Tag: Mike Licona

Lordship Over Scholarship

What is the real relationship between Lordship and Scholarship? Let’s find out as we dive into Deeper Waters.

In the whole Geisler controversy, one statement that has been repeated, and I understand is repeated in the book Geisler just released with Bill Roach, “Defending Inerrancy” is the idea that there must be times that we put Lordship over scholarship. This saying sounds oh so good. It sounds really spiritual. Still, we must ask if this is really a good statement to use?

Let’s clear something up. If something is really true, scholarship can never change that. Scholarship can never disprove it. It might raise at times some arguments that are somewhat persuasive and may seem to have the evidence on their side, but there are a number of times that such arguments have been overturned in the history of thought. If we believe something is true then, we should have no fear of following the evidence where it leads.

In one way, Lordship is always over scholarship in that Christ is Lord of all in the sense that He is the supreme ruler of the universe, whether or not people recognize His Lordship. There are unbelieving scholars and Christ is Lord over them in that He is sovereign over them, but He is not Lord in the sense that He has a salvific relationship with them.

Having said that, the Lordship over scholarship does not work if we mean instead that spirituality goes over scholarship. A good argument should never be replaced with personal piety. Don’t get me wrong in this. I do think being holy is very important for people and we should all seek to be holy, but we should not say “X is a really holy person, so therefore X is right in his opinion on Y.”

Unfortunately, this is what it usually comes down to. Are you really going to disagree with brother X? Do you know how much that man prays? Do you know about all the time he spends at the homeless shelter caring for people down there? Do you know how much of his money he gives to the poor? Do you know how much time he spends every day in Bible reading? Look at the devotion he has to his wife. Are you saying that he’s wrong?

All of those questions could have excellent answers, and brother X could still be wrong. Only one is infallible and that is God Himself. We dare not give infallibility to anyone else.

So when Geisler says this in response to Licona, what are we to say? Well let’s look further at what is said.

“we do not wish to stifle scholarship but only to reject bad scholarship.”

For this first part, there can be no disagreement. In fact, to be clear, we should not stifle bad scholarship per se. If someone wants to research something, if we’re convinced it’s going to be shown to be completely ridiculous, then we should be able to say “By all means go ahead.” We should be eager to help them in their search because we know in the end, that their view will show itself to be false by their own study. If it doesn’t, then we might actually have to consider that we dismissed it too quickly.

Should we reject bad scholarship? Yes, but I do not think we reject bad scholarship because it reaches conclusions we don’t like. We should reject bad scholarship because it is bad scholarship. It is bad scholarship because it does not reason through the evidence properly and/or research it properly.

“Further, as Evangelicals we must beware of desiring a seat at the table of contemporary scholarship, which is riddled with presuppositions that are antagonistic to Evangelical Christianity.”

On the contrary, I think we should eagerly be desiring this! How are we supposed to make an impact on the world of scholarship if we don’t want to seat at the table. Imagine what it could mean for Christianity if Christians were seen as trusted authorities in each field.

C.S. Lewis once talked about what it would mean if Christians were so up on their game in the world of ideas that whenever an unbeliever got a textbook for a class that was written by the best in the field, that that person was a Christian. This isn’t just in the area of religion! What if the best astronomer was a Christian? What if the best heart surgeon was? What if the best psychologist was? What if the best lawyer was?

If we run from interaction with the scholars, then who is going to be the influence on them? Are we going to wind up saying that Christianity has nothing to offer in the marketplace of ideas and that it cannot compete when contemporary scholarship shows up? Are we to say Christianity should be afraid of scholarship?

In saying all of this, I do not think Mike holds the position he does because he wants to be recognized at the table. Quite the contrary. I think he holds the position he does because that is where the evidence leads, and that is what we want in scholarship. We want scholars who will approach the data as fairly as they can and reach the conclusion of truth. We often say we want atheists and agnostics and others to put aside their presuppositions and study Christianity. Should we not do the same?

After all, if we tell them that if you just study it objectively without a naturalistic presupposition, then you will realize Christianity is true, then we should certainly have no qualms about those of us who are Christians being willing to do the same thing. If Christianity is true, then Christians should be able to say “If I approached this issue without my Christian presuppositions, would I reach the same conclusion?”

The reason we could be against such a thing could be that we don’t think the evidence is as strong as it could be. If so, then are we really believing in Christianity the way we should? Are we believing in it because of the evidence or in ignorance of the evidence?

“Indeed, when necessary, we must place Lordship over scholarship (2 Cor. 10:5).”

What does this really mean? How do we place Lordship over scholarship? Is this saying that regardless of what scholarship says, we must remember that unless it agrees with the Lord, it is wrong? Now of course, that is true. If God is the God of all truth and if scholarship disagrees with God, then scholarship is wrong.

The problem is we could be dependent on our presuppositions at that point and not really examining the case. It’s an event where we say that all evidence is admissible into the courtroom, but only on the grounds that the evidence agrees with the conclusion that we’ve already reached.

This is a more fideistic position where we wind up saying “You can keep all your data over there. I’ll have my faith in Jesus Christ over here.” We must not ever divorce the truth of the gospel of Christ from the truth of reality. The gospel is just as real as this keyboard I am using is. That being the case, we should again be willing to look at any “evidence” that comes against it.

When we deal with scholarship, upon what grounds do we do so? We don’t do so in saying something like “I know you have scholarship over there that presents arguments that seem to indicate the Bible is wrong on X, but the Bible is the Word of God and therefore your scholarship is wrong.” This is arguing from the conclusion alone. We must show why the conclusion reached is invalid and we do this by showing that the data is either wrong and/or it is being misunderstood or misinterpreted in some way.

“We do not oppose scholarship, but only scholarship whose presuppositions and methodological procedures are opposed to the Faith once for all committed to the saints.”

But why? I want atheist scholarship to be the best scholarship it can be. I want Muslim scholars to be the best scholars they can be. I want the same for Jewish and Agnostic scholars. I don’t care about their worldview. This is what I care about. What is the argument? What is the data for the argument?

If we say that good scholarship is only scholarship that agrees with Christianity, then we are stacking the deck in our favor. “We will only accept good scholarship and good scholarship is that which already agrees with us.” How can this be seen as an honest interpretation of the data?

When we give our atheist friend a book that reflects Christian scholarship, we again want them to be willing to case aside their presuppositions and just honestly examine the argument and see what is thought of it. Do we wish to be hypocrites when our atheist friends give us books that reflect atheist scholarship? He is to be open-minded with the evidence, but we are to study it from our own presuppositions.

What is to be afraid of? If Christianity is true, it will stand the test of time. It will hold up to any argument against it. It could be at times that we don’t have all the data we need, but we can then show the data is incomplete or poor reasoning. If we think we have enough positive data on our side, I think it’s quite alright to look at a case that seems negative and say “You do have a good argument here, but I have several good arguments here as well. For this negative case, let me just wait a little while and see what new data shows up.” I would not have a problem with an atheist doing the same.

So is Lordship over scholarship? In the sense I mentioned earlier of Christ being Lord of all, yes. In the sense that spirituality wins, no. Let us freely approach the table of academia because we are sure that the Christ who was strong enough to conquer the Roman Empire is also strong enough to handle scholarship.

Is Deeper Waters Mike Licona’s Mouthpiece?

So where does everything on Deeper Waters come from? Let’s find out as we dive into those Deeper Waters.

A lot of people have said that Mike Licona has been awfully quiet in his debate with Norman Geisler and I have been told by some that there is suspicion that what is really happening is that Mike is quiet in public but is instead using my blog as it were as a sort of mouthpiece. How far this goes I am not sure. Does Mike just give me the information? Does he write the posts wholesale? Does he just tell me what topics to write about?

Here’s the answer to those last three questions. No, no, and no.

There is no one in the family that I agree with entirely. That includes my own wife. We have disagreements. No doubt that some will think that Mike is a respected authority in the area, and I do not dispute that. Despite that, there are areas that I do disagree with him on.

When this whole controversy surrounded him erupted, my wife and I were getting ready to see the Liconas for her birthday and when I went down there, Mike and I spent a lot of time discussing the Bible and how to handle this. Mike has come to me to seek my opinion on some matters. There is a mutual respect there.

Why is he quiet in public? It is because this is not a debate he needs to waste his time with. He needs to be preparing for the more important debates and writing more books. This is something that I have said repeatedly that he just needs to leave to J.P. Holding, Max Andrews, and myself. Of course, there are some things he will share and in fact ask me to not share on my blog, and when it comes to that, I do respect his desire for privacy in that area. I often disagree, but I do respect.

If anyone knows me, they probably know that I am too much of a free agent to be one who will just allow someone else to do my thinking for me and to be used in such a way. I would hope that readers would realize that my own writing style come through the blog and when I write on a topic, I write on a topic because I want to write about it. Now that doesn’t mean that no one else has any impact on what I say, but the final decision comes from me.

What do the Liconas know in advance? Hardly anything. In fact, the time that they read the blog is usually about the same time anyone else has the option, and that is after it has been published. Even in this debate, I have not sent my blogs to the Liconas in advance to have them look over it and see if they approve or not. I’ve just written and published.

Now if I thought Mike was in violation of Inerrancy and Geisler was correct, I would be telling him so, but I have made it a point to be as impartial as possible and examine the evidence and when I do, I just conclude that Mike is not violating Inerrancy and I believe that while his view could be wrong, we need to find out if it is wrong, not by simply asserting by authority and pointing to Inerrancy, but by examining the evidence of the claim. I don’t know about you, but for me, if this is what the Bible is teaching I want to know. On this, Mike and I do agree. He wants to know what the Bible teaches as well.

When you read Deeper Waters, you are not reading the opinion necessarily of Mike Licona. It could be that he agrees with what I say here, but it is not because I have written it. He agrees with something because he believes it to be true and if it is true, then it can be said to be his opinion. It is an idea however that exists independently in my own mind and that I put to the text and share to the world. It is my doing my little part for the future of evangelicalism.

Have I realized the risks for me from the beginning of the debate? Yep. I sure have. Once again, I point to what people know about me. If something is going on that I don’t believe is right, I am not one to sit in the background and do nothing.

Also, for those who need more convincing, my in-laws have areas that they disagree with me on and they think I’m wrong on and they have talked to me about those areas. We’ve had some give and take exchanges and there are a number of areas that today, I still don’t agree with them on, and they know it.

Back when we were engaged, I remember my now mother-in-law being with my wife and I and talking about relationships with parents. My mother-in-law told my wife that she had no doubt that whenever push came to shove, I would not hesitate to stand up to parents in defense of my wife. That has happened a number of times. I have even stood up to her parents before if I thought they were in the wrong concerning her and let them know it.

I have no doubt to them that sometimes that’s annoying to have a son-in-law that can do that, but then at the same time, I think it makes them thankful they have a son-in-law who does not just cave in to pressure like that and at the same time is devoted to their daughter and will defend her at any time if I think someone is in the wrong concerning her.

They also know that if I thought that Mike was in the wrong on this, I would be letting him know entirely. That does not mean in the wrong on his interpretation, but it means in the wrong on Inerrancy. His interpretation could very well be wrong, but that does not mean that he is violating Inerrancy. Is his interpretation wrong? I honestly don’t know. I’m open I’ll say at least.

So for now, let this post stand as my statement that what I write is my own thinking. Now some people might think that this too could be a written post of Mike’s to deny the idea, but if they do, let them present their evidence other than a conspiracy theory. If someone wants to believe that, I probably won’t convince them, but for those who want to know for sure, I hope this settles the issue.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Paige Patterson is on the wrong page.

Does Paige Patterson’s opinion carry any weight in the Geisler controversy? Let’s find out as we plunge into Deeper Waters.

Looking at the latest from Geisler today, we see this:

“Let’s be clear. A story, an affirmation, is either true or false, but not both true and false in the same way at the same time. That is a long accepted law of logic, and no amount of fudging can make it change. While I have no reason to question the sincerity of the author and while only God can judge his heart, Southern Baptists paid far too great a price to insist on the truthfulness of God’s Word to now be lured by a fresh emergence of the priesthood of the philosopher, especially when a philosopher raises a question about the truthfulness of Scripture.” (1/9/2012)

Dr. Paige Patterson
President
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Alright. What does Geisler have to say about this?

Thank God for the courage, conviction, and character of the man of God to whom the SBC owes the most for its orthodoxy on inerrancy—Dr. Paige Patterson. I Hope there is a place reserved in Nashville for a bronze statue of him. It is time for other SBC leaders to close ranks on the Licona issue.

Dr. Norman Geisler
Professor of Apologetics
Veritas Evangelical Seminary

When I see this, I think of the scene in “My Fair Lady” when Eliza returns from her successful visit to the royal event and only has her two teachers sitting together congratulating themselves on how well they did. So Geisler has found someone else who agrees with him. Impressive?

Not really.

Let’s see what the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary web site has to say about Patterson.

“A graduate of Hardin-Simmons University, Patterson also completed Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He was twice elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention, serving Southern Baptists in that role from 1998-2000. During those years he appointed a committee to revise the Baptist Faith & Message, the confession most widely employed by Southern Baptists, and also presided over the historic session of the convention in which this revised confession was adopted.”

While these accomplishments can be all well and good, there is a striking omission from it. There is absolutely nothing here about being trained in NT scholarship and exegesis. Being a competent and even skilled theologian and/or philosopher does not make one an expert on NT scholarship and/or biblical exegesis.

For instance, I have had a number of people think that because I’m knowledgeable in an area and seem to be a nerd, I must know computers very well. Not a chance. I have to call someone whenever my computer is on the fritz. When I move somewhere, I have to call someone to hook up my gaming systems and anything else. I even have a problem getting the date on the blog to work. (Which made it all the more laughable when some people thought I produced the Christmas Carol video.)

Having knowledge in one area does not transfer knowledge to another. Nevertheless, let us look and see what Patterson says.

“Let’s be clear. A story, an affirmation, is either true or false, but not both true and false in the same way at the same time. That is a long accepted law of logic, and no amount of fudging can make it change.”

Good. No problem. I agree 100% percent. I’m also wondering what this has to do with the price of tea in China. Can someone tell me where Mike has said that the account of the saints rising is both true and not true in the same time and in the same sense? Has he said the saints both rose and didn’t?

To point to the laws of logic to settle this then is useless. No one is contesting that point.

” While I have no reason to question the sincerity of the author and while only God can judge his heart,”

Please note this language. This is speaking of Mike’s spiritual well-being and I am remembering the line of Francis Beckwith on a technique some Christians use in debate. “If you can’t beat them with logic, trump them with spirituality. Could it be Patterson saw how weak his opening statement was and switched directly to spiritual onslaught mode?

Notice that right off, the idea is that Mike is the one who has a spiritual problem. Of course, in all of this, going after another person’s livelihood and smearing their reputation by calling their orthodoxy into question and using bullying tactics is not a spiritual problem. It’s actually presenting an interpretation of the text that’s different from what we grew up with that’s the problem!

Might I suggest a unique approach to this? How about we actually study Mike’s proposal itself back and forth in a scholarly manner and see how well it holds up.

Oh wait. That was offered and turned down.

And as you should know, it wasn’t Mike who turned down an offer from Geisler to speak at a scholarly conclave. It was the other way around.

This idea of sincerity and God knows his heart is taking the debate somewhere it doesn’t belong. Note also that to say this statement about God knowing the heart automatically I take to mean “Well I think he’s living in rebellion in someway, but God knows his heart.”

“Southern Baptists paid far too great a price to insist on the truthfulness of God’s Word to now be lured by a fresh emergence of the priesthood of the philosopher”

Two mistakes here. First off, the minor one. Mike is not a philosopher. He is a NT scholar. That does not mean he does not have interest in philosophical matters, but he is not a philosopher.

To speak then of the priesthood of the philosopher is getting it wrong and no doubt, pointing back to the priesthood of the believer, but why should every believer have equal authority on what a text means? Should I turn to Mike and say “Yeah. I know you know NT Greek and all that, but I obviously know the text just as well as you do because I’m a Christian.”

No. You know the text by studying the text. The priesthood of the believer does not say anything about the competency of the one exegeting the text. It also gets into this idea that the Holy Spirit is all we need, which in turn I see as an insult to the Holy Spirit. The idea of “I don’t need to study. The Holy Spirit will tell me all I need to know.”

How would that work elsewhere?

“I don’t need to pray. The Holy Spirit expresses Himself with groans and utterances on my behalf.” (Romans 8:26-27)

“I don’t need to confess my sins. Jesus is making intercession for them.”

“I don’t need to study for this test in Seminary. The Holy Spirit will give me the answers.”

“I don’t need to go to church and hear what the preacher has to say. The Holy Spirit will tell me what I need to know.” (Of course, if your pastor has the same mindset, it might serve you well to not go to that church)

“I don’t need to go to the grocery store. The Holy Spirit will provide my daily bread.”

“I don’t need to have a job. The Holy Spirit will make sure I’m provided for.”

Yet somehow, we think biblical exegesis is an exception.

Second part. No one is calling into question the truthfulness of God’s Word. All sides I know of in this debate are saying that they believe that the Bible is without error. Here’s an important difference. If Geisler says “I believe the Bible is without error” Mike says “I think you do believe that. I just think your interpretation of it is wrong.” If Mike says “I believe the Bible is without error” Geisler writes open letters saying his interpretation is a denial. Thus, interpretation is equaling Inerrancy.

“especially when a philosopher raises a question about the truthfulness of Scripture.”

And again, Mike is not doing that. Can someone tell me one time that Mike has said that Scripture is not truthful somewhere? Some of you are ready to jump up and down with the resurrected saints, but Mike is not saying the Bible is not truthful. He’s also not saying God cannot do that. He’s saying that he honestly believes Matthew did not intend for that to be taken in the sense of a straightforward report, but rather was to be read as an apocalyptic account.

So what of what Geisler says?

“Thank God for the courage, conviction, and character of the man of God to whom the SBC owes the most for its orthodoxy on inerrancy—Dr. Paige Patterson.”

Ah yes. What great courage and conviction and character. It takes great courage this day to stand with Norman Geisler after all. Geisler and Patterson both say this with comfortable teaching positions not under attack and while getting to speak at various locations. Meanwhile, Licona and company have job losses, being uninvited from conferences, and I myself being spoken of in a letter from SES on account of a YouTube video.

Let’s say this at least. At least Patterson put his name on it instead of being another “anonymous.”

Now that he has taken that step of courage, let us remember that his great threat that he could receive according to Geisler is “annoyance.”

One side causes the other side to lose income. One side causes the other side to be annoyed.

Which side takes more courage to stand on?

Note something also in all of this. Geisler speaks of this with pride, but what argument did Patterson put forward? None. All he said was that the Law of noncontradiction can’t be violated. Well I seriously doubt that he’s going to find any disagreement here with that! So what’s the point?

“I Hope there is a place reserved in Nashville for a bronze statue of him.”

Oh good grief. It’s not as if we don’t have enough hero worship going on in all of this. When I go to Geisler’s Facebook page, I see too many posters there that I am sure that if Geisler said that the sky is purple and the moon is made of green cheese, that they would immediately be shouting that from the rooftops.

“It is time for other SBC leaders to close ranks on the Licona issue.”

And to what end? What will be accomplished? Inerrancy will be saved? Inerrancy has not been under attack, but the end result of this would be that the sword of bullying is what will win the day rather than the sword of studying the text and doing exegesis.

Note also again, that there is no argument in all of this. This is getting tiring. Max, JPH, and myself all make it a point to write out arguments for why we believe what we believe on this. Do we get refutations? No. We get “Well so and so says Geisler is right!” So because X says Geisler is right, I’m supposed to drop all that I believe and jump on that bandwagon immediately? Sorry.

Also, remember what Geisler said in his third open letter where he responded to the scholars Mike listed?

“Sixth, listing some scholars who agree with him misses the point. First, as he admits, most of them do not agree with his unrecanted in-print view. Further, the fact that they say they are “in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy” misses the point entirely. For it does not answer the question of with whose view of inerrancy it is in agreement? As we all know, the term “inerrancy” can be twisted to mean many things to many people. In my “Open Letter” I affirmed only that Licona’s view was not in agreement with the ETS (of which Licona is a member) view of inerrancy as expressed in the Gundry case. Of course, one can always find a number of people with whose views on inerrancy it is in agreement. But that is not the point.”

The idea of whose view of Inerrancy is indeed the question. Interestingly, Geisler says “One can always find a number of people with whose views on inerrancy it is in agreement. But that is not the point.”

Licona lists thirteen scholars, two of whom are ICBI signers and many of whom are NT scholars. It doesn’t matter. The question is whose view of Inerrancy do they agree with?

Geisler lists Thomas Howe and Paige Patterson who are not NT scholars and we are immediately supposed to surrender.

Apparently, the idea is that the scholars that are mentioned don’t matter, unless those scholars agree with Geisler. It’s an interesting way to play the game. Simply rule out of court as wrong anyone who happens to take the position that is opposite yours and hold up all who agree with you as the real scholars.

Here at Deeper Waters, we don’t play that game. We want to see the arguments and we not only want to see them, we want to see myself, Max, and JPH answered on our counter-arguments.

But we’re not holding our breath for such to happen.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

John’s Changed Day?

If John changed the day that Jesus was crucified on, does this count as a denial of Inerrancy? Let’s find out as we dive into Deeper Waters.

Over on Geisler’s site under the article about how the list is growing of Licona’s denial of Inerrancy, we have the following:

Now it has come to our attention that in a debate with Bart Erhman at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the Spring of 2009 that Licona asserted concerning the day Jesus was crucified that: “I think that John probably altered the day in order for a theological—to make a theological point there. But that does not mean that Jesus wasn’t crucified.” However, it does mean that the Licona believes that text is in error! This is a flat denial of the inerrancy of Scripture!

What are those last two lines?

“However, it does mean that the Licona believes that text is in error! This is a flat denial of the inerrancy of Scripture!”

Does it really?

To begin with, let’s go to the start. What does Licona say? He says that he believed John changed the date. If John changed the date, then that means that he knew what the date was. Licona then says that he believes John changed the date to make a theological point.

Note also then that that means John expects us to recognize the changed date.

If that is the case, then is John knowingly writing error?

No.

Let us consider another example in the gospel of John in comparison to some others. We have in John 2 the scene where Jesus raises a ruckus in the temple. In all the other gospels, this takes place in the Passion week. In this gospel, it takes place at the beginning.

“But Nick! Could it be that it happened twice as some think?”

Could be, but it could just be that John is changing chronology to make a point.

Is that example not good enough? Let’s go to another one then. How about the order of the temptations of Jesus? It would be interesting to see what Geisler has to say about this.

Fortunately, I don’t have to look that far. He and Thomas Howe together wrote a book on biblical contradictions and this is one of the verses they dealt with. (Interestingly, their reference to the question of John only addresses the point of being in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights. It doesn’t address John’s timing.) On page 329 of “When Critics Ask” we read the following:

It may be that Matthew describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climatically, that is, topically. This may be to express the climax he desired to emphasize. Matthew 4:5 begins with the word “then” while verse 8 begins with the word “again.” In Greek, these words suggest a more sequential order of the events. In Luke’s account, however, verses 5 and 9 each begin with a simple “and” (See NASB). The Greek in the case of Luke’s account does not necessarily indicate a sequential order of events. Furthermore, there is no disagreement on the fact that these temptations actually happened.

Wow. So it turns out that it could be the case that for topical reasons, the order of the event was changed, but there’s no disagreement that these temptations happened, and one is still in line with Inerrancy.

Meanwhile, Licona says that for topical reasons, namely a theological point, the known date was changed, but there is no disagreement he was crucified, and this is not in line with Inerrancy?

Now someone will say “But isn’t it obvious that one does not do that when writing history?!”

Well, perhaps if you’re a 21st century American, but this is the great danger with Geisler’s approach. Geisler does not want the cultural context to be part of the interpretation of the passage. What does that mean then? The text might as well have been written in a vacuum, but you can be sure there will be a cultural context that the text is read in, and that is Geisler’s own cultural context.

The great mistake is to assume that the culture of the Bible and the way writings were written was just like ours. It wasn’t. Why should we give our culture precedence anyway? Why not 5th century Japan? Why not 12th century China? Why not 15th century France? Why not 10th century England? Why think the biblical culture was like any culture?

By wanting to avoid culture, one inevitably plugs in their own culture as if something was written without having any input from the surrounding culture, despite the use of words, idioms, and other such things that would been understood by the culture.

This is a view I call Americentrism. It is the belief that everything had in mind a 21st century American audience who thinks like we do and since we tend to be literalists, then the text ought to always be taken literally. Since we write history in a straight chronology, the ancients had to do the same.

For all this talk on literal readings however, literal does not mean what it is assumed to mean but rather it refers to taking it the way the author intended to take it. One can be sure that were the Reformers here today, they would be the ones arguing against Geisler. That does not mean they’d agree with Licona necessarily, but they would say that he needs to be shown to make his case on what the Bible teaches instead of dismissed out of hand.

So if we look at that culture and we find that history did not have to be chronological, we will find no problem. If John changed the date, then we can ask “Why?” Well he changed the date so that Jesus being crucified on Passover would be a theme. “Why that? Passover is the time we offer up a lamb without blemish to celebrate our freedom from slavery…..oh!”

There is no disagreement that this is what the gospel writers thought about Jesus. Now does that mean I entirely agree with Licona’s perspective? Not yet. I haven’t studied the issue enough to form a certain judgment.

I can also assure anyone that if Licona receives a better interpretation that fits the data, he will be one who can happily accept it. The point I wish to establish is that this does not mean that one is denying Inerrancy since this is a known change and the audience would know that John had set it at this date not to give a chronological account, but to give a thematic approach.

Perhaps some people out there need to take off the Americentric glasses.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

My Personal Confrontation

Geisler says someone personally confronted me on the video? Did they? Well let’s see today as we enter Deeper Waters.

Let’s look at the charge first:

“As a graduate of the seminary, and fellow brother in Christ, I want to inform you of a slanderous video by current SES student [name] on the internet against SES co-founder Dr, Geisler…. I am actually ashamed, saddened and embarrassed by this type of activity on [name] part. I know that I and numerous people have personally confronted [name] about such behavior and he refuses to listen.” —Southern Evangelical Seminary [SES] graduate

It would be nice to know when this happened. Unfortunately, the name has been taken down because someone might be “annoyed” so I cannot face my accuser. However, speaking as the one accused here, let’s see what happened.

First off, I did put up the link on my Facebook page. I figured the video would pop up sooner or later, so I might as well get it over with. A number of people were talking about it back and forth on my page and discussing the issues. Note this. I do not consider someone else posting on my Facebook as personally confronting me. I did not even participate in the thread at all after I got it started.

I did talk to one person on the phone and we had an agreeable conversation. He still does not like the video, but as far as I know, realizes the reasons why I do what I do and handle things the way that I handle them. Thus far on the count, we have one possible person who could have been said to have confronted me. As far as I know however, he is not a graduate of SES.

There is only one other person I can think of who called and he wished to express his concern for me in this activity and we talked back and forth about it some to which I said that I would be glad to set up an email chain between him, myself, and my ministry partner so we could discuss the issues. I do not see how it can be that a discussion of the issues means I am refusing to listen, unless the idea of refusing to listen means “I will not do what you say immediately!”

If that is what is meant, then no. I wouldn’t. I don’t believe in a knee-jerk reaction like that. We have seen in this debate what happens at times when that takes place.

However, this is also just one person then in that case and that is a highly skeptical case. This one is claiming that not only this person, but several others have confronted me on the issue. The reality is that this has not taken place.

What am I to conclude from that? Either Geisler put up information knowing to be false, or someone in support of Geisler knowingly said something untrue in order to further bring about their case. Either one of those is not a good option. Now do I understand that people have their concerns? Yes. I certainly do. I meanwhile have expressed my concerns about actions that have been done to Mike Licona and that I and others have felt the sting of as a result.

I also know that it seems several came out to condemn the video when it was made, but it seems there is no hint of repentance whatsoever from the other side on actions that endangered a man’s livelihood and ability to bring home a paycheck as well as his reputation in the Christian community. Even more concerning is the impact that this will have on Evangelicalism in America as a whole if this kind of mindset continues.

Thus, I conclude that this charge is just blowing smoke and if that is the case, then I wonder how many others could be blowing smoke as well?

But with just anonymous sources, who can say?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Response to Paul

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I’m going to continue our look at the Inerrancy debate with a personal appeal from my friend Paul and what he fears is going on in this matter. For that, let me give a little background.

Paul and I met in 2001 at Johnson Bible College. I was a student there and in my Western Civilization class had raised my hand to speak out against JEPD theory and in the midst of that quoted Ravi Zacharias. This caught Paul’s eye who was in that class and he came up to me and asked me if I knew about the Apologetics Conference and about SES.

You mean you can go to school for this? There’s a conference about this?

I had no idea and I was sold from that point on. That year, I went to my first apologetics conference with him and a couple of other guys. I think I ended up spending around $400 in the book store.

Paul graduated before I and went on to SES. I soon followed. When my roommate and I moved in, he was the one who came over and helped us, seeing as we didn’t know anyone else in town. When he left to get a job in another state as a youth minister, he simply asked that SES take care of me.

Recently also, Paul found out that one of his sons has autism, which I thought was an interesting turn of events seeing as my wife and I are both Aspies, and Paul has begun doing more study on the topic of autism. Allie and I have been a great resource for him.

And to his credit, Paul is the only one I know who supports Geisler, but seems willing to reach out. I hope something good comes of that. Unfortunately, I have seen a number of friends cut me off because I do not support Geisler and I am arguing against his claims. While on Facebook thus far, I have not blocked anyone over this, but I have been blocked.

As for those who have done such to me, my wife and I still pray for God’s blessing on them everyday, and in a number of ways I have a great concern for them.

Having given a good introduction, now I will look at what Paul says.

I am a Norman Geisler fan. He is a godly man who has worked tirelessly for more than half a century. He is a man of integrity and a defender of the faith.

Probably a year ago, I would have said the same thing. However, from what I have seen in the past few months, I could no longer say any of this. I have talked to others who have had a similar problem with Geisler and too many people who I think could not just have a grudge. I have heard the people I consider to be some of the kindest in the world speak out on the nature of Geisler and have heard about the damage that has been done elsewhere, this from persons I trust highly.

As for Geisler being a defender of the faith, unfortunately it seems to also be more focused on his personal view on how the faith should be. When Mike told me his interpretation of Matthew 27 even before the book came out, I considered it an interesting idea worthy of further study. Never once would I have thought it was a denial of Inerrancy.

Here’s a simple way to look at it. Mike believes what he believes because he believes that is what the text actually teaches. How is it that he can be denying Inerrancy when he’s just saying “I want to believe what it is that I see the Bible teaching?” It seems the reply is “No. You must see what we say the Bible is teaching.”

If you want to know why Mike has not changed his mind, it’s for a simple reason. The evidence is not convincing. This is a man who got a book on the sighting of comets in the ancient world and having all of them catalogued just to better understand the phenomena described in the text. His reading of Greco-Roman biographies was to further understand the way the gospels were written.

Some out there unfortunately seem to panic at the thought of something outside of the text influencing how we read the text. Unfortunately, there is something that does that for all of us. It’s our surrounding culture. For instance, I can go to you and say a sentence and you can wonder what I’m talking about. I can then go to a really good friend and say the same thing to have him bust out laughing. Why? He knows a surrounding context to the text that you don’t know.

Lately, I’ve been reading some of the material of Ken Bailey. I find it fascinating the way he talks about how an understanding of Middle Eastern culture can help us with the text. The text was written in that climate and there was no need to explain the ins and outs of that culture to the listeners. They knew it already. They lived it. However, for those who do not, we can fail to notice several clues that we would not know about by studying the culture.

Let’s consider what’s called the parable of the Prodigal Son. Do we see anything in the Bible that says that in the ancient world, it was shameful for a man to run? No. However, it was, and then when we see the father running to meet the son, we understand that this father is breaching social etiquette out of extreme love for his son.

We get that from the surrounding culture. Archaeology is another example of this seeing as archaeological findings have helped us understand Bible passages. For instance, why is Daniel offered the third-highest position in the kingdom in Daniel 5? Well now we know. Archaeology has shown that Bel didn’t have it to give to Daniel. He was a co-regent at the time and so Daniel would have had the highest position Daniel could offer.

This is not to deny that the basic message of the Bible can be understood without help from the outside culture, but it is to say let’s get past the allergy idea of using information outside the text to teach us what the text means. In fact, if any of you have code messages that you use with your spouse, you should know about this.

I am a Mike Licona fan. I appreciate his eagerness to defend the Christian faith and his extensive research on the resurrection. Although I did not have the opportunity to study under him, his students speak very highly of him.

Keep this in mind everyone. Mike is defending the resurrection. Remember that? It’s the central doctrine of the Christian faith. Mike has written the best tour de force out there on the topic, as even said at SBL with N.T. Wright present. That is a strong position of orthodoxy, and yet so many people seem willing to say that Mike is trying to discount the supernatural or that he’s wanting to water down the gospel or that he thinks we can’t trust the Bible.

Yes. I have seen each of these said.

The Geisler-Licona debate has been a hot topic in the blogosphere lately. Nick Peters has devoted a number of discussions on this issue. I am a Nick Peters fan. I met Nick at Johnson University over a decade ago. He is a brilliant young man who will no doubt play an influential role in Christian apologetics. He and his wife Allie have also been very encouraging to our family.

I quote this only to say that Paul sees me as a friend. For those in the Geisler camp who might want to discount me due to my relation with Mike, I think Paul would say “Don’t do it. If he argues for a position, it is because he believes it.”

I am also a Christian apologetics fan. I am a Jesus fan. As such, it is difficult to watch the Geisler-Licona debate continue much longer. I would like to see Geisler and Licona continue to discuss the issue, as I believe it is an important topic. I’m not convinced either Geisler or Licona is guilty of any wrongdoing regarding the presentation of the arguments. Both men are standing firm to a position for which they have great conviction. This is honorable.

I am convinced however that Geisler is guilty not just in how he presented his arguments, but in what he’s done outside of this.

Here is what Geisler has done in the issue.

He has issued a petition behind the scenes for people to vote on about whether Mike is violating Inerrancy or not.

He has been instrumental in causing Mike to lose a job twice, including personally contacting people to warn them about Mike.

He has caused further financial loss to Mike by getting him uninvited from speaking engagements and has done the same to two supporters, Paul Copan and Gary Habermas.

As Max Andrews has demonstrated, he has misrepresented Mike’s position as well.

He has refused to meet with a scholarly conclave to discuss the idea.

His actions have caused great psychological stress to the families involved.

He’s also played a heavy hand at SES which he left and now wishes to use, just as is the case with ETS.

He has caused a number of people to say they don’t want to join ETS now because they don’t want to be a victim.

He has caused us to be a topic of derision by atheists on the internet who are now saying that Christian scholars can’t be objective because they must toe the line.

This is just a start in fact. I think before too long, we’ll be seeing more results from what has happened.

Now let’s look at what Mike has done.

Mike has offered to meet Geisler to discuss the matter with witnesses. This was not accepted.

Mike gave a paper at EPS to defend his views. Geisler called what he did unscholarly.

Mike went on some podcasts to share his views. Geisler condemned this despite open letters. What’s the big deal however in Mike speaking on an issue when his views are already public and some shows want to know what is going on?

You can hardly find anything posted against Geisler by Mike on Geisler’s Facebook page. Compare this to Geisler’s page. More than half of the most recent posts by Geisler of the most recent 20 have been statements concerning Mike.

I just went to Mike’s Facebook page even. I clicked on News. What did I find about Geisler on there? Absolutely nothing. I then clicked “Articles” and found the EPS paper. Had I not been looking for it, I would not have known about it from the home page.

Meanwhile, I go to Geisler’s page. What do I see? Advertisements about his book “Defending Inerrancy” and to the right of that, an article by Thomas Howe on Licona’s denial of Inerrancy and an outpouring of support for Geisler after the “Pro Licona Attack.” I also find a link to Licona info with twelve articles on it. You’d think Mike Licona was the greatest threat to the Christian faith!

Someone can say “Well Mike hasn’t condemned the attack cartoon!”

Well seriously, why should he?

It’s amazing that this is considered an attack on Geisler when in fact, Mike has been the one who’s suffered repeatedly. Then Geisler gets a little pressure applied to him and expects Mike to condemn the cartoon based on his say-so. Sorry, but the cartoon was quite accurate in what it depicted. JPH documented all the events that he spoke about in that and the responses have been ludicrous. Some people actually think we’re encouraging physical attack on Geisler?

It’s amazing that no one blinked with what Geisler was doing to Mike and is still doing, but now that a cartoon has come out, everyone is speaking about something being offensive.

And I thought Christians were better than the tolerance crowd.

And frankly, if some people can’t take a cartoon, I wonder how they’ll handle it when real persecution shows up. It would benefit Geisler to realize that the reason evangelicals are laughing is that they think the depiction of it is quite accurate. Geisler can say it isn’t, but he needs to tell the rest of the world why it isn’t and stop and consider why so many do think that it is. Could they be seeing any evidence of this?

What concerns me the most is what has recently occurred in the blogosphere. It is heartbreaking to read some of the posts by my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Many of these posts originate from various sites devoted to apologetics. These sites are filled with so many quality discussions on a wide range of topics. However, the language in this debate has become brutal. This needs to end. Of course, I realize that my plea may be met with the same sort of harsh criticism directed towards me for making this request. If so, it’s a favor I won’t return.

Here, I am concerned that there is worry about brutal language but not brutal actions. Take a look again at all that Geisler has done to Mike and we’re supposed to say nothing, but when it comes to language that could hurt Geisler, we are to stop it immediately?

In fact, I don’t think much of what has been said has been severe. For instance, I do not support the action of someone who just said “Shut up already, you old pig.” Do I wish Geisler would be quiet about this issue and drop it? Yes. Do I understand the sentiments that were expressed? Yes. However, we need to also make our statements with arguments. Those who saw the cartoon often talk about it being disrespectful, but the oddity is they never seem to explain how it is.

I’m not opposed to the use of strong language, but I am opposed to it when there is no argument backing it. In fact, this time for me has been a time in the study of forgiveness. What does it mean to show to my family around me how someone handles a tough challenge? How does one deal with what seems like personal betrayal? How do you have an attitude of forgiveness in case someone repents? How do you learn to not hold a grudge.

What I am most concerned with what I see in the blogosphere is unthinking. Now someone has complained that the Geisler video made some people look like drones. In all honesty, when I go to the Geisler Facebook page, a lot of people do a really good job of demonstrating that. For some, it’s simply the case of “Geisler has spoken. The case is closed.”

I honestly wonder if some might take the Mormon hymn of “Praise to the Man” and simply change it from Joseph Smith to Geisler.

In fact, I have a difficulty in some ways with Paul saying he is my fan. I often realize the position that I hold and a lot of people will take what I say very seriously and think “I want you to really study what I tell you.” I often do this trick at work where if someone tells me their birthday, I can tell them what day of the week they were born on. So many customers upon seeing this say “I believe you!” I don’t like that. I want them to check me first. Make sure what I’m saying is true instead of just being willing to believe me immediately.

I fear when I go to Geisler’s page, I see a lot of “yes men.” These are the ones that think “Well Geisler said this in response and that settles the issue.” That is not a position that should be given to any man save Jesus Christ. It should not be given to Geisler. It should not be given to Mike. It should not be given to me. I understand Paul is not doing this with either of us, but are we in danger of following another man instead of Jesus? Do we not remember 1 Corinthians? “I follow Paul. I follow Apollos. I follow Cephas.” It should be for all of us “I follow Christ.” Oh we’d all say we do, but are we following Christ but necessarily through the lens of a mortal man?

Here is my plea to my brothers and sisters in the Christian blogosphere – stop the personal attacks. If you would like to discuss the subject of inerrancy, please continue to do so. However, we must not tolerate the personal attacks. The “[so and so] started it first” argument didn’t work for me in first grade, nor should it be a valid excuse now. Just as I would not tolerate personal attacks against any of you, I can’t tolerate personal attacks against either Geisler or Licona. I urge you to commit to speaking only against a position not a person in this matter.

The reason there is speaking against Geisler in this matter is because he has moved this beyond the arguments by targeting Mike and his family financially. If we want the personal attacks to end, then Geisler needs to also stop playing the role of the bully, which he is now.

If we are to condemn “personal attacks” should we not condemn the cutting off of a man’s income and the targeting of his friends who support him? Paul Copan has said there are some evangelical scholars who want to speak out, but don’t for fear of being the next target. Why should anyone hold this power in the church today? If there is one thing that definitely needs to be done, it is that the evangelical community forms a union in such a way that no one person can have as much influence as this.

When I’ve seen all that Mike has gone through and the effects of that, and there are things we know about happening that we haven’t even shared, to say that a cartoon is offensive rings hollow. In fact, Geisler omits names to protect from annoyance. Yes. That’s right everyone. Mike and friends have had their reputation called into question, been uninvited from conferences, and Mike has suffered loss of income.

Geisler’s followers are in danger of being “annoyed” supposedly.

Keep in mind also, the list of scholars that stood in favor of Mike has been taken down in several places because some of those scholars have been targeted now and some realized their jobs were on the line. There were some who weren’t included to begin with for fear they’d lose their jobs.

Losing income vs. “being annoyed.”

Obvious one-to-one parallel there.

If there are any wrongs that need to be made right between Geisler and Licona, allow them to work it out. If we continue to stir things up in the blogosphere, we can be sure the tone will only get worse. It will distract others from a much more important Message.

It’s been tried, and it has not happened. Mike wants to meet, but only with witnesses. Who can blame him? (Well, apparently some in the Geisler camp can) Why do some of us write? Not to convince Geisler. We’re sure he won’t be. It’s the same reason William Lane Craig debates atheists. It is not to convince the atheist, but to convince the audience.

If I were to convince the audience here of anything, it would not be first off that my father-in-law is not violating Inerrancy. In fact, if you want to think that he is, that’s wrong entirely, but at that level, I’m not really going to complain. I could just see you as a hyper-fundamentalist type, but oh well. I see those often.

I would say instead to take a stand against bullying like this. Look at what I have said has happened to Mike and what could happen to anyone in the evangelical community who does not toe the line. Is this the way we want evangelicalism to continue? Do we want inquisitions like this to happen? We can settle the matter on Inerrancy later of course, but must it involve damaging the well-being of one in the body who has provided an outstanding service to the Christian community in giving a tour de force on the resurrection?

Now if you think Mike has been nasty himself, show where. I have pointed out my qualms with what Geisler has done, but I fear many are like a commenter on my blog here who saw nothing wrong with any of that, and if you are one of those, then I can just pray for you.

I agree it’s time to end, and I think it’s time for some to stand up and say wrong actions are wrong actions.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Addendum: I do wish to add that Win Corduan has been kind to my wife and I in all of this even stating there was no justification for the one who referred to Mike as a demon even. This slipped my mind at the time and my apologies to Dr. Corduan.

Geisler and the In-Laws

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Last night, I wrote about my personal involvement in the Geisler’s Christmas Carol video. I do appreciate my in-laws taking the time to comment last night and thus, one can see that they have no problem with the video. It is amazing that after all that Geisler has done to us, that he expects us to take down the video and to apologize.

However, Geisler did put up another response today. Apparently, someone has been reading my blog and wasn’t too happy that my in-laws both commented and spoke about how proud they are to have me as a son-in-law, something I take great delight in, and their hopes for the future.

Yes. Terrible things to say about family after all. Apparently, Geisler would have preferred that I be told to never do such again.

Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. Let’s remember what it is that we have all seen happen in this. We’ll use the letter from the SES president as a start to this that Geisler refers to.

“It has come to the attention of the President of SES that a student has made a video about the controversy between Dr. Licona and Dr. Geisler. We believe this video was totally unnecessary and is in extremely poor taste. At SES we demand a high standard of conduct in the way we interact with others. Whenever there is a disagreement on any issue, there is a respectful way to handle it. As Christians, as brothers in Christ, there are occasions when we may have differences, but as members of one Body, we need to resolve our differences according to Scripture. Publically embarrassing anybody is totally unacceptable….” (emphasis is added in all these quotations). — Acting President of Southern Evangelical Seminary

First off, the report wasn’t checked too well. Anyone could have spent a few minutes researching the issue and seen that I did not make the video. In fact, no one at all contacted me and asked if I made the video. No one contacted J.P. Holding, who did make the video, and asked if he made the video. Instead, what we got was just an immediate response that did not bother to examine the case.

The video was unnecessary and in extremely poor taste? So let’s see what charges are not unnecessary and not in extremely poor taste.

Making a man lose his source of income twice.
Damaging his reputation by saying he’s denying Inerrancy.
Calling other Seminaries and telling them to not support him.
Sending a petition behind the scenes to have it shown that he is denying Inerrancy.
Putting psychological stress on all families involved.
Cutting off income that could be used to support others who are also struggling in this economy.
Uninviting him and his friends from speaking at conferences.
Devoting practically one’s whole home page to attacking someone for one section in a book.
Refusing to meet someone at a scholarly conference to discuss your accusations against him.

Apparently then, none of these are unnecessary and in extremely poor taste, but to make a video about someone is.

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument it was. What should have been Geisler’s response? Ignore it. I’ve had atheists say far worse things to me on the internet and I have just laughed about it. Instead, an issue was made over it. Could it be Geisler himself put on the pressure on SES to send out this memo and then points to the memo to demonstrate his point?

Next, we are told there is a respectful way to handle disagreement.

See the above list. I suppose sending out open letters against someone is a respectful way. If there is anything that has not been respectful, it has been Geisler’s treatment of an evangelical champion that just wrote a monumental work defending the central truth of the Christian faith.

As C. Michael Patton said, Geisler and Mohler should have sent twenty letters of commendation before sending one letter of condemnation. This might sound like a shock, but we are to make people disciples of the resurrected Christ and not of Inerrancy. I’m not opposed to Inerrancy, but it seems that priorities are out of sync here.

Over and over, it seems however in this debate that Geisler can run roughshod over Mike and do whatever he wants, but as soon as something ruffles Geisler’s feathers, that is unacceptable. For all the talk of what needs to be condemned, I would love to see someone from the Geisler camp come out and be willing to even say “I agree with Geisler that Mike is violating Inerrancy and needs to change his view, but I disagree in the techniques of using open letters and petitions behind the scenes and think that Geisler has not handled this in a Christlike manner and needs to apologize publicly.”

Anybody else hear crickets chirping at that?

What do we see said in response?

Dr. Geisler has written a personal appeal to Mike Licona asking him to condemn the video and restrict the discussion to the theological issues involved, rather than approving of demeaning attacks on the character of other scholars who are seriously attempting to defend the inerrancy of Scripture. Pray that he has a change of heart.

Meanwhile, I have my own personal appeal. I believe that we should have had a scholarly debate at the start, but that option went out immediately and it certainly wasn’t because of Mike. I believe it’s wrong to cut off someone’s income for something like this, to damage their reputation, to have their orthodoxy questioned, to send petitions behind the scenes, etc.

I call for such bullying behavior to be condemned.

In fact, our requests to have the video taken down were clearly pointed out in the blog, but they have gone unnoticed.

“Pray that Mike has a change of heart.”

It’s so ironic Geisler says this when it quite exemplifies the attitude given in the video of Mike being kicked out the door and told “I’m just doing this because I love you brother.”

No. The change of heart is on the side that’s going after Mike and his reputation, family, and income. In fact, my wife and I have prayed for this regularly. What has happened to us has been a hurtful and betraying time, but it seems that those in the Geisler camp are sadly blind to the effect that Geisler is having in the evangelical world with this.

By the way, Geisler in all of this does not name me or give a reference to my blog where people can see that I put up counter-arguments or that Max Andrews has them or that J.P. Holding has them. Keep in mind this is being done while saying that Mike should be reading the critiques of his opponents. Looks like that rule doesn’t go both ways.

Rest assured, I will not be doing the same thing. I will most certainly be putting up a link to what Geisler has said.

I also call other evangelicals to this. I don’t really care at this point if you think Geisler is right or if you think Mike is right or if you just don’t know. What I ask at this point is let the bullying stop. Do we want to settle this issue? Then have another meeting where both sides can argue their position in a scholarly manner before other scholars.

The open letters should never have happened, but it was Geisler who opened Pandora’s Box. It does no good now for him to complain because he doesn’t like the results of that action.

Finally, let me say this about my family. My father-in-law in all of this has not to my memory said one remark that I would really consider insulting of Geisler at all. He has been very easygoing in all of this and has said publicly on Facebook that if Geisler just apologized to him, he would hug him and act like nothing happened. However, he does think that Geisler’s approach is harmful to the evangelical movement as do I.

If Geisler has further problems with the video, he is absolutely free as well to contact my ministry partner and complain to him about it. Why has this not been done? My ministry partner also has a debate challenge up for Geisler on whether the gospels are Greco-Roman biographies or not. That link will be included at the end.

What will it take to get all of this to end? Does Licona have to agree with Geisler even though he doesn’t see the evidence? Does everyone else have to be shut down, and does that include myself? What will it take?

It could all end with a simple act of repentance on Geisler’s part, but most of us sure aren’t expecting that to happen.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Geisler’s Website can be found here where there is a link to his statement on my father-in-law’s words.

J.P. Holding’s challenge can be found here.

Christmas Carol Chaos

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I certainly hope that you all have had a very Merry Christmas. My wife and I had a great time with my folks and we have a lot of important decisions ahead of us so please be praying for us in this. For now, I think it’s time that I spoke on the latest goings on in the Geisler controversy.

A large part of it came with the release of Geisler’s Christmas Carol, hence the name of the blog. I will put a link to the video below.

My thinking was people would find out about the video before too long on their own so I might as well release the news. Thus, I went to my Facebook and posted a link to the video for people to see. What a surprise I had when it turns out that people were saying that I produced the video.

My wife would tell you that I could not even draw a stick man.

Anyone else could tell you that I constantly have to call anyone I can to help me with really technical things on the computer. I don’t know how many of you have told me to fix the date set-up on the blogs. I can’t figure out how to do that kind of thing.

But I’m supposed to have produced the video….

Now did I do voice work on this? Yep. So did my wife. That’s about all that we do in these videos. My ministry partner, J.P. Holding of Tektonics produced it.

The rumor was spread, despite evidence to the contrary that anyone who watched the whole video could have seen, with a letter coming out from a president of SES saying that a student had produced a video. It is incredible that this conclusion was reached since it is directly said to be a work of Tektonics ministries. For those interested, Holding’s response to this will also be seen at the bottom.

Consider me also quite a bit irritated at the thought that what has been done in this cartoon is considered unnecessary and offensive and it needs to be taken down. Let’s see. My father-in-law has lost two jobs, been put in a hard financial situation that affects my wife and I as well with our already poor finances, had his wife and mine gone through considerable stress over this, has been uninvited from speaking engagements along with his friends that have supported him, been the object of phone calls to Seminary presidents warning about him, had his reputation smeared on the net by the Geisler camp, and had a petition going around behind the scenes claiming that he is out of line and his methodology is unorthodox and that he’s denying Inerrancy.

All that is okay, but putting together a little satirical video is not.

What reason are we given? Some people find it offensive! No doubt, these people think it was probably ridiculous how Muslims went on a rampage over a cartoon. No doubt, several of these people do not hesitate to pass around political cartoons going after a candidate they don’t like. These people would normally also encourage us to learn to be willing to take a stand for Christ and that we need to get out of the tolerance trap that we should not say something just because it offends someone.

What’s offensive about it? Who knows.

Seriously. Who knows? We’re just not told. We’re just told that it is. Now is it sarcastic? Yep. Is it satirical? Yep. Nothing wrong with that either. Both methods were used in Scripture.

Interestingly, when Geisler writes about this in his letters, he writes about Mike’s son-in-law and friend. Geisler goes out of his way to not even mention me by name nor to mention my ministry partner by name. He should know my ministry partner’s name however. After all, it was the person who’s challenged was deleted from Geisler’s Facebook page.

Geisler has also complained that Mike Licona has not stopped his son-in-law, being myself, and others from writing on this on the net. Well sorry, but if you open Pandora’s Box, you have to deal with the consequences. If you don’t want this talked about publicly, then don’t make it public. Had this been settled in the scholarly venue like Mike had suggested, none of this would have happened.

And believe it or not, Mike did do something of trusting me with his daughter so maybe it could be that he actually trusts my judgment in the area of writing and thinks that I’m big enough to think for myself and write for myself and he will not force me to do something. Of course, he is my father-in-law and we do discuss matters sometime, but I get nothing but respect from him as I hope he gets from me. He also realizes that I can argue on my own.

Now some of you might be saying “Well Nick, maybe Geisler just doesn’t know who you are so that’s why he says son-in-law over and over.” Nice try, but no. Geisler knows me. I was one of his students in his classroom, he was present when I spoke at ISCA, he received an invitation to our wedding, he was one of the first people my wife and I saw when we returned from the time at Christmas when I proposed to her, and he and his wife have had dinner with us even since we’ve been married.

Could it be that if my name is mentioned, that could get someone to look me up and if they look me up, they’ll find that in fact, my blog is loaded with counter-arguments to Geisler’s position?

It seems Geisler has availed himself of some resources, such as his statement that he knows that Mike said on a podcast that he has not read Geisler’s critiques. Well who can blame him? What some of us have noticed is that when you read one, you’ve read them all. They all run the same and after awhile, it gets to the point where anyone could write a Licona Letter.

Sorry, but Mike has been busy with other important tasks. You know, tasks like starting a ministry, finding support for it, and studying for debates. These are the kinds of things that you tend to have to do when you’re unemployed because the activities of someone has caused you to lose your job.

However, in spite of Geisler listening to this, he still says that on page 306 of Mike’s book, Mike denies that the guards fell back. No. He doesn’t. He says that in looking for embellishments, that text is brought forward. He admits for the sake of argument that it could be an embellishment. In the podcast however, Mike does state that he does not believe the New Testament has embellishments.

It’s Geisler getting that wrong that is even making me have this question in my mind. Has Geisler even read Mike’s book? I’m really no longer sure that he has.

Geisler also states that Mike denies that the angels appeared at the tomb. Where does he do this? Once again, I wonder why I should trust Geisler’s interpretation of the Bible when he can’t seem to interpret contemporary texts correctly, not to mention that he can’t seem to interpret a video.

As for the event in John, what’s the big deal? If John knew the correct date and his audience knew that he knew it and he was making a point by altering chronology, it is not lying. Some say he could have done the same with putting the temple cleansing at the start of the gospel. I wonder if the Geisler camp can tell me in what order the temptations of Jesus took place.

Let us look however at the reasons that have been given to condemn the Christmas Carol video. (All the while, Geisler’s actions have not been condemned. It is quite remarkable.)

To begin with, the one with the video doesn’t even know if an SES student produced the video. Basic fact-checking would have explained that. However, what’s his first reason?

#1-Dickens’s work was used in a disrespectful way.

Reason being? Who knows! We’re not given it. The Christmas Carol has been redone over and over again. I’ve considered before trying to count how many variations of it there are. In Max Andrews’s excellent response, he asks how they would respond to the Muppet’s Christmas Carol.

The second is that Geisler deserves respect. Well respect is earned. It is also lost. Geisler apparently can treat Mike any way he wants to and that’s okay, but if we do something “disrespectful” that’s a no-no.

Third is that it’s sarcastic and puts words in Geisler’s mouth. Sarcastic? You bet. That’s the point. As for putting words in the mouth of Geisler, all that is said is documented on the video description. Which part has not been presented accurately?

Fourth is about Geisler’s followers being clones. The sad reality is that if you go to Geisler’s Facebook page, you can find that over and over, people tend to just quote Geisler’s writings as if that’s enough and none of us have read them. I’m not saying all are like that, but there are a sizable number who are unfortunately.

Fifth, the video is accused of mocking Inerrancy. Not for a second. JPH and I both hold seriously to Inerrancy.

Sixth, the video is actually threatening to take physical action against Geisler.

Oh come on! Anyone who saw me could tell you that I’m not capable of any kind of real physical attack and to think that a snowball in the face means we okay the use of physical force is ridiculous! (Apparently however, this viewer of the video could figure out authorial intent. Perhaps only those in the Geisler camp can know authorial intent.)

It is even more ludicrous in light of the fact that we on the Licona side have had to generally keep silent for a long time because of the fear of what would happen to us. Why are so many evangelicals not speaking out on this issue? They don’t want to be on the receiving end of Geisler. Who really fears being on the receiving end of team Licona? What great action have we taken to people that would make them afraid to stand against us?

In fact, it is quite ironic that the complaint is made about an attack on Geisler (In fact, Geisler’s description of the video calls it an attack on him) while Geisler has endorsements from someone who says the student who made the video should be dismissed from the college.

Note also someone even reported the video. Oh my. YouTube would be busy all day if they had to respond to all complaints like that.

By the way, who are these people?

We don’t know. They could be anyone. They won’t identify themselves but the fact that some nameless people we don’t know don’t really like a video is enough reason to take it down.

Geisler also complains that Mike has not condemned the video.

To that, all we can say is JPH is responsible for the video and he has been fair and given actions that he will accept as enough to take down the video. They can be found below.

Where will this all lead? Who knows again? What is hoped to be accomplished? One would hope that Geisler will read the comments being raised on the net. People are asking if Geisler has a mental illness of some sort. Some have questioned his salvation. Some people are wondering if Geisler is just doing this to promote his latest book coming out. I’m not saying any of these are true, but that they are being raised should be enough to make one think they should be changing their stance.

What can we do? Pray for the good of evangelicalism and do our part. I believe it’s time to revisit Inerrancy as I think the version there is now has been too corrupted by this and I fear the deck had been stacked for a certain view when the statement was being written. We cannot have a free discussion when one man can point to his interpretation of the document alone. We need to have several men being able to state what it says regularly.

Hopefully this is all coming to a close soon. It could get worse before it gets better, but we urge Geisler to put an end himself to what he’s doing. Admit that this has gone on too long and that great harm has happened to the body and to various persons in that body.

Do I think that that will happen? Sadly, no. Until this ends however, I plan to keep my pace going and continue making my stand. I ask for your prayers and support for my wife and I as I continue to do so.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Geisler’s Christmas Carol – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSMEsQkoH3A&feature=g-u&context=G25c7cd8FUAAAAAAADAA

J.P. Holding’s response – http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2011/12/scrooges-christmas-eve-gift.html

Support Mike’s ministry at RisenJesus.com.

The podcast of Mike Licona on the Theopologetics program can be found here: http://theopologetics.blogspot.com/2011/12/episode-69-when-saints-go-marching-in.html

Max Andrews’s reply can be found here: http://sententias.org/2011/12/26/auctoritas-a-response-to-the-geisler-controversy/

What it will take to take down the video: — http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2011/12/geislers-demand.html

Embellishments and Legends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what about the above quotes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well what if the universe is eternal?

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

What if there’s a multi-verse?

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

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

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

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

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

We shall continue next time.

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

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.