geisler wasn’t allowed to respond? Did Geisler or someone representing him submit a paper to be read? If so, then can we see evidence? If not, why should Mike be disqualified from giving his paper? I suppose if I gave one against Richard Dawkins that we’d have to call up Dawkins to give a counter-paper and if he was unavailable, well so much for mine.

These papers go public and it is quite fine to present it in this fashion. This was already a public issue because Geisler made it a public issue and once Pandora’s Box is opened, there’s no getting everything back in. By the way, if we’re talking about the right to speak, Geisler said in his response to the EPS paper that Mike has not restrained his family and friends from speaking online. If that’s a problem, then why not have the sword cut both ways and say that Pastor Tim should be honoring Geisler and not speaking about it online?

Or is it the case that those on Geisler’s side can speak but those of us with Mike cannot.

Pastor Tim says that Mike is approaching the text as if there are errors that need to be reconciled.

Question time everyone! What error has Mike said is in the text?

Answer: None.

This would be an error. Mike would have to say something like “We know Matthew recorded this incident as if it was a historical event, but it was not a historical event. Matthew is simply wrong. Therefore, I will say it’s apocalyptic to save Inerrancy.”

That’s not what is being said at all. Mike is not saying “I know the account is historical, but I deny its historicity.” At the start, Pastor Tim is begging the question. Of course if the account is historical then Mike is denying Inerrancy, but that is the question at issue. Is it historical? Keep in mind that others like William Lane Craig have taken the same stance, but strangely enough, there is no pressure on Craig, even though this has been pointed out to Geisler on his Facebook page.

Pastor Tim also talks about how leading apologists have had followings by lowly and ignorant pastors. Let me say something about that here.

There is NO excuse for a pastor to be ignorant.

If you are an ignorant pastor, you either wise up, or you give the pulpit over to someone more capable.

Now not every pastor is meant to be a professional apologist any more than they’re meant to be a professional counselor. However, every pastor should have some basic training in apologetics and in counseling and in any other area of ministry. He should also be able to have a point man he can refer to on these issues. In my current church here, we have plenty of apologists and our pastor studies the subject. In my old church, I was the main one who studied and would have been the go-to guy for apologetics. In that case, the pastor could do his work and if a question came up, he could send someone to me to answer it. I’d have no problem with such a relationship because one pastor cannot do anything.

A pastor is supposed to be a man of knowledge however and in our age, having zeal is often seen as a replacement, while Paul bemoaned his people who had zeal but not in accordance with knowledge. I don’t care how passionate you feel about Christianity. That does not give you the right to stand in a pulpit if you don’t have real knowledge about what you’re talking about. The pastor should be seeking to constantly learn and educate himself for the feeding of his flock. After all, if you’re ignorant, chances are they’ll be ignorant as well and when they evangelize, they’ll be presenting ignorance to a skeptical world.

It won’t end well.

Speaking about these apologists, Pastor Tim says the following:

They should answer, for the world, the following question. Do they truly embrace inerrancy or are they merely mouthing the words because of the political coverage and name recognition it has given them?

For me, I truly do embrace Inerrancy. The problem is, this won’t be enough for Pastor Tim when he knows I’m open to Mike’s view. This is what amazes me about these guys. They seem to know authorial intent. They know exactly what Matthew meant. They know exactly what all the framers of ICBI meant. They even know exactly what I mean when I say I embrace Inerrancy and somehow it means that I don’t embrace Inerrancy despite what I say to the contrary. Pastor Tim however tops this all with this line:

Make no mistake about it, these apologists have made a huge income off of the evangelical world and much of that income has come out of the Southern Baptist Convention. The books, speaking conferences, and other events that move these names among us funds these apologists in their world-wide travels. Just follow any of the apologists listed on the above linked blog on Facebook or Twitter and one will see world locations through their camera lens.

Well I have been secret about it, but my wife and I did not vacation at Ocean Isle Beach on our honeymoon. Instead, Mike fired up his private jet for us and flew us off to a five-star hotel in Aruba where we spent a week together. Right now, we’re back at the mansion and I just berated a servant for not serving my morning breakfast properly.

Forget anything I’ve said about just having a part-time job in this economy and needing to even have government aid to make it seeing as my old job just let me go a few months before my wedding. (To be assuring however, it looks like a really great job is coming up. It’s practically a sure thing. It’ll just take a couple of months.)

If there’s big money going on in all of this, please tell me where it is? I can assure Pastor Tim that the Liconas are not living in luxury. Neither are the Habermases, the Craigs, etc. I did not enter this field wanting to make money. In fact, my wife and I have it a point that we never want to be rich. We want to be comfortable and have enough to be able to make it and enjoy ourselves some every now and then, but we don’t want wealth.

For myself, I haven’t got a penny from Southern Baptist Conventions as well. I can also say that when an apologist like Craig does a tour like Reasonable Faith that is in another country, there is much fundraising that takes place because it does cost money to fly someone over and have them speak and to give them food and a place to stay. The apologists don’t have the bank account on their own.

As for Pastor Tim’s last sentence about seeing world locations through the camera lens, I have looked and looked at this sentence and I have no idea what it is he is trying to say. At any rate, this whole paragraph is a great smear on all apologists saying that we are just in this for the money and we don’t care about truth. Many of us have been working to bridge the gap between the world of apologetics and the world of the lay person and show the lay person that apologetics is for them. They too can partake of the fruits of the academy.

Posts like this make it all the harder as Pastor Tim seems to encourage that divide.

Pastor Tim refers to the writing of Max Andrews linked to in the blog as scholarly arrogance at its best. In what way? What has Andrews said that is arrogant? Pastor Tim then says that Andrews says concerning that if the account is historical or not, that he takes the agnostic position and then decides to tie him in with Thomas Huxley who was an agnostic.

Agnostic about the existence of God! Not about a particular issue.

Is it wrong Pastor Tim to answer a question with “I don’t know.”?

One of my favorite TV series has been Monk. I can imagine introducing Pastor Tim to the series and getting near to the end of an episode. “Well Pastor Tim. Who do you think did the crime. Monk’s figured it out. Have you?”

“No. I don’t know who did it.”

“You don’t know! You agnostic! How dare you take a position of unbelief!”

Or could I say that if Pastor Tim is wanting to go with tradition, “Well Pastor Tim, here you are a Southern Baptist and you’re saying that we need to go with what tradition has said. Are you sure you’re not a Roman Catholic?” (I mean no insult to my Catholic friends in that but just going on how generally I see that the two groups don’t get along.)

Pastor Tim goes on to say this:

Here is the issue in a nutshell. The “method” these leading evangelical apologists take is a method of “demonstrable proof” from a text that calls us to faith. Wonder what would have happened if Jesus would have taken this position when the pharisees approached him? He would have never referenced Jonah.

Pastor Tim. The Koran also calls us to trust that Muhammad is a prophet. Do you have faith? Faith is not blind belief. It is trust in what has been shown to be reliable and it is shown to be reliable by demonstration. If your position is true, then you should seek to destroy any evidence of Christianity. That will after all lead to more faith. The disciples ought not to have preached the empty tomb. They should have just said “Despite any evidence to the contrary, don’t bother looking. The tomb is empty! Just trust us! Now convert!”

In fact, this is why Jesus referenced Jonah. He was giving the Pharisees demonstrable proof. He had done many signs in the miracles but he was saying that he would perform the ultimate demonstrable proof of who he was when he rose again from the dead.

The methodology being protected by leading apologists associated with the Evangelical Philosophical Society (Wm. Lane Craig Gary Habermas, Max Andrews, Paul Copan) is a methodology that subjugates the historical text of Holy Writ to secular Greco-Roman literature.

No. This is not being subjugated. It’s just saying the Bible was not written in a vacuum. Paul had Greco-Roman rhetoric in his letters. That’s demonstrable. The gospels are in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies. That’s demonstrable. If Pastor Tim has ever given a sermon using powerpoint, then he should understand this. The gospel writers used a medium familiar to their readers.

There is nothing wrong with extra-biblical sources being used. For instance, consider how Paul says we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, the Bema. Okay. That sounds interesting. Then you find out that we’ve found the Bema that Paul spoke about that Gallio sat on and what a large and imposing figure it was. This was no ordinary throne! All of a sudden, our understanding of Bema is improved, but this is because we have something extra-biblical.

Consider when we have the Samaritans say that we know that Jesus truly is the Savior of the World. That’s really good to hear. Then, we learn from extra-biblical sources that that was said of Caesar. All of a sudden, we know that the Samaritans are setting Jesus in contrast to Caesar.

Let’s not forget the wealth of information we have now on Second Temple Judaism and how that helps us to understand the text all the more. I’ve given just a couple of examples, but several more could be given.

That, friends is not inerrancy.

Really? How come? There’s no reason for this statement given. It’s just given. Pastor Tim doesn’t argue he. He merely asserts it and thinks that that settles the issue. Why is it that as soon as we use extra-biblical sources, we are violating Inerrancy?

Anyone that accepts Licona’s methodology is advocating a text full of errors and only those with a proper understanding can spot those errors.

Blech! What’s with this water?! It’s got poison in it!

I accept Licona’s methodology and I deny that the text is full of errors. I do affirm a proper understanding however can help reconcile “supposed errors.” What can Pastor Tim say to this however? “No. You believe the text is full of errors!” I’ve said that I don’t. How could it be that Pastor Tim knows more about what I mean by what I say than I do? Now it could be that I am wrong and the text is full of errors, but I cannot be wrong in that I know that I believe the text is not full of errors. My belief can be wrong, but I cannot be wrong in knowing I believe that.

Looking at the comments, I agree with the commenter who said Pastor Tim spoke like one who had not done research. When I dialogued with him back earlier when this all started, I was convinced that he had not even read Mike’s book on the topic. I seriously doubt he has at this point, but he’s prepared to tell his congregation that it denies Inerrancy. He might not have said that in the pulpit, but he has said it on his blog.

Unfortunately, it looks like several or showing up and telling Pastor Tim that he’s wrong on this, but he’s unable to accept any correction. It is as if Geisler has spoken and the case is closed. There is something to sticking to one’s guns of course, but when there are many people more educated than you being as gentle as they can telling you, you really need to think through these issues because you’re just not engaging with the argument, you should listen.

Francis Beckwith made a fine point to Pastor Tim about a reading of Exodus 33 with a literalist bent in that it would produce God with a body. This argument was not responded to at all by Pastor Tim.

It’s also pointed out that Geisler is wanting to take the case to ETS, even though Geisler left ETS years ago due to its not having a strong stance on doctrine. (All of a sudden, the organization suits his purposes however) Beckwith also points out that while Pastor Tim thought a scholarly exchange should take place, on his own blog, he opposed the meeting between Geisler and Mike at SEBTS.

Tim’s response?

Second, let me move to my claim. You are correct, I do not know that Dr. Geisler was asked to respond. As, one commenter has stated Dr. Geisler is not a member of ETS. However, what I do know is that Dr. Al Mohler takes the same position as Dr. Geisler and he was never mentioned in Dr. Licona’s paper in any shape or form concerning his position. The only mention of Dr. Mohler was Dr. Licona’s attempt to show a divide in young earthers and old earth proponents. If Dr. Licona’s position is so “orthodox” then why, pray tell, does one that advocates orthodoxy in every paragraph he writes and speak express in writing that it is not inerrancy?

Why does Mohler say this? Because Mohler believes it, but Mohler is wrong. I have shown that in my own reply to Mohler here. Are we to say that Mohler is infallable? It is as if there is some kind of group think going on here. Furthermore, why should Mike respond to Mohler who just made one post and that was it? The main one who’s gone after him is Geisler.

Third, Dr. Geisler did refuse to accept the invitation to SEBTS. However, Dr. Mohler did as well. The reason I expressed he did not need to be on such a panel, is very clear. My position is that inerrancy is best seen among those the people in the pew. Those in the pew understand inerrancy and will spot someone that does not advocate in a “New York minute”. Scholars are working from a “collegial” perspective. Thus, no scholar desires to go against another scholar’s position. Dr. Geisler and Dr. Mohler are two of the few scholars that will publicly speak out on this issue. This debate does not need to be covered over by scholarly language and hidden away in the towers of academia. Inerrancy is not an academic position it is a position that the people in the pew hold the pastors in the pulpits responsible to maintain.

So Geisler did not need to go because there was no need since this should be shown to the person sitting in the pew, but when it came to EPS, where there were no persons sitting in the pew, Geisler did need to have a chance to respond. What? Can anyone make any sense out of this? Is it not more likely that Beckwith has pointed out a contradiction?

Dr. Geisler and Dr. Mohler are two of the few scholars that will publicly speak out on the issue?

Well I suppose so since it seems that those who speak out in favor of Mike become the next targets of the machine, get disinvited to conferences, and lose their jobs. Could it be some scholars don’t speak out because they do want to provide for their families like Pastor Tim does?

And do note that there were several who spoke out in favor of Licona in a petition he had. These were all disregarded. Geisler and Mohler are not NT scholars. The ones who signed the petition are. What is it that Geisler and Mohler know that the leading NT scholars do not know? What is it that Pastor Tim knows that the leading NT scholars do not know?

The person in the pew is also the one that while supposedly can spot the denial of Inerrancy, will sadly in our day and age have no response to what someone like Bart Ehrman says, unless that response is fideism, that is, believing without evidence. If that is the case, Ehrman shuts them down for any effective evangelism. My stance is the person in the pew needs to be more educated and interacting with the scholarly world. Pastor Tim moves us in the direction of fideism.

In response to Peter Grice, Pastor Tim says:

First, you say;
“Apologists affirm and defend Inspiration
Why? The Bible says it is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and it says “In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God” (John 1:1) it also tells us “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and it says ” he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). There is no need to affirm or defend what God has said.

One does not know where to begin with this really. The Bible says it is inspired by God. So does the Book of Mormon. So does the Koran. Would Pastor Tim accept that from the Mormon or the Muslim? Then, Pastor Tim moves on to John 1:1 and John 1:14.

This is the point where I want to start screaming.

John 1:1 and John 1:14 when saying the Word do not mean the Bible. They are talking about Jesus. I hope Pastor Tim knows that, but it is hard to get that impression from reading this. When we bring that over to John 14:9, I wonder that has to do with the price of tea in China.

I wonder what Pastor Tim would do when a skeptic approached him about the events that happened when a great man died according to Virgil.

“Well those are not historical.”

“Why not?”

“They just didn’t happen.”

“But the event in the Bible did?”

“Yes.”

“Why did those in the Bible happen but not those in Virgil?”

“Because the Bible is historical.”

“How do you know this?”

“Because it says so.”

“How do you know that’s true?”

“Because it’s the Word of God?”

“How do you know that?”

“It says so.”

“But the Book of Mormon and the Koran say the same.”

“They’re not stating the truth.”

“How do you know?”

“Because they disagree with the Bible.”

This is entirely circular in how it goes. If the Bible is inspired, and I believe it is, one should be able to demonstrate it. Otherwise, they’re holding to a double-theory of truth. You remember that theory don’t you? It’s the very one that Geisler condemned in an open-letter. If the Bible is true to reality, open investigation by a skeptic should be able to come to that conclusion. Of course, there are reasons some don’t, and we can help counter those, but the Bible will be able to have contact with reality if it is true.

Pastor Tim says one should not think the Bible needs defending. Why should someone think that? One can think of the Spurgeon quote where he’d sooner defend a lion than the Bible. Well Spurgeon was wrong. The Bible will not defend itself. That’s not it’s place. If you believe in the Bible, you will want to defend it and honor it in the face of those who seek to deny it and you will want to do so with the best of arguments.

Pastor Tim also says:

However, it seems that apologists stopped realizing that an unbeliever will not accept any argument of faith without the “spirit of God” drawing him. The apologist will never convince an unbelieving world God exists. The apologist will never convince an unbelieving world the Bible is God’s Word. Those are the tasks of the Holy Spirit.

By himself, the apologist will not convince the unbeliever. That is true. However, the apologist should not claim to do this by himself. Of course, the Holy Spirit is there, but the Holy Spirit can also use a good argument. In fact, we should give the Holy Spirit the best that we have and that includes our best arguments. We should not come to the unbeliever completely ignorant and expect the Holy Spirit to make up for our laziness.

You seem to be presuming there is hidden meaning within the text that have to be teased out through the “scholarly” process. It is once again another way of saying there is “truer truth”. Or as I put it in the OP a “canon within a canon”. Certainly no one intends to presume that God is bound to anything. However, neither does God give us a text that has hidden meanings for us to ponder and only those with enough scholarly insight can find the full meaning of the text. That, my brother, is a form of gnosticism if not full blown gnosticism.

And here we have yet another example of “The Bible was written for 21st century Americans.” Oh there are a number of things that are plain in the Bible. There are a number that are not. We have Pastor Tim appealing often to the pew-sitter. Okay. Which one do I go to?

Do I go to the Presbyterian church where they will talk about how the Bible teaches Calvinism?

Do I go to the SBC one that has the Bible clearly teaching dispensationalism?

Do I go to the Pentecostal one with the Bible clearly teaching that charismatic gifts are today?

What about the one that has an Arminian statement of faith? Is that one getting what the Bible is clearly teaching?

What about the one that holds to an old-earth interpretation? Hugh Ross is a pastor of a church after all.

Or do I go to one that holds to a young-earth view?

What about one that has a preterist approach to eschatology?

What about one that holds to eternal security?

Or do I go with one that denies eternal security?

Which person in the pew do I go to? They all affirm inerrancy, but they all disagree on what the text means.

You know, that text that is so clear that we don’t need the scholarly world to understand it.

I think in reality that the text is NOT clear on several matters and for that we need hard study. We actually need to dig into the text and wrestle with it. We need to avail ourselves of the biblical languages. (By the way, those languages are not taught in the Bible. You have to go outside the Bible to know what those words mean.) We need to learn the social context of the Bible. We need archaeology and philosophy and history. We need to look at the world and say “If the Bible is true, whatever I learn can help me in my understanding of the Bible,” and then have at it.

It seems Pastor Tim’s approach is afraid of higher learning as it will some how dilute the teachings of the Bible. As one who values higher learning, I have no fear of it. I have spent some time recently reading on an issue for instance in biblical doctrine that I disagree with. I regularly read books by the cults and by atheists because I want to know what their arguments are. It’s great to go into a library and/or bookstore and get what you want without fear.

Pastor Tim also says:

Further is the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, a statement that Dr. Licona has affirmed to be part of the ETS. You say we should not be insistent on the “literal-historical narrative”. However, ETS affirms something different in Article XVII than your statement;
“We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatical-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.”

Actually Pastor, that’s article XVIII, and it is one I wrote about here. Once again, we find this idea of just trot out the ICBI statement and that settles everything.

Apparently, all of the scholars that side with Licona did not know about that article, even though two of them were signers!

Pastor Tim later says:

Paul penned his words to the Corinthians approximately 55AD. Matthew penned his words to this circulatory letter approximately 60AD.

Question Pastor Tim. How do you know when Paul wrote Corinthians? Does the letter itself contain a date? How do you know that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew? Do you see his name anywhere in that book? I don’t. Please don’t dare tell us that you’re using…GASP!…

EXTRA-BIBLICAL MATERIAL!

Why yes. Yes you are, and you’re using extra-biblical material to increase your understanding of the text. We do the exact same thing, but when we do it, you have a problem with it.

Another case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Would one not agree that Paul was the most “well read” among the two? With that being the case then a question glares us in the face. Why did Paul not make such a reference in his defense of the resurrection when he wrote about it in 1 Corinthians? Is Dr. Licona calling the account that Paul points to in 1 Corinthians into question as well? Paul never referenced this “myth” that Dr. Licona has suddenly found. Paul would have been the one to bring this out as he is the basis for using extra-biblical information and making it a part of the Holy Writ under the inspiration of God. Thus, since Paul did not call into question this “poetry” Dr. Licona has found and attributes to Matthew’s intent, I believe I am well within the “Denial” statement of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Article XVII.

Okay Pastor Tim. Why did Paul also not include a defense of the virgin birth? Why did he not include a defense of Christ doing miracles? I believe I have a simple answer for your question here.

Paul is speaking about the eschatological judgment at the end. Little resurrections here and there in the middle would not matter. The question is “Will we all be resurrected at the end?” Paul’s basis for this is the resurrection of Christ as the firstfruits. (To which Paul Copan raises the point that if Christ is the firstfruits, how could it be that those resurrected saints would have glorified bodies prior to Christ?) Since we are identified as being in Christ (And not in resurrected saints) then we will also be raised with Christ and raised as He was.

He would not bring up the Matthew 27 incident any more than he would bring up Lazarus because it was completely irrelevant. Furthermore, this would have been part of the oral Jesus tradition and Paul would not have needed to reference it.

Finally, Mike has not referred to this as a myth. He’s referred to it as apocalyptic. Myth and apocalyptic writings are not the same thing.

Now I did post on Pastor Tim’s blog yesterday that I would be posting this today. He has not put that comment up. I doubt he will. (It would kind of be like how we have evidence that Geisler has deleted or had deleted disagreeing posts from his Facebook page.) Hopefully this will get around somehow.

I urge Pastor Tim to reconsider what he’s doing right now. I have no doubt that he really thinks he’s fighting for Inerrancy, and in a sense he is, but the bigger picture is being missed.

As it is right now, many young minds are saying they don’t want to join the ETS and some are saying “Well if this is what believing in Inerrancy entails, then so much for Inerrancy.” Inerrancy is being presented as something weak that cannot stand up to scrutiny so one must simply silence the opposition.

Do not dare present ideas that go against our tradition. You will not be accepted. In order to get to play all the reindeer games, you must walk the line with us, and if you do not walk the line, then you must recant or you will be shunned from the community.

Which will lead people in the end to believe that the Bible has many errors.

In fact, Stephen Bedard, another internet blogger, wrote recently that an atheist wrote something in the local paper showing how this conflict shows that the Bible isn’t true. Do a web search for “Geisler” and “Licona” and you can see what the atheist world is saying about the conflict. It’s becoming apparent to them that if Geisler’s case wins the day, it means you cannot be objective and be an evangelical scholar.

Now by Geisler’s case, I do not mean just that the event is historical. Geisler could be entirely right in that. I mean the way that he has presented his case and the methodology that he has used in dealing with an opponent. Many other Christians are calling for Geisler to let this go and make amends to Mike. The scholarly world, the evangelical world, the Christian world, and the whole of the world are not being benefited by this.

Let us also remember what Mike has said. If Geisler apologized to him, he would welcome him with open arms and put it all behind him.

I’d love to see that happen, but at this point, I am skeptical of that. (I just hope Pastor Tim will not now say I’m endorsing skepticism since I stated that position) I do think this is starting to come to a close, but will it be a wound that gets properly healed, or will it be a scar that remains for a long time on evangelicalism?

We shall see.

Article XVIII

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our look at the topic of Inerrancy and I believe of all the articles we have looked at, this one is likely to be the one most relevant to the Geisler-Licona situation. Article XVIII reads as follows:

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

At the start, I wonder about the idea of “Scripture interprets Scripture.” A text is an instrumental means in this case but it is used by a person to interpret another text. One Scripture can help explain another Scripture but it cannot per se interpret that Scripture. Interpretation takes place in the mind and the text of Scripture has no mind. Of course the author of Scripture does, but the author is not the one interpreting here.

Also, do we exclude sources outside of Scripture? This is problematic as it assumes Scripture is written in a vacuum. Scripture at times points to other sources, unfortunately ones we don’t have, such as the Book of Jashar. It is apparent that whoever wrote 1 and 2 Kings used other sources as he frequently states when he says “Are not all the acts of X recorded in Y?”

Besides, unless we read Greek and Hebrew, we do have to rely on other sources. The words used came from somewhere. When Paul wrote his epistles, he did not have a big list of acceptable Greek words to use when writing Scripture. He used the language he knew. Of course, there were words he did create, but there were several he didn’t and it’s just fine to study other ancient literature to see what they meant.

It was claimed for a time, and still is by several, that the creation account in Genesis was a rip-off of other creation accounts and the same could be said of the flood. I do not hold this, but this does not mean they were not an influence. Could it be that the way to study Genesis could involve studying other creation accounts and seeing how the ancients used them? Perhaps, shock of shocks, we could get more out of Genesis not by studying modern science, but by studying ancient writings like Genesis! Maybe Genesis was written not to describe a scientific account but a more functional account.

Okay. So what about Geisler’s situation with Licona about dehistoricizing the text?

The problem is it assumes the text is historical to begin with. Now maybe it is. I’m open to that. It cannot be assumed however.

Licona regularly brings out that events that we would deem miraculous in nature often happened when great kings died in other writings of the time. Let us consider the following from Licona’s paper:

In what is certain poetic literature, Virgil reports sixteen
phenomena that occurred after Caesar’s death: prolonged darkness, dogs and
birds acted unusually, Etna erupted, fighting in the heavens was heard (a detail
that we saw has a parallel in the portents reported by Josephus prior to the
destruction of the temple), the Alps shook near Germany, a powerful voice was
heard in the groves, pale phantoms were seen at dusk, cattle spoke, streams
stood still, the earth opened up, ivory idols wept and bronze idols were sweating
in the shrines, dark intestines appeared outside of animals in their stalls, blood
trickled in springs, wolves howled, lightning appeared in a cloudless sky, and a
bright comet was seen.

The paper can be found here: http://risenjesus.com/images/stories/pdfs/2011%20eps%20saints%20paper.pdf

Now Geisler could accept that all of these are historical. That is his prerogative if he wishes to do so. However, let us suppose that he does not. Can Licona accuse him of dehistoricizing the text? No. He knows that the text is not meant to be seen as historical. Yet what will be the reason for saying it has to be historical in the Bible?

If we say, “It is because it is in the Bible” then we are simply begging the question. How will that be to a watchful world that thinks the way that conservative Christian scholars do biblical studies is to say “Well if the Bible says it, then it’s true.” This will be apparent especially when the case comes of supposed gods like Mithras and Horus and Dionysus who “die and resurrect.” Are they just not accepted because they’re not Bible?

Such argumentation will die the death of a thousand qualifications, especially if we tell people that they can study the Bible to see that it’s true and they can say “Well it says the exact same thing that is said about Mithras. Why do you believe the Bible instead?” “Because the Bible is historical.” “How do you know? “Because it’s the Bible.”

Note that this does not rule out the event being historical. It could be that these events that did not really happen at the death of an emperor were written as stories to give honor to the emperor, and yet when the Son of God dies, God makes some stories a reality to up the ante in favor of the honor of His Son. That is entirely possible.

The point is that frankly, we don’t have enough evidence for dogmatism either way. I consider Licona’s suggestion an area worthy of further research. We should study it more and I am sure that if Licona’s view is found to be faulty upon research, he will be the first one to abandon it. Let us study the suggestion however before deciding an answer.

“But the text is written as a narrative!” The same could be said for the accounts of the deaths of the Roman emperors. Also, despite whether one thinks Licona is right or wrong, does anyone really think that Licona is just blindly missing all these details that seem like a narrative? Looking over blog chats on this, it seems people actually think he is so foolish that he has not noticed that.

Also, this is not about belief in miracles, especially since Licona wrote a whole chapter on defending that historians can believe in miracles and allow them in their work and the whole book itself is to explain one miracle, the resurrection of Christ from the dead!

“Couldn’t someone say Christ’s resurrection is not historical?” Absolutely. But to do so, they must provide an explanation to all the counter-evidence Licona gives in the book. There is far more for that than for the Matthew 27 event. The problem is so many people are interpreting this as an all-or-nothing game. If Matthew 27 does not describe a historical event, then why can it not be that none of it is historical? This is the mindset we see in fundy atheists also.

“How do we know what’s what?” This is where we have to use a method not really familiar to a lot of Christians today called “Studying the text.” We actually just don’t sit down, pray, and expect the Holy Spirit to tell us everything that people spend years of scholarly research trying to figure out.

In looking at this whole situation, I’d like to present the argument in a way that shows why Licona is not denying Inerrancy. Look at this argument.

Matthew wrote the text and intended it to be historical.
Licona takes it as historical.
Licona is not denying Inerrancy.

No one has a problem with this one. It makes sense. Now let’s look at it this way.

Matthew wrote the text and intended it to be historical.
Licona takes it as apocalyptic.
Licona is denying Inerrancy.

Some people seem to think that this is what is going on, but the conclusion does not follow. Think of how many passages have people denying Inerrancy then.

Is Matthew 24 intended to be read in a Futurist or Preterist sense today?

Is Genesis to describe an old-earth or a young-earth?

Does Romans 9 describe a Calvinistic work or an Arminian one?

Does Hebrews 10 say salvation can be lost or not?

We could go on and on and on. There can be no doubt all of us have some wrong interpretations of the Bible. When that happens, we do not get the message the author intended. That does not mean we are ascribing error to the author. It means we are failing to understand the material. The problem is not with the material, but with us.

This is actually what needs to be the case for the above argument to work.

Matthew wrote the text and intended it to be historical.
Licona knows this, but says that the text is not historical.
Licona is denying Inerrancy.

In this case, then yes, Licona would be denying Inerrancy. He is ascribing error to Matthew at that point and Geisler wins the day. The reality is that Licona knows about Geisler’s reasons and does not find them sufficient. If someone does, so what? They have to be sufficient in Licona’s mind for him to be denying Inerrancy.

Also, just posting the ICBI statement will not work as some think. Regularly, it seems that on the net, someone will post the ICBI statement and think that settles it. To begin with, it doesn’t as this still assumes that Licona is dehistoricizing what is historical. Second, one can go against ICBI and still support Inerrancy. It is my understanding that Henry Morris would not sign the document since it allowed for old-earth views to be considered within Inerrancy. Does anyone want to state that Morris did not hold to Inerrancy? (And note by his standards that Geisler would be denying Inerrancy)

This also means the framers argument would be invalid. (Not to mention that Moreland and Yamauchi both say Licona is not denying Inerrancy) It assumes that ICBI is the final word on Inerrancy and to deny ICBI is to deny Inerrancy. Now by and large, I have no problem with ICBI, but I do have a problem with equating it with Inerrancy. People affirmed Inerrancy and knew what it meant before ICBI, much like they did the Deity of Christ before Nicea.

What needs to happen now? This whole thing needs to be buried. I would like to point out that Licona is not speaking the words of recanting, as Geisler and Mohler as well are. Instead, this is what Licona has said:

If Geisler were to apologize, I would embrace him and forget the entire matter. Nothing more need be said and we can all move on.

Right now on Geisler’s page, there is a call for this to go on and I applaud all those who are saying such. This has not been good for evangelicalism and it is time for it to come to an end with the realization that Licona is not denying Inerrancy.

We shall continue next time.

Article XVII

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Things are looking quite good here since Mike Licona gave his talk at EPS as the evangelical world seems to be in agreement with him. Not necessarily in the sense that his interpretation is correct, but that it is within the realm of orthodoxy and within the realm of Inerrancy. I pray several more evangelicals will stand up now and let this be known.

For our purposes however, we are going to continue our study tonight looking at Article XVII which reads as follows:

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Okay. Now this is one that I do wonder about as it is something I do not see taking place in Scripture. Notice when I say that I question this, it does not mean I question Inerrancy. I think one could consistently not accept the ICBI statement and at the same time still accept Inerrancy.

My concern with this is that this is something way too subjective for my tastes. Exactly how is it that one knows this is the Holy Spirit telling them this instead of their own wish fulfillment? Now yes, I do believe the Scriptures are true, but I think a Christian can want the Scripture to be true, have no good reason to think that it is, get a feeling about it, and lo and behold, that’s the Holy Spirit.

A lot of us have a problem with the song that says “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right” and the thinking of “If it feels good, do it.” However, when it comes to Christianity, we don’t often do better. “This feels really good! It must be the Holy Spirit at work!”

Keep in mind the Holy Spirit could also lead us to sorrow and repentance. Does anyone think it feels good to know you’ve done something you shouldn’t have?

This is also a problem with marriage I think in our culture. We can base too much on the feeling of being in love when that feeling will die and what’s left? Hard work. Our society does not really value hard work so what happens? We give up until we get that feeling again.

Furthermore, I hate to say it but atheists have a point when they talk about how people in a church can’t agree on a vote. Is it the case that the Holy Spirit can’t make up His mind? No. I think it’s more of a case that the Holy Spirit expects us to use ours but we expect Him to choose for us by little “clues” we think are biblical, such as feeling.

“But I don’t have any reasons for believing the Bible is Scripture. Isn’t my feeling good enough?” Sure. Until you have to talk to Mormons and you have to tell them why your feeling supposedly trumps their feeling. You have no evidence. They have no evidence. You both have a feeling. Why should they trust yours over theirs?

Instead, you could go to your local library and/or bookstore and start getting books on the Bible and learn about why people believe it to be Scripture. Why do they think it is inerrant? Feel free to read those also on why some people don’t think it’s Scripture and don’t think it’s inerrant.

Once you have that evidence, it could most certainly lead to some very good feelings. It’s not necessary, but it can. This position is not against feelings. It is against having feelings take the lead in matters. God gave us emotions and we should take advantage of them, but emotions tell us more about us than they do external reality.

Now does the Spirit play any role in Scripture? I think He does, and that role is conviction. I think the Holy Spirit convicts us via the natural law written on our hearts. In being convicted, we are prepared to come to the Messiah. This could be a feeling. It could not be. Not all people operate the same emotionally.

So I do have a statement in ICBI I disagree with, but I cannot say I disagree with Inerrancy.

We shall continue next time.

Article XVI

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, we’ve been going through the ICBI statement on biblical Inerrancy. If you have not heard it yet, I recommend also going to RisenJesus.come and listen to Mike Licona’s talk on Inerrancy at EPS, as his situation with Geisler is what sparked all of this. For now, we’re going to take a look at article XVI of the statement.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Okay. This is one that I will not be able to comment so much on seeing as I am not an authority on church history. From what I have read in the Fathers, they do accept the Inerrancy of Scripture and its authority. When I look in church history, I see nothing but respect for the Scriptures among Christians.

So for the sake of argument, I will assume that the statements here are true and discuss what kind of difference it makes. For the purposes of what has been debated lately, Inerrancy has been integral, but that does not mean that every interpretation has been integral.

Of course, there are some positions that I do believe are more important than others. If someone has a different interpretation on say, the parable of the pearl in Matthew, well that’s interesting and we should study it. However, if there is someone who says that they believe the doctrine of the Trinity needs to be called into question, they’re free to put forward the idea, but they will need to make an incredibly strong case in order to show that.

There have been various ideas in Christian history on how to interpret the text and we need to realize that. We dare not act like our interpretation of a text is the final word of the matter. We should always have a faith that is seeking understanding. For myself, my position on a number of secondary issues has changed over time because of being open to evidence.

As for apologetics, there have been changes there as well. I do not hold to the same arguments that I used to and some I defended strongly in the past I don’t defend as strongly any more because I do not find them as convincing. As has been said, while we hold the Scriptures are Inerrant, we are not to think of our interpretations as Inerrant. The Scriptures are the final authority and we are not.

In conclusion, I do agree with this statement however. It does not show Inerrancy is true, although I think that it is, but it is important that if the position is historical, we do not need to abandon it lightly. While we should always be open to going where the evidence leads, we need to remember that if a position is highly contradictory to what we’ve held before, we will generally want a higher degree of evidence.

We shall continue next time.