Tag: Mike Licona

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.

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.

Does ICBI = Inerrancy?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve been looking lately at the Geisler/Licona debate and I begun pondering this point yesterday that I’m sure many have thought of but needs to be stated plainly for the sake of the discussion.

We need to realize that if one rejects or goes against ICBI, that does not mean that they are going against or rejecting Inerrancy.

For instance, there are some Christians out there who have a strange allergy to creeds. They don’t want to talk about the Nicene Creed and they would prefer to always use biblical language. They will not say they affirm the Trinity but will say they affirm the Godhead. Now if you ask them if Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are each God and if each of them are distinct persons but yet one God, they would say yes. In other words, they affirm the concept that is taught in the Trinity, but they would prefer to not use that term.

Okay. I think that’s a bit odd, but it’s not unorthodox. As long as they have the content, it’s fine.

Now I have spoken about concerns with the ICBI statement and I do plan on reviewing it greatly in the near future. We have also seen in this debate that Geisler accuses Licona of going against what the ICBI framer intended (Even though I highly question that) with the implication that that would mean denying Inerrancy.

Just a question. Could it be, for the sake of argument, that the framers had a bad definition?

Let’s suppose that they did. Can Licona say that and say “I fully believe Matthew intended this to be interpreted as an apocalyptic event and that there are valid reasons for doing so.” I do not think someone could be consistently an anti-Christian type like Mary Baker Eddy and study the Scriptures in a consistent manner. Inerrancy would entail that all of Scripture would cohere together. Coherency is not sufficient for truth, but it is necessary for it.

I answer then that Licona can say what he said and could hypothetically think the framers are wrong. I am not saying he is saying that, but he could, and he could still be an Inerrantist. Even though I am related to Licona, this is not a statement he has in any way made or endorsed. I will be upfront about that. I’m speaking on my own behalf.

My only point is to say that Licona can say this and believe that the Bible did not error in any of its teachings, but that what it is teaching has to be properly understood. I think we should all agree to that part. If the authors intended something and we can find that, then we should accept if we believe in Inerrancy that what they intended to say is true.

ICBI put forward an important statement, and it will always be one, but as shown throughout history, it will be up to the future leaders of the church to help clarify the statement in their own times. We can look at an interpretation like Licona’s and say “Whoa. Even if I don’t agree, I can’t say he’s denying Inerrancy. If according to ICBI he is, then we need to redefine Inerrancy.”

That’s also not to disrespect the framers. They got things started. We carry on the torch and we look at what they did as a sort of opening statement and say “That was good. What more can we do to clarify this?” It’s apparent right now at least that what the framers meant is unclear. After all, you have Geisler saying one thing, and Moreland and Yamauchi saying another.

As I have stated before, to my fellow young evangelicals, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We can tend to think in extremes. It can be that when you reject part of one system, you end up rejecting all of it. Hence, some I identify as fundy atheists reject one part of Christianity while Christians and then end up just throwing out everything. Not a good idea.

Do we agree or disagree with ICBI? Well let’s be fair and study the doctrine and see what we can. Of course, there has been a lot written and it’s doubtful an exhaustive look can be done, but let us see what can be done. Let us try to see what Inerrancy does mean and doesn’t mean.

In many ways, I think Inerrancy could be like beauty for some evangelicals. We say we believe it, but it is just really difficult to define. (I do believe beauty is that which pleases when seen, but even that raises some questions.) Perhaps this is the time where we follow the path of Credo Ut Intelligum. To pluralize it, we believe that we may understand.

Let’s begin to understand.

SEBTS Denied

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’d like to take a look again at what has been going on in the controversy between Norman Geisler and my father-in-law, Mike Licona. (Yes. I am aware of a possible bias, hence I state it upfront) Though it has not been as widely discussed, Geisler has put up a letter stating why he is not meeting with SEBTS per Licona’s suggestion to have a round table discussion. A link will be at the end of the post.

To begin with, we are told that Geisler has interacted with Licona’s views, but how has this been done? Sure, there have been open letters, but would not face-to-face discussion before a panel of experts count as a better medium to discuss something? Furthermore, several of us have interacted with Geisler’s arguments and found them lacking, even though many of us disagree with Licona’s interpretation. As I have stated, I have no firm opinion on the matter. I am open, but I would want to examine the case closer.

The second is that the issue has been spoken of in two books that will turn out shortly. Now that’s fine to be releasing books on the issue, but if you’re going to do so, then surely one should be willing to face someone who you think disagrees with your view being presented in the book.

If the idea will stand up to scrutiny, then it will be fine and the books will further demonstrate that. If they do not stand up to scrutiny, then the books will only prove to be at best superfluous, at worst, monuments to an idea that could not stand up under scrutiny.

The third is that many Seminaries have spoken on this matter. Indeed they have, but what reasons have they stated? This is simply being an appeal to authority again which is what we have seen going on. We have seen ICBI and ETS pointed to again and again. Geisler has said that as a framer, he knows that Licona’s view was in mind. Well it looks like Moreland and Yamauchi who signed the document as well did not think Licona’s view was in mind. Geisler cannot speak as if he alone knows what was meant and Yamauchi and Moreland do not.

In fact, it seems that’s been something in all of this. Geisler knows what Matthew meant and Licona has it wrong. He knows what ETS and ICBI meant and thus Licona is wrong. What we are not seeing is the arguments that need to be there.

Keep in mind also that ICBI and ETS are not infallible groups. This is especially revealing since it seems ETS is not always as pleasing to Geisler as he’d like. ETS was right when they went against Gundry we are told. They were wrong when they went with Pinnock. They did not take as firm a stance on Inerrancy as they should. However, in this case, we are only to listen to the fact that they were supposedly right on Gundry. In other words, ignore those times they made a bad judgment. It just has the appearance that the reason they are used is because they could be seen as agreeing with Geisler.

As for ICBI, was it really composed of 300 scholars? Going through the list, as my ministry partner is doing at the moment, turns up a number of pastors and others who cannot really be found to have something substantial to them on Google. Very few have the qualifications to address Licona’s work.

Geisler says SEBTS should issue a statement on the matter. That would be fine. But what difference would it make? SEBTS comes out against Licona let’s suppose. Well what will that mean? It will mean they have, but it will not mean Licona is wrong. You can be sure it’d be sounded as a victory.

Let’s suppose however that SEBTS comes out in favor of Licona. What will that mean? Well they would be seen as suspect. Then would come the time to examine the reasons for why they are saying his view is not in conflict with Inerrancy.

Now there’s an idea. Examining the reasons. That’s the kind of thing that can be done at a round table discussion. Unfortunately, the option of meeting in discussion has been turned down. From this point on it would seem that nothing can be said against Licona for when Geisler speaks out it can be said “Well he offered to meet with you and discuss it and you said no.”

While at the start, I believe Geisler did what he did to further show the strength of ICBI, it has done the opposite. Its weakness has been shown. If someone like Licona can be said to be denying Inerrancy, then the statement needs to be amended. Note I am not saying we need to drop Inerrancy. Not at all. We need to have more there however concerning genre interpretation and the role of extra-biblical sources on interpretation.

That will be the work of this generation of scholarly apologists and will continue to be worked on by upcoming generations. We dare not throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

Geisler’s letter can be found on the front page of his website here:

http://normangeisler.net/index.htm

The Future of Inerrancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James White on Mike Licona

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously then, it’s not in there.

Licona looks at the text and sees something different.

Licona is out of line with inerrancy.

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

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

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

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

Al Mohler Chimes In

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I am going to be continuing our look at this Geisler/Licona debate as now Al Mohler has chimed in. As I have stated prior, I am the son-in-law of Mike Licona. I say this to admit possible bias upfront. However, I ask the reader to consider my arguments. Seeing as I am not sure I agree with Licona’s interpretation yet, that should be sufficient to show I do not follow blindly. I am certain, however, that the views of Mohler and Geisler are not only inaccurate, but harmful to the church and to inerrancy.

What is inerrancy? Well that’s a good question and right now, the debate going on is starting to get some people to wonder. In the blogosphere, there is talk from some evangelicals that they do not want to be a member of the ETS if this is the kind of reception they can expect to have. To turn off the upcoming generation of future scholars from evangelicalism cannot be good for evangelicalism.

Unfortunately, Al Mohler has the same approach that will do just that in his review of the Geisler/Licona debate which I will put a link to at the end of this article. Mohler starts off praising Licona for the following:

The 700-page volume is nothing less than a masterful defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Licona is a gifted scholar who has done what other evangelical scholars have not yet done — he has gone right into the arena of modern historiographical research to do comprehensive battle with those who reject the historical nature of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

Bravo Licona! Bravo! Keep up the good work! In fact, we know about Licona’s expertise with the following quote:

In making his case, Licona demonstrates his knowledge of modern historiography, the philosophy of history, and the work of modern historians. He confronts head-on the arguments against the historicity of the resurrection put forth by scholars ranging from Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann to John Dominic Crossan.

Yes Licona. You are certainly well read in historiography and the philosophy of history. You confront the arguments against the historicity of the resurrection by leading deniers of the resurrection today. Not just leading deniers but deniers who happen to be scholars! Ah the pictures looks so good, until we get to this line.

But, even as Licona dissects arguments against the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, he then makes a shocking and disastrous argument of his own. Writing about Matthew 27:51-54, Licona suggests that he finds material that is not to be understood as historical fact.

Suddenly a dark cloud is on the horizon. Licona is “dehistoricizing” the text.

Or is he?

Once again, Mohler has made the same mistake that Geisler has. The idea is The text must ipso facto be accepted as historical. Licona does not take it as historical. Therefore, since the text is obviously historical, then we can be sure that Licona is not affirming inerrancy.

How did Geisler counter this? Well Geisler chose to counter it by giving the reasons why he believes it is historical. Since he has those reasons and those reasons are convincing and Licona disagrees, then obviously since the text must be historical, then Licona is denying inerrancy.

Let’s think about this a little bit. Do Geisler and Mohler really think that if a sound case was made to Licona that the event described is historical that he would say “Sorry guys. I just have to say it isn’t. I’m not trusting in the evidence.”? Does anyone really think this?

Then you have the opinion found at AOMin.org that Licona has made a concession to liberalism. Which concession would that be? Would it be the concession that miracles aren’t possible? That’s rather hard to believe considering he has a whole chapter in defense of miracles. Is it that resurrections can’t happen? That’s also hard to believe considering he’s written a whole book defending the resurrection. Could it be that the Bible is not reliable in matters of history? Also doubtful considering that he looks at the gospels and epistles to show how reliable they in fact are.

Let us consider how things might have begun if Geisler instead of choosing to attack Licona’s view as unorthodox had said the following:

To Mike Licona,

I have recently read your latest book and I do have a disagreement with you concerning your view on the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. While it is certainly in the bounds of orthodoxy, I do not think it is accurate and I have a number of reasons for thinking it to be historical. I would like to get to discuss these reasons with you.

Instead, we got a message of threatening, which sadly Mohler is repeating. Let’s keep going through Mohler’s post. While Mohler is troubled by the word “legend”, I believe the Triablogue accurately interpreted what Licona means.

On 185-86 of his book, Licona uses the word “legend.” Needless to say, “Legend” is a hot-button word. But in context, I don’t think Licona was classifying the Matthean pericope as a legend. Rather, that’s part of his inference-to-the-best explanation methodology. He’s listing a range of logically possible options; then, by process of elimination, zeroing in on the most probable explanation. He mentions the “legendary” explanation to eliminate that alternative as a less likely explanation.

Note that this work is not a popular level work but a scholarly work, in fact based on Licona’s PH.D. In being a good scholar, you have to make room for all possible explanations and then show why the explanations of the opposition fail and yours does not. Licona is just being a good scholar in this. Could it be that Mohler and Geisler find scholarship troubling?

Mohler goes on to say:

Licona then refers to various classical parallels in ancient literature and to the Bible’s use of apocalyptic language and, after his historical survey, states: “it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as ’special effects’ with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.”

Mohler does not like the term special effects, and I do think a better term could have been used, but Licona is simply saying that apocalyptic imagery was used at the time that was not to be seen as a literal description of events but as the way the event would have been seen from a “God’s-eye” perspective. It would have been a message of judgment through the earthquake, a message of shame through darkness, a message that the old way of the Law was done through the tearing of the temple curtain, and a message that resurrection can now be a reality, through the description of the resurrected saints.

Mohler has his great concern about what has happened, especially since the question can be raised “Well why can’t Jesus’s death be seen the same way?” Mohler says:

This is exactly the right question, and Licona’s proposed answers to his own question are disappointing in the extreme. In his treatment of this passage, Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon — the concession that some of the material reported by Matthew in the very chapter in which he reports the resurrection of Christ simply did not happen and should be understood as merely “poetic device” and “special effects.”

What are these answers? Well we’re not told. However, they are disappointing. Let it be noted something however that all of Licona’s critics are missing. One reason that we can be sure that Licona can show why Jesus’s death cannot be interpreted that way is that this debate over Matthew 27 takes place in nearly 650 pages of material telling us why the death and resurrection of Jesus is historical.

Seriously. Licona has built up the evidence and given a massive historical argument as even Mohler admits and yet based on his interpretation of this one passage, does Mohler really think that by saying that that everything Licona has said about the resurrection of Jesus is refuted?

Keep in mind Mohler has pointed to Licona’s knowledge of historiography. Is this the attitude that though Licona knows what he’s doing, he really needs to be called into question here? Perhaps his historiography isn’t as good as he thinks it is.

Now comes Mohler’s pointing to Geisler who says Licona is dehistoricizing the text. Note what that assumes.

First off, it assumes that the text is historical to begin with.
Second, it assumes that it can be demonstrated that Matthew meant that.
Third, it assumes that Licona knows this.
Fourth, it assumes that Licona is thus telling Matthew that he was wrong.

Those are some powerful assumptions. If anything, only the second one has had any arguments put forward in its favor. I have no problem with that. If someone believes that, they should put forward the argument. However, showing that the text is historical is not the same as showing that Licona is denying inerrancy. It must be shown that it is to be seen as historical to Licona’s satisfaction. If he still really believes that Matthew did not mean that, then he is not denying inerrancy.

After introducing Geisler, Mohler reminds us of Gundry seeing as Geisler’s viewpoint was “Affirm the historicity or follow the same path as Gundry.” This is the area where major concern begins. Could it be that back in that case, the ETS shot itself in the foot by such an action as dismissing Gundry?

What does inerrancy mean?

Does it mean literalism? Does it mean that we can never propose an alternate way of reading the text? If that is the case, many are wondering about whether they want to be involved. What do we do with Genesis 1 and 2? What do we do with Matthew 24? What about the book of Revelation? What about the long day in Joshua 10? What about statements in Exodus about God changing His mind?

If being an inerrantist means I have to interpret all of those passages X way, do I really want to consider myself one?

Don’t think that’s not happening? Surf the blogosphere yourself and see it happening, most vividly it is happening at NearEmmaus.com.

Note what Mohler goes on to tell us:

Scholars including D. A. Carson and Darrell Bock argued, in response, that Matthew was not writing midrash and that his first readers would never have assumed him to have done so. Scholars also noted that Gundry’s approach was doctrinally disastrous. Gundry had argued that Matthew “edited the story of Jesus’ baptism so as to emphasize the Trinity.” Thus, Matthew was not reporting truthfully what had happened in terms of historical fact, but what he wanted to report in order to serve his theological purpose. Gundry had suggested that Matthew changed Luke’s infancy narrative by changing shepherds into Magi and the manger into a house. As one evangelical scholar retorted: “For Gundry, then, the nonexistent house was where the nonpersons called Magi found Jesus on the occasion of their nonvisit to Bethlehem.”

Let’s look at some key words.

“Scholars or scholar” are said three times.

Bock and Carson are cited as scholars who disagreed. (Interestingly, Moo is left out.) Then we have a reference to one evangelical scholar. Thanks to a friend for tracking down as I wrote that it was Robert Thomas who said it. Let it be noted that this time, the danger was what the scholars were warning about. We need to listen to the scholars.

What about Licona? Well he had a list of scholars who had signed his statement. What came of that? Nothing. No attention was paid to them. At least, none by Geisler. The rest of the world paid attention. Note that Moo was one of those who signed the document and he was there at Gundry, knew the issues well, and says Licona is not a repeat of Gundry. Note that two of the others are signers of the ICBI statement, namely Moreland and Yamauchi.

But this time, well what the scholars say doesn’t matter.

In commenting on Licona’s response, minus the scholars, we have this incredible statement from Mohler:

That is not a retraction. Further, he says that his slight change of view on the issue came after research in the Greco-Roman literature. As the Chicago Statement would advise us to ask: What could one possibly find in the Greco-Roman literature that would either validate or invalidate the status of this report as historical fact?

The mind boggles that such a statement is made. What possible benefit can we get then from studying ancient creation narratives. Surely Moses would not write in a fashion creation narratives were written. What value could come from studying ancient Greco-Roman epistles? Surely Paul did not follow similar writing styles. Why? Well no reason is given, but it could be just because this is supposed to be the Bible that is readily accessible to everyone.

Which would again be an assertion.

Mohler seems to write-off without consideration the idea of studying ancient biographies to study the gospels, you know, those works that are ancient biographies. Does Mohler really think that studying the way the ancients wrote can tell us nothing about an ancient writing? Is this the position he really wants to advocate?

Mohler goes on to say:

In his book, he asked precisely the right question, but then he gave the wrong answer. We must all hope that he will ask himself that question again and answer in a way that affirms without reservation that all of Matthew’s report is historical. If not, Licona has not only violated the inerrancy of Scripture, but he has blown a massive hole into his own masterful defense of the resurrection.

No. Licona has not done that. However, I fear that in fact Geisler and Mohler have done that. Let us consider what can be said.

Christian witnessing to atheist friend: You should really read this great new book by Mike Licona defending the resurrection.

Atheist: Is that the book your own evangelical scholars have already said is unorthodox? If they don’t accept it, why should I?

Note in fact also the attitude that is being built up here. What is the message? Beware of scholarship. Geisler even said to not be an Athenian. Is this the message that we want to give? When Licona lists the scholars who side with him, we are told it doesn’t matter. Licona is violating the plain literal sense of Scripture.

Thus, the advice is to retreat from the academy and modern scholarship.

Let us consider how well this has helped us in other areas. When we make a retreat from evolution, does it really help us? Note that I am not saying I affirm macroevolution, but let us suppose we had this attitude instead.

“Well Darwin, you have an interesting theory here. We might have to change the way we interpret Genesis, but if the facts are with your theory, they’re with your theory.”

Would it not have been nice if we had been more open to the Galileo incident the same way?

Instead, we are going into a debate saying “The facts are this. Now we’ll look at your evidence otherwise.” Instead, we can say “We do believe the Bible to be fully true and if your scholarship is sound and the facts are there, it will not change the truth of Scripture.”

The retreat method instead gets us to the idea that we must avoid scholarship. The Bible has to be protected from these modern ideas and if you are espousing something contrary to what we believe Scripture says, well that will be unallowable. You’ll just have to forgo scholarship and sign on the dotted line. You’ll do that won’t you brother?

Thus, we have argument by force and guilt by association as Marc Cortez pointed out at Nearemmaus.com. What we do not have is argument by scholarship and this is an issue for the scholars.

While it might be Geisler’s belief that inerrancy is under attack and he can save inerrancy, what is really happening would lead more to the destruction of inerrancy in America. Already, the next generation of scholars is watching this and wondering if they really want to sign on the dotted line.

Do they really want to be evangelical scholars if this is the way debate is handled in the evangelical world?

Is the message to be sent out to be taken as “Don’t be a scholar. If you wish to be one, at least make sure you fall within the party lines.” Do we want the non-believing world to say “Well of course we know a Christian scholar will believe that. They have to affirm that. We know what happened to Licona. He wasn’t accepted in the evangelical world for his opinion and since you have to walk that line in the evangelical world, there’s obviously that bias so we disregard what is said.”

Or should we evangelicals have the opinion instead of “Bring us your ideas and your theories! Let us examine them! If they are with the truth, we will have no problem and will accept them. If our way of reading passage X has been wrong and can be shown to be wrong, we will accept it.”

Would that we had done this when Galileo came questioning interpretation, but at the time, the interpretation was seen to be inerrant. If one believes the Scriptures are inerrant, then they should surely be willing to test that and be open to a new way of reading the text. If scholarship comes out and shows that the way doesn’t work, oh well. If it shows that it does, then we are wise to be on the cutting edge accepting it.

What can we pray? Let us not pray for recanting and falling in line. That is not what is needed. Let us pray for real scholarly genuine debate rather than threats and guilt by association.

Mohler’s article can be found here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona-controversy/

The website nearemmmaus with several updates on this can be found here: http://nearemmaus.com/

Mike Licona Replies

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Recently, I’ve written my thoughts on the Licona/Geisler situation. Again, to state why some might want to dismiss this, I am Mike Licona’s son-in-law. Some have used that as an excuse to disregard what I say, which is a sad situation. Look at the arguments instead of possible reasons for arguments.

To begin with, an open letter has been issued to Norman Geisler:

An Open Response to Norman Geisler
Norman Geisler has taken issue with a portion of my recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, in which I proposed that the story of the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53 should probably be interpreted as apocalyptic imagery rather than literal history. In response, Dr. Geisler has offered strong criticisms in two Open Letters to me on the Internet. Until now I have been unable to comment because I have multiple writing deadlines, two September debates in South Africa for which to prepare, and, consequently, no time to be drawn into what would probably turn into an endless debate. I shared these first two reasons with Dr. Geisler in an email several weeks ago. Yet he insisted that I “give careful and immediate attention” to the matter. I simply could not do this and fulfill the pressing obligations of my ministry, which is my higher priority before the Lord.

Dr. Geisler questions whether I still hold to biblical inerrancy. I want to be clear that I continue to affirm this evangelical distinctive. My conclusion in reference to the raised saints in Matthew 27 was based upon my analysis of the genre of the text. This was not an attempt to wiggle out from under the burden of an inerrant text; it was an attempt to respect the text by seeking to learn what Matthew was trying to communicate. This is responsible hermeneutical practice. Any reasonable doctrine of biblical inerrancy must respect authorial intent rather than predetermine it.

When writing a sizable book, there will always be portions in which one could have articulated a matter more appropriately. And those portions, I suppose, will often be located outside the primary thesis of the book, such as the one on which Dr. Geisler has chosen to focus. When writing my book, I always regarded the entirety of Matthew 27 as historical narrative containing apocalyptic allusions. I selected the term “poetic” in order to allude to similar phenomena in the Greco-Roman literature in general and Virgil in particular. However, since Matthew is a Jew writing to Jews, “apocalyptic” may be the most appropriate technical term, while “special effects” communicates the gist on a popular level.

Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.

Michael R. Licona, Ph.D.
August 31, 2011

We the undersigned are aware of the above stated position by Dr. Michael Licona, including his present position pertaining to the report of the raised saints in Matthew 27: He proposes that the report may refer to a literal/historical event, a real event partially described in apocalyptic terms, or an apocalyptic symbol. Though most of us do not hold Licona’s proposal, we are in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy, despite objections to the contrary. We are encouraged to see the confluence of biblical scholars, historians, and philosophers in this question.

W. David Beck, Ph.D.
Craig Blomberg, Ph.D.
James Chancellor, Ph.D.
William Lane Craig, D.Theol., Ph.D.
Jeremy A. Evans, Ph.D.
Gary R. Habermas, Ph.D.
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D.
Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D.
J. P. Moreland, Ph.D.
Heath A. Thomas, Ph.D.
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
William Warren, Ph.D.
Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D.

Now my personal reply:

I have been quite disappointed throughout this whole ordeal. I am a firm believer in inerrancy. I and numerous other evangelicals read this book and did not bat an eye at that part. My thinking on it was that it was a neat suggestion and was worthy of further research, but I wasn’t ready to sign on the dotted line. Still I have kept it as a possible interpretation.

Unfortunately, all that changed when Geisler read the book, nearly a year after it had been published.

From that day on, we have been in a constant situation with how to deal with this. As said above, Licona did not respond immediately due to more pressing deadlines. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough.

It is now known that he no longer has his position at NAMB, but anyone who thinks that he was fired should avoid saying such. Licona left the company on good terms and with a severance package which does not happen when one is fired.

I never had seen any reason given also as to why Mike’s interpretation violated inerrancy. I saw reasons why some thought it was wrong, and that is entirely fine. Had Geisler simply written that, none of us would have had a problem. Instead it was charged that Licona was violating inerrancy.

But if Licona is taking the text the way he honestly believes based on research that the author intended it to be taken, how can that be a violation of inerrancy? He could be wrong on the intention of the author, but he cannot be wrong in thinking that that is what he believes at the time.

I have had discussions with friends that have been a source of concern to me. I do not mind disagreements with friends, but I do mind when it seems we are on opposing sides on an issue that some see as more important than it really is. I have seen a pastor who is no doubt to me an example of many who has not even read Licona’s book or seen his arguments AFAIK at the time of this writing (And I know he had not for he told me himself) but yet, because Geisler says that it’s unorthodox and violates inerrancy, well that settles it.

Even if I believed Geisler was entirely right in his charge, let us be aware that this is a dangerous position and one James wants us to be careful about as well as Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5. We have at that point simply an argument from authority without knowing the reasons why and are letting someone else do our thinking for us. Geisler can be right or wrong about any issue and is not an infallible Pope. Do we really want to attack another Christian’s livelihood without first hearing what they have to say in their defense?

I have also seen that on Vital Signs that the blogger there had put up a post based on what Geisler said. The post asked if we can trust the Bible. The answer was that from an SBC professor, sometimes we cannot. Then it was stated that Licona is selecting what details of the text he denies in an arbitrary fashion.

Rather one agrees or disagrees with Licona, he is not taking his position arbitrarily but is really wrestling with the text trying to take it as Matthew wanted. It can be said that Licona is going against the “plain sense” but do we really want to always say that is the correct sense? From such a reading, would we be able to answer the skeptics who state that the Bible says bats are birds for instance? Does this mean that everyone who interprets Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation in a non-literal sense is denying inerrancy?

Once again, Geisler is being taken without reference to the other side, and people’s reputations are being called into question.

Licona wrote an excellent book on the resurrection of Jesus backed by Gary Habermas, who has for years been the authority on the resurrection, something I’m sure even Geisler would agree with. He does not see this as a violation of inerrancy and as his name is on the list of signers, we can tell despite the second open letter of Geisler what position he takes, along with Craig who said the exact same thing on this passage in a debate with Avalos.

However, because of a supposed attack on inerrancy, several in the church who might have read Licona’s book won’t take the time to read it. Several who could have listened to his audio files or any other information will say “Nope. He’s a heretic,” and move on, never knowing the truth.

What is concerning also is the way this looks to a watching world. The new atheists love it I’m sure when we start slinging mud at one another and going after each other. It keeps us from going after our common opponent. All this time could have been spent focusing not on the denial of the resurrection of the saints, which Licona says he’s now open to, but focusing on the denial of the resurrection of Christ.

What needs to be asked now is if Christians are willing to come together and be open to ideas that are new to their paradigm. If we believe the Bible is true, we need not panic over a false interpretation. We need to respond to it. If it seems that a Christian brother or sister is the one guilty, let us first give the benefit of the doubt. Does the person really deny inerrancy?

Suppose they say “I have always believed inerrancy, but I am having questions.” This is not, of course, the position of Licona but I state it for the sake of argument. What to do with such a person? We seek to find out what they are struggling with. If they have a view of the text that seems different, we study the text. We also study material relevant to it, such as the social world of the time of the writing and the language that it was written in.

In the end, we should all want to be on the side of the truth. Because we think an interpretation is wrong, that is not sufficient reason for thinking that the author is denying inerrancy. We need more than a wrong interpretation. We need a wrong interpretation knowing that the author intended otherwise. Every argument against Licona’s interpretation could have been correct and it would not have shown that he was denying inerrancy.

I urge all of us to put this issue behind us and realize who we are in Christ and that it would be better for us to go after the wolves outside the flock than the sheep within.