inerrancy Archives - Page 7 of 13

Deeper Waters Podcast: 4/26/2014 — Craig Blomberg.

What’s coming up on Saturday’s episode of the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

First off, due to a scheduling need of my guest, our episode will air a little bit later this Saturday. Instead of the traditional time of 3-5 PM EST, we will do the show from 4-6 PM EST.

So now, let’s get to the heart of the matter. What’s coming up?

Well I have as a return guest someone who has come to be an arch-heretic (if you believe certain parties heavily pushing an anti-intellectual view of Inerrancy) in the media. That is Craig Blomberg who will be back again to discuss his recent excellent book, “Can We Still Believe The Bible?” So who is Craig Blomberg? According to his bio:

“Dr. Craig Blomberg is Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary in Littleton, Colorado. He holds the B.A. from Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, the M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and the Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

Craig is the author of twelve books and has co-authored or co-edited seven more, along with dozens of journal articles and chapters in multi-author works. His books include three on the historical reliability and interpretation of the gospels (one specializing in John), two on interpreting and preaching the parables, three commentaries (on Matthew, 1 Corinthians and James), a textbook on Jesus and the Gospels and another on Acts through Revelation, and two books on material possessions in the Bible.

On Sunday mornings Craig regularly preaches and teaches in a variety of churches. On Sunday evenings, he attends and is part of the leadership team of Scum of the Earth Church in urban Denver, an outreach ministry to “the right-brained and left out” young adults of the metro area.

Craig’s wife, Fran, is currently adjunct professor of Intercultural Ministries at Denver Seminary and is pursuing her Ph.D in Missiology through the International Baptist Seminary in Prague. Craig and Fran have two daughters: Elizabeth (Little), who is married and is employed as a lay student worker at her Methodist Church in Canterbury, England; and Rachel, who is majoring in biochemistry at the University of Rochester, New York.”

Despite what his critics think, I find Blomberg’s book to be incredibly helpful and for those who were listening last Saturday, keep in mind that Daniel Wallace as well spoke highly of Blomberg. Blomberg’s book covers the areas of the text of the Bible, the canon of Scripture, the problems of translation, the issue of Inerrancy, questions about genre consideration, and finally miracles. All of these are incredibly relevant to our culture today and all of them have answers.

I really hope you’ll be there to listen to this important episode and also that you’ll go out and get a copy of Blomberg’s book. Remember that our show will be on a different time this week and that is going to be from 4-6 PM EST. We will naturally be able to take your calls as well and the number if you want to call in is 714-242-5180.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Hounds Of Heresy Go Bird-Watching.

Who’s the next target for Geisler and company to go after? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

First it was Michael Licona that was in the sights of Geisler in a crusade that he still hasn’t stopped to this day. Next, it was Craig Blomberg. It is not too surprising that next on the list is Michael Bird, which could have something to do with the review that Bird had of Blomberg’s chapter on inerrancy.

Forget the Spanish Inquisition. We now have the ICBI Inquisition going on and who dares to stand in its path?!

It seems unheard of to the ICBI supporters that someone could believe in inerrancy and not think ICBI itself is inerrant. There are other ways to look at inerrancy that do not put the Bible on any lesser level. If anything, the stance on ICBI is practically getting to be an idolatry of a certain view of interpreting the Bible, a view that is indeed highly modernistic and that divorces it from the social context it was written in.

This time, the writing is done by Joseph Holden of Veritas Evangelical Seminary. I will be including a link at the end.

“The current trend among evangelical New Testament scholars to utilize or approve of genre criticism (e.g., Craig Blomberg, Michael Licona, Darrell Bock, Michael Bird, Carlos Bovell, Kevin Vanhoozer, et al) to de-historicize the biblical text appears to stem from an aversion to the correspondence view of truth. To achieve their criticism, correspondence is replaced with the preferred intentionalist view of truth that seeks after unexpressed intentions and purposes of the biblical author as they correspond with extra-biblical literature of similar genre to determine meaning. For Bird, the Gospels give us a reliable “big picture” about Jesus, but the details do not matter. ”

Keep in mind, these are the same people who say that you cannot know authorial intent. Supposedly, this is so, but these people are mind-readers enough that they know that all of these scholars that they’re talking about have an aversion to the correspondence theory of truth. Why yes. This must be so. The past few days before writing this I have been with Michael Licona at his house and I know that whenever I say “Correspondence theory of truth” he reacted the way Clark Kent reacts to kryptonite. Yep. Obviously, whenever any of these scholars speak up, we just need to say “Correspondence theory of truth.” It will work better than garlic does on Dracula.

Maybe, and yea, I realize this is a stretch, but maybe, just maybe, these people use genre criticism because they actually believe the Biblical writings are writings of a specific genre and they’re seeking to understand the text.

But no, surely it can’t be that! Surely it must be the case that NT scholarship is all about finding a way to destroy the Bible! They all have their eyes set on ICBI as well! This must not be allowed to happen! We simply must preserve ICBI at all costs no matter what and if that means cutting ourselves away from the academy and having a Bible that bears no relation to the culture that birthed it, then so be it!

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that arguments that show that the Gospels are of the genre of Greco-Roman bioi are wrong. Let’s suppose that Burridge and Talbert and others who most argue such are incorrect. If that is the case, how does one show this? Hint. It is not by standing up and shouting “ICBI Inerrancy!” It is done by actually reading their works, going through them, and demonstrating with scholarship and not ICBI presuppositionalism that the claims are wrong. If in fact, this can be done, the world of NT scholarship will be grateful. Scholars of all persuasions don’t want to believe claims that are false.

So for Geisler and his followers, there is no shortcut here. You do not get to presuppose your position and then say all other contrary are wrong. You simply must do the work.

““My own approach is what I would term “believing criticism.” This approach treats Scripture as the inspired and veracious Word of God, but contends that we do Scripture the greatest service when we commit ourselves to studying it in light of the context and processes through which God gave it to us. Scripture is trustworthy because of God’s faithfulness to his own Word and Scripture is authoritative because the Holy Spirit speaks to us through it. Nonetheless, God has seen fit to use human language, human authors, and even human processes as the means by which he has given his inscripturated revelation to humanity. To understand the substance of Scripture means wrestling with its humanity, the human face of God’s speech to us in his Word.” (Bold parts Holden’s)

So here Bird makes a statement upholding Scripture and celebrating it as the Word of God, but because it is not an ICBI statement and because of how it suggests we study the text, this is a statement we should be wary of. Looking at the first part that is bolded, why on Earth is this controversial? Was the Bible really written in a vacuum? This is more of a fax from Heaven approach to the Bible than it is a scholarly approach.

Is it strange to think that the biblical writers would think that the audience they were writing to would know a basic background? Consider Revelation. If you read this book, it is full of allusions to the OT. The writer of the book assumes that the reader has a fluent understanding of the OT. Paul did the same with his epistles where he quotes the Old Testament regularly and does so assuming that even his Gentile readers will know what passages he’s talking about. Most noteworthy now is the interest in intertextuality. Robert Gagnon brings out for instance Romans 1 where Paul talks about the creator, male and female, etc. all of which alludes to Genesis 1. This assumes a background knowledge of the text.

For the second part, yes, the Bible is also a human book. It is written by humans for humans, although these humans who wrote it were guided by the Holy Spirit. Isaiah, for instance, is supposed to be magnificent in his use of Hebrew. If you’re reading Greek, you are told to start with works like the writing of John because they are easier to read rather than go with Luke who is quite difficult to read. Writers had their own interest, style, mannerisms, etc.

The idea of the bolded parts however is not to respond to them. It is to be seen as code words that the readers should be warned about. Because Bird refers to Scripture as a “human” book, he is to be seen as lowering it.

It makes one wonder if saying Jesus is fully human would also be seen as lowering Him. In reality, denying He’s fully human would not just be wrong, it would be deemed heretical.

“After due allowances are made for the artistic license, theological embellishment, and inherent biases of the tradents of the tradition, our witnesses to Jesus remain steadfast in their conviction that the Jesus whom they narrate is historically authentic as much as he is personally confronting.” (Emphasis added.)”

It is quite likely that Holden is not familiar with NT scholarship and does not realize what is being said. Would it be denied at all that writers who write something have a bias? It would be ridiculous to think that they don’t. I have no problem saying the Gospel writers were biased. Every writer is. The atheist who would show up here and say “Because of that, we can’t trust them!” also has a bias. Bias is too often an excuse to avoid dealing with real arguments.

As for artistic license and theological embellishment, these are things we need to look out for and interact with. Could someone describe something in terms that would not be meant to be taken literally but rather to illustrate something about the subject? Sure. How do you know that? You know it by doing historical study. You do not affirm or deny it by simply standing up and saying “ICBI Inerrancy!”

If you want to do that, go ahead. Just don’t expect NT scholarship to take you seriously. You wouldn’t be taken any more seriously than a Muslim would take you seriously who had a similar view about the Koran and responded to all criticisms of it just by saying “The Koran is inerrant!”

“This means that we are actually liberated to read the Gospels as they were intended to be read: as historically referential theological testimonies to Jesus as the exalted Lord. It does not matter then whether there was one demoniac (Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27) or two demoniacs (Matt 8:28) that Jesus healed on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.”

And Bird is right. This is an important question to discuss, but it is not an essential one. The fate of Christianity does not hinge on how many demoniacs there were and there are numerous approaches one can take in genre criticism that would reconcile any supposed contradiction. The idea that Holden presents is one that says that if we are open to any idea that some one aspect is not as essential as another then we can throw it all out.

The reality is that if this is seen as a contradiction, then every Christian has to give some response. ICBI supporters have to give a response. Those who hold to inerrancy or infallibility in some other manner have to give a response. Some Christians might hold to neither of those and just say “It’s a contradiction, but there’s a strong historical case for the resurrection anyway.” Still, everyone has to give a response. What is the problem with looking at the scholarship and giving the best response one can? Can one really defend the Bible from charges of contradiction by avoiding the best scholarship and historical evidence? Should we not seek to follow the evidence wherever it leads, including the evidence of scholarship?

“Jesus healed a demon possessed man in the vicinity and Matthew just likes couplets, making everything two’s where he can! Similarly, trying to prove that mustard seeds really are the smallest plants of the earth (Mark 4:31) or that Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock first crowed and then three times again afterwards (Matt 26:69-74; Luke 22:56-60; John 18:16-27; Mark 14:66-68) is like trying to understand the Magna Carta by arguing about whether the commas are in the right position. John Calvin himself said: ‘We know that the Evangelists were not very exact as to the order of dates, or even in detailing minutely everything that Christ did or said.’[Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 216]. The Evangelists give us the big picture about Jesus, the gist of his words, the major outlines of his career,”

Bird has given an argument based on Matthew. It is either true or it isn’t. That’s what the correspnodence view of truth is about after all. He’s saying “The reality is that Matthew likes couplets so let’s not be surprised that Matthew has pairs in his Gospel.” He even goes back and shows that Calvin had the same approach. Who disagrees? The moderns who think the Bible must meet their standards. (And this will make people perfect prey for modern atheists who ask why a cure for cancer is not found hidden in Scripture.) The view of Bird is indeed that the Gospels give us the big picture, but they surely don’t tell everything. John even agreed in the end of his Gospel! What Holden should do is actually respond instead of just inspire fear.

“they position him in relation to the prophetic promises, and they declare the all important significance as to who he was and why he died. The details should not be treated with indifferences, but they are not the focus of the stories we call “Gospels.” While I think the overall historical reliability of the Gospels is vitally important less we treat Gospels as religiously laden fiction, we should not import anachronistic and modernist criteria of historical reality into our treatment of the Gospels and make it a condition for theological validity:” (Emphasis Added.)”

Bird is absolutely right here as well. The Bible was not written to a 21st century American culture. It was written to and in a 1st century Mediterranean culture. (I mean the NT of course, though the OT was written to a similar culture.) The writers were soaked in a culture of Second Temple Judaism and wrote from that position. It is just bizarre to think that somehow these writers when writing were totally unaffected by their culture and wrote works that bore no relation to their surrounding culture.

If Holden and others want to say that modern criteria must be used that are foreign to the biblical text, then if anyone has a problem with correspondence, it would be Holden and others.

“So then, how do we as a believing and confessing community approach the critical questions that the texts of the Gospels present to us?…. It entails we go through the Gospels unit by unit and ask what exactly did Jesus intend and how would his hearers have understood him. It equally entails asking why the Evangelists have told the story this way and why do they have the peculiarities that they do. Third, we have to explore the impact that the Gospels intended to make upon their implied readers and how the Four Gospels as a whole intend to shape the believing communities who read them now.” (Emphasis added)

How utterly horrible! We should ask why the authors wrote what they wrote! Fortunately, while we are not allowed to do that with the Gospels, we are allowed to be told by Geisler why it is that he wrote ICBI and what the founders intended. We are also not allowed to use 1st century culture, which 1st century people had access to, to interpret the Gospels and epistles, but we are allowed to use 20th and 21st century science, which the ancient Israelites did not have access to, to interpret Genesis 1.

Holden will go on to write about how Bird and others are in denial of the ICBI view of Inerrancy. At this point, it is practically as if ICBI is a known truth that all Biblical scholars are to submit to and those who use historical scholarship are just people who are in denial.

There is a reason more and more people are moving away from ICBI. If this is the kind of thing that ICBI leads to, why should we want any part of it? Who is responsible for this destruction of the validity of ICBI? No one less than Geisler himself.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Holden’s article can be found here.

In Defense of Craig Blomberg

Is Craig Blomberg a scholar that should be avoided? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A few weeks ago, I reviewed Craig Blomberg’s excellent book “Can We Still Believe The Bible?”. I found it to be an excellent book that I highly recommend.

Apparently, some others didn’t think so.

Specifically, Norman Geisler, ever on the hunt for people who are going after his version of inerrancy.

There is no need to guess what Geisler’s stance is. He outright tells us.

“Denver Seminary Prof Denies Inerrancy

Link: http://tinyurl.com/k5nnjw2

Dr. Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary attacks inerrancy in a recent book titled “Can We Still Believe in the Bible?” While he believes the Bible is reliable, he denies it is inerrant in the same sense that the 300 scholars of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy meant when they produced and signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (the same statement adopted by the Evangelical Theological Society’s ~3,000 members) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.”

Well let’s look at this part alone.

Does Blomberg deny inerrancy? No. He doesn’t. In fact, as a member of ETS, he would have to hold to inerrancy in some sense. Therefore, right at the start, the well is poisoned as the reader will think that Blomberg does deny inerrancy.

Looking in the article itself, we see the following:

“The real answer to the question posed by Craig Blomberg’s book title is: Yes, we can believe in the general reliability of the Bible, but No we do not believe in its inerrancy, at least not in the sense meant by the framers of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI). Blomberg mistakenly attributes his own version of inerrancy to the ICBI.”

I find this incredible. The Bible is reliable, yes, but this work is going against ICBI and therefore it cannot be accepted?

Frankly, as an apologist who debates much more online and elsewhere than I’m sure Geisler is nowadays, I would be ecstatic just having people realize that the Bible is reliable. I really don’t care for this all-or-nothing game where we either have to go with all-out inerrancy or else we must remain skeptical.

And I do say that as an Inerrantist.

Yet Geisler goes on to say that Blomberg does not believe in its inerrancy, at least not according to the standards of ICBI. So this raises a question.

Can someone disagree with ICBI and still believe in inerrancy?

It’s kind of the same situation Blomberg addresses in his book about KJV-onlyists. If the KJV is the only true form of Scripture, does that mean mankind was without Scripture until 1611? Does that mean someone must learn King James English to know what Scripture says?

In the same way, does this mean that until ICBI came along that no one knew what inerrancy was or no one truly held to a view of Scripture that could be called inerrancy? If ICBI does equal inerrancy, then it would mean that inerrancy would not be a historical doctrine of the Christian church. If ICBI does not equal inerrancy, then one could believe in inerrancy without holding to ICBI as inerrancy is a doctrine that can exist independently of ICBI.

Geisler says Blomberg attributes his own version of inerrancy to ICBI. Is that really what’s happening? Why not just go with Blomberg’s own view of his view? If Geisler considers himself authoritative to interpret the ICBI statements, shouldn’t Blomberg’s view of his own position be authoritative? Shouldn’t he be the best one to say what he really believes?

And if he says then that he believes in inerrancy, should we not accept that?

The Geislers of this world will have nothing of it. It’s either their way or the highway.

And this is why so many people today are really starting to say that they don’t want to identify with inerrancy like this any more. If Geisler wants to blame someone for his legacy of ICBI going to waste, nay, for his entire life’s work being tarnished entirely, then all he needs to do is look in the mirror. There are several looking at Geisler’s approach in all of this and saying “If this is what is meant by believing in ICBI, I want no part of it.”

Count me as one of those.

Keep in mind some didn’t sign the ICBI document because they thought it gave too much leeway. It’s my understanding that Henry Morris would not sign it because it would allow for old-earth creationism. Does that mean that Henry Morris denies inerrancy? While I would disagree with Morris’s interpretations, I would hardly say that not signing ICBI meant a denial of inerrancy.

Let’s also deal with a misnomer. These were not 300 scholars who signed this. No doubt, some were scholars. No doubt, some are not. Hal Lindsey, for instance, would not be counted as a scholar. You do not get to call someone a scholar because they know a lot of stuff about the Bible (Supposedly) or some other field. I would consider myself quite well-read on Scripture, but in no way would I consider myself a scholar at this point. That’s a goal to aim for, but it has not been reached.

So anyway, let’s move on.

“However, our response here is not with persons but with principles. So, our critique is not against any person but only the ideas expressed. Our evaluation is focused on what they teach, not on their character or motives. We respect the individuals as scholars who disagree with inerrancy and love them as brothers in Christ. Our concern is with one thing and one thing only: Is their teaching in accord with the doctrine of inerrancy as defined by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI)? So, when we use of the word “inerrancy” in this article we mean the ICBI view of inerrancy as expressed in the following documents.”

Well it’s nice to know that there’s nothing personal in all of this. If this were true however, it would certainly be quite different from the hounding that went on after Mike Licona. Yet I am sure I am not the only one concerned about this last statement. The only concern is if the teaching is in according with ICBI inerrancy.

I have made a statement before that I think Geisler has ICBI in the back of his Bible.

I am now convinced I was wrong.

It is in the very front.

” Blomberg is aware of all these ICBI statements on inerrancy and even cites some of them (Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible? [hereafter B], 136, 149, 170, 178, 222, 262). He even goes so far as to claim agreement with everything in the “Chicago Statement’ (CSBI) on inerrancy except one implied word (B, 273), the word always in the last line. He believes that ICBI is claiming that a denial of inerrancy always has grave consequences. Otherwise, Blomberg even calls the “Chicago Statement” on Biblical inerrancy (CSBI) “a carefully crafted document” (B, 149). Further, he praises Article 18 of CSBI, saying, “this affirmation reinforces everything we have been discussing” (B, 170). In addition, he commends the “reasonably well highlighted” statement on genre criticism in CSBI (B, 178). Strangely, Blomberg even commends one Chicago statement more than the other, declaring: “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics CSBH) has not had nearly the lasting effect that the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy did, which is a shame, because in many ways it is the superior of the two documents” (B, 261, n. 98).”

Looking at the references here, it’s noteworthy that on page 178, Blomberg does say it could have been highlighted more. He goes on to say “Institutions or organizations that claim to abide by it must allow their inerrantist scholars the freedom to explore the various literary options without reprisal.”

If only these words could be written in gold.

This is indeed the situation. If a scholar says he believes in inerrancy, let him make his case. Let him use the best scholarly tools for examination. If his case is false, it will not hold up. If it does not have the support from the data, others will not follow it. On the other hand, if it is true and if it is supportable, then we should seek to go with it. Are we not to be people of truth?

If Christians are called before an inquisition of sorts because they are wanting to explore an option, then we have reached a dangerous day for Christianity. We can no longer then say we are people of truth if we fear to look at where we think the evidence could lead.

Consider the case for the resurrection. If we assume inerrancy at the start, it would be easy to write a book defending the resurrection. Here’s how it goes.

The Bible is Inerrant.

The Bible says Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

And then we can all sleep well tonight as the case has been proved.

Or you could actually have to do the real scholarly work of examining the texts, not assuming inerrancy, coming at it from the grounds that a skeptic would, and still being able to demonstrate the Bible is right on the question of the resurrection.

I would even suggest that a minister wanting to get up and teach on the resurrection on Easter Sunday while he will likely hold to inerrancy in a conservative church, he should still give reasons from a scholarly perspective about why the resurrection is true. (In fact, I did this when I spoke at my grandmother’s funeral. I had ten minutes to speak. The first five was building a case for the resurrection as briefly as I could. The last five were explaining what a difference it made.)

Geisler says there are some points that according to Blomberg one can believe without denying inerrancy. What are these?

“1. He denied the historicity of Jesus’ command about getting the coin from the mouth of the fish (in Matthew 17:27), saying, “Yet even the most superficial application of form criticism reveals that this is not a miracle story, because it is not even a story” (“NT Miracles and Higher Criticism” in JETS 27/4 [December 1984] 433). But this is a futile attempt to defend his disbelief by diverting attention from his denial of the historicity of this text on the grounds that it was not a story but a command (B, 263, n 113). By focusing on these factors, attention is deflected from a crucial point, namely, that Blomberg does not believe this event ever happened, as the Bible says it did. Blomberg added, “Further problems increase the likelihood of Jesus’ command being metaphorical” (B, “NT Miracles,” 433).”

Unfortunately, Geisler has not paid attention to the story, strange for someone who wants to go by what the text “literally” says. Nowhere in this account do you hear of Simon Peter going and catching a fish and getting a coin out of its mouth. Blomberg would not deny that it could happen, but the text does not say that it did. This would be strange as with many miracles, even where Jesus is not directly present, there is a record that the event took place. Here, there is not.

So could there be a metaphor? Let’s consider something. I know it’s a bizarre idea, but how about we examine Blomberg’s case and critique it from a scholarly perspective? Otherwise it becomes this.

The Bible is Inerrant.

Geisler’s interpretation is what the text says.

Therefore, Geisler’s interpretation is Inerrant.

Blomberg’s interpretation disagrees with Geisler.

Therefore, Blomberg denies inerrancy.

It’s at this point that one wonders if Geisler has become his own pope.

“2. According to Blomberg, “The author’s intention [in Genesis] is almost entirely to narrate the “who” rather than the “how” of creation” (B, 151). So, almost nothing informs us about how origins occurred, whether by creation or by evolution.”

In fact, I would agree with this. This is in fact why I interviewed John Walton on The Lost World of Genesis One</a. I agree with his view that Genesis is meant to tell us about the nature of God and His purpose in creating rather than how He did it or if He used evolution or not.

Has Geisler made a sufficient case that the Genesis account must answer our apologetics questions about origins? That might be what the big debate is about today, but was it really the question that would have been on the mind of Moses's readers? Was it really the argument they would need? Would they be more interested in how the creation came about, or in dealing with the polytheistic accounts around them?

Since this is in fact my position, if I say Genesis is focused on God and His purposes, how is that a denial of inerrancy? It seems quite odd really as well. It's like saying "The problem with Blomberg's view is that He allows for an approach that focuses on the God of creation rather than how He created."

Hmmmm. Which position do we think is more important in Genesis? Is it the who or the how?

And keep in mind, a view that was very much framework in its approach was that of Henri Blocher in his work "In The Beginning", which was in fact endorsed by J.I. Packer. Packer, we must remember, is one of the framers of ICBI. Such a view could allow for theistic evolution and it would not be a problem.

Therefore when we come to point 3

"3. Blomberg claims that “Some [inerrantists] opt for forms of theistic evolution in which God creates the universe with all the mechanisms built in to give rise…to each new development in the creative ‘week’” (B, 151). This too is deemed compatible with inerrancy according to Blomberg."

We have it answered already then. Geisler wants us to rise up in defense with the code word of "evolution" as if to assume that this must be stomped out at all costs. Strange this comes from such a defender of Thomism since many Thomists really have no problem with theistic evolution.

#4 on the list is

"4. He adds, “Must there have been a historical Adam and Eve? . . . Many scholars, including a few evangelicals, think not” (B, 152). Blomberg adds, “Nothing in principle should prevent the persons who uphold inerrancy from adopting a view that sees adam (“man” or Adam) and hawwa (“life or Eve) as symbols for every man and woman…” (B, 152)."

And once again, we have a code situation. If Geisler wants to argue against this view, what he needs to do is to critique a position like that of Lamoureux in "Four Views on the Historical Adam" which I reviewed here. It won’t work to say “Inerrancy, therefore the position is false.” Geisler has to show that his interpretation is the right one. Now I do not find Lamoureux’s position persuasive, but I am not ready to go after him. I am happy to say it is not an area of expertise for me so I am indeed speaking as a layman on that matter.

“5. Further, Blomberg believes that “None of this theology [about Job’s view on suffering] requires Job to have ever existed any more than the teaching of the parable of the Good Samaritan requires the Samaritan to have been a real person” (B, 156). He added, “Almost nothing is at stake if Job never existed, whereas everything is at stake if Jesus never lived” (B, 223).”

Question then. Would the lesson of Job be true even if Job never lived? Answer. Yes. Would Christianity be true if Jesus never lived? Answer. No. Why? Because Christianity is entirely dependent on real actions taking place in space and time. The lesson of Job is not dependent in that way. Does that mean it is untrue? No. I have no problem accepting Job as a historical figure.

“6. Likewise, he asserts that “Surely, however, someone might argue, Jonah must be completely historical, because Jesus himself likens his death and resurrection to Jonah’s experience with the great fish (Matt. 12:40; Luke 11:30). Actually, this does not follow at all” (B, 157). ”

Unfortunately, here Geisler gives part of the argument and then ignores the rest. The last sentence would tell you there is more. Blomberg makes the point that one could talk about Frodo going to Mordor and make a lesson out of it without thinking Frodo is a historical figure. The amazing thing is Blomberg makes a case for the accuracy of Jonah right after that and this is completely ignored by Geisler. It will sadly be ignored by his readers as well who will refuse to read Blomberg’s book and get the treasure trove of knowledge he has for us.

“7. Further, “Ultimately, what one decides about its [the Book of Isaiah’s] composition or formation need not have anything to do with biblical inerrancy at all” (B, 162, 163), even though he admits Jesus mentioned “the prophet Isaiah” as being author of texts in both sections of Isaiah (B, 161).”

And in dealing with this, Geisler will need to deal with an approach such as that found in The Lost World of Scripture, which was co-authored by John Walton who I referred to above and by Brent Sandy, who I interviewed here.

“8. Isaiah may not have predicted “Cyrus” by name 150 years in advance (in Isaiah 45:1) of his reign because “Cyrus could in fact be a dynasty name (like “Pharaoh” in Egypt) rather than a personal name (B, 162). This too is deemed compatible with inerrancy.”

How could this be incompatible? If Cyrus is indeed a name of a dynasty, then this would be an accurate statement. Geisler can only assume that it is not. If the Bible is teaching about a dynasty that will free the Jews from exile, then he is speaking the truth. I in fact wonder if the same could be going on with the ruler Abimelech in Genesis. The name can be translated as “My Dad is King.” Could this not point to a dynasty as well?

“9. According to Blomberg, the prophet Daniel may not have predicted all the things his book indicates because “Perhaps two works associated with the prophet Daniel and is successor, written at two different times, were combined” (B, 164).”

See my reply to #7 for this.

“10. Blomberg, argues that treating sections of “Matthew as Midrash” and not as history would have been taken by his audience “who would have understood exactly what he was doing, not imagining his embellishment to be making the same kinds of truth claims as his core material from Mark and Q” (B, 166).”

This was the position of Gundry which we will be getting to. I will save it for later.

“11. Likewise, Blomberg believes that the story of “Lazarus” (in Luke 16) is a “parabolic fiction” (B, 150).”

There are many fine evangelical scholars who see the story as a parable. I also see it as a parable and parables are fictional, unless Geisler suddenly thinks the fires of Hell are literal and that there is literally a great chasm between Heaven and Hell.

Well if that’s the case, why would there be someone named in this one?

Lazarus would be named so that he would be seen as honorable in comparison to the rich man. The only unnamed character in Ruth, for instance, is the one who refuses his duty to Ruth. This is a way of shaming him. Jesus’s parable is not meant to give the furniture of the afterlife, but rather to teach us that just because one has wealth in this life, that one is not necessarily living in the favor of God, and vice-versa for poverty. By not even giving the rich man a name, he is showing that the rich man is essentially not someone worth thinking about.

#12 deals with views based on Blomberg’s interaction with Mormonism. Not having read the book, I will not comment.

Moving on to some of Geisler’s responses, I wish to go to #6 straight away since it deals with an area I do consider myself knowledgeable on.

“Traditionally, many have considered the Gospels to be a genre of their own (sui generis) because of their unique nature as a revelation of God. However, Blomberg buys into the currently popular notion that the Gospels should be interpreted by extra-biblical genre. He wrote: “Once we determine, as best we can, what a passage affirms, according to the conventions of its style, and genre, a commitment to inerrancy implies acceptance of the truth of those affirmations. But a commitment to inerrancy does not exclude a priori any given literary style, form, or genre that is not inherently deceptive” (B, 164). In short, we must determine first what a passage means according to its genre. We cannot know in advance that it is going to be historical just because it is a narrative or is in a historical book. Further, the genre can be an extra-biblical like the Greco-Roman genre. Hence, an extra-biblical genre can determine the meaning of a biblical text. This is, of course, contrary to the ICBI statements on genre for several reasons.”

The notion is not the “Currently popular” one, but the currently scholarly one. Has Geisler critiqued yet the work of Burridge or that of Talbert and shown that their views are false?” If he has not, then he has not grounds for going against the scholarly consensus just because they go against his pet viewpoint.

Also, keep in mind Geisler was challenged on this by my friend Greg Masone, who was subsequently banned from Geisler’s page for pointing out the challenge. Geisler has NEVER accepted this challenge. It can be found here.

Because of this, it means Geisler is expecting his critics to answer his charges, but he is not willing to answer theirs.

Geisler considers these views extra-biblical, but what does this even mean? Is one only allowed to write Scriptures in a certain genre? Would it be that if Matthew began writing his Gospel that he’d hear a voice from Heaven say “Matthew! Do not write as the pagans do even though your work will be read on them! Write in a style completely unique that no one has ever done before!”?

Note also this usage of extra-biblical material is highly selective.

For instance, Geisler thinks that Genesis 1 teaches an old Earth. Why? Because modern science has shown us that it does.

So let’s bring in a YEC at this point. My hypothetical YEC at this point will say

“Geisler believes in an old Earth in Genesis 1, but this is based on the currently popular notion that modern science is right in its view of the age of the Earth. A true biblical interpretation however will not bring in extra-biblical science but will instead allow Scripture to be its own interpreter and show that the Earth is indeed young. Therefore, Geisler’s view is certainly incompatible with inerrancy and he is using extra-biblical science to deny the historicity of a young Earth and therefore the text.”

And yes, this is not my view at all. If this is said, what can Geisler say? If he points to his own authority, is he not making himself a pope of inerrancy?

In fact, none of Geisler’s defenses work here. Consider the first.

” First, ICBI Article XIII forbids the use of extra-biblical genre to determine the meaning of a biblical text. It reads “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (emphasis added). Further, CSBH Article XIV says: “We affirm that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical facts” (emphasis added). ”

So extra-biblical genre cannot be used, but extra-biblical science can be used. The Jews in the time of Jesus would know about Greco-Roman bioi. The Jews in the time of Moses would not know about modern science. Was the truth of Genesis 1 then lost until modern science came along? Why can Geisler use information the Jews did not have to interpret Genesis 1, but Licona and Blomberg cannot use information the Jews did have to interpret the Gospels?

“Second, ICBI demands interpreting “Scripture by Scripture” (CSBI Article 18), not the Bible by extra-biblical genre. That is, nothing external to the New Testament text should be hermeneutically determinative of the meaning in the text. In some cases, one can derive the meaning (use) of a term from contemporary use of the word. But the meaning of a text is discovered from studying the text in its grammatical and historical setting, as compared to related Scripture on that text.”

Nothing external to the NT should be used to determine the meaning of the Gospels, but science that is external to Genesis one can be used to determine the meaning of Genesis. Why not have Scripture interpret Scripture? (Even though that is a nonsense statement. Interpretation is done by minds. Scripture comes from a mind but it does not have a mind itself.)

” Third, the alleged “purpose of the author” of which Blomberg speaks is not the determinative factor in understanding a text. For there is no way to know what the author had in his mind behind the text except by what he affirmed in the text. Hence, the appeal to the linguistic philosophy of John Austin to determine the illocutionary (purpose) act or the perlocutionarly act (results) is futile. Usually, all we have in Scripture is the locutionary act (What is affirmed). So, the locus of meaning has to be in what is affirmed, not why it is affirmed because often we are just guessing about that. Thus, the genre critic Blomberg is using extra-biblical ideas to determine the meaning of the biblical text.”

And if this is the case, then why does Geisler keep pointing to what the founders meant when they wrote X statement in ICBI? When Geisler has done that, he has just given us another text and we cannot understand his intent. Why do we keep hearing about what the founders intended and how that matters for ICBI, but we can’t try to know what the authors intended?

Keep in mind that this is not really a Thomistic stance. No less a Thomist than Mortimer Adler has written on how one should seek to understand the authorial intent of a text. Keep in mind that also because we do not know why a practice was affirmed, it does not mean the readers at the time did not know.

Yet this whole situation gets even more bizarre.

“Not only do the ICBI statements repeatedly contradict Blomberg’s view on inerrancy, but he repeatedly distorts the ICBI statements and demeans the character of those who defend the inerrancy of Scripture. We note first of all his unscholarly and unprofessional characterizations of those who defend the historical biblical view of inerrancy as represented in the ICBI statements.”

Yes. Because coming out and saying that people deny inerrancy and seeking to have their livelihood removed and passing around petitions behind their backs is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Geisler is like the schoolyard bully who goes after the other children who refuse to play the way he does, but when someone stands up to him, he then cries “Foul!”

“Blomberg often employs condemnation and exaggeration instead of refutation related to inerrantists claims. He labels inerrantists, for example, as “very conservative” (B, 7), “overly conservative” (B, 217), “ultra conservative” (B, 11, 214), “hyperconservative” (B, 13), “extremely conservative” (B, 7). Of course, this tends to make his views look more moderate by comparison, when, as we shall see, they are in direct opposition to those the mainstream evangelical view as reflected in the ICBI statements. He even likens ICBI defenders of inerrancy to Nazis and Communist (B, 8)! He quotes with approval the statement, “the far left and the far right—avoid them both, like the plague” (B, 8). At one point he stops just short of questioning the Christianity of ICBI supporters (B, 254). What is more, he sometimes makes it very clear about whom he is speaking by name (Robert Thomas, David Farnell, William Roach, and myself)–all Ph.D. in biblical related studies who have written critical reviews of Blomberg’s positions. He also addresses Dr. Al Mohler and Master’s Seminary in negative terms.
Such exaggerated language is not only unprofessional and unscholarly, it borders on being morally libelous, as the following statements reveal. Strangely and inconsistently, Blomberg responds strongly when other scholars use a negative term about his views (B, 254).”

It is amusing to see Geisler say Blomberg compares them to Nazis. What Blomberg does is refer to an English teacher in high school who lived through Nazism and Communism and gave the advice to avoid the far-right and far-left both like the plague. He referred to what she went through because that was relevant. It is bizarre to think that Blomberg was saying that people like Geisler are like Nazis. (Though it is obvious Geisler thinks he knows the authorial intent of Blomberg)

As for questioning the Christianity, Blomberg does not do this. What does he say? He points out how Robert Thomas referred to scholars who use form and redaction criticism as experiencing a “satanic blindness.” Blomberg in the note in the back says “I have no idea how a self-confessed evangelical Christian author dares to use such language in speaking of fellow evangelical Christians!”

Apparently, Blomberg should have just said Geisler had a satanic blindness about him and that would have been okay. So once again we see the double-standard. Thomas says someone has a satanic blindness. That’s okay! Blomberg raises his own charges going nowhere near that and that’s not okay!

Geisler can complain about this being unscholarly and even suggests it is libelous, but let him remember that he would not have been in this position if he had not thrown the first punch. Geisler goes after others saying they deny inerrancy and even goes after their professional positions, but woe befall anyone who dares to just suggest that he is misbehaving at all. It looks like Geisler thinks not only is his interpretation inerrant, but his behavior is inerrant as well.

Also Blomberg knows about his critiques, but are they all critiques in relevant fields? Being a Ph.D. in philosophy does not entail one to be an authority on Biblical matters. This is amusing since Paige Patterson has referred to Mike Licona as a philosopher, when he is not, and most of those in the Geisler crusade are in fact the philosophers.

“Blomberg goes further than extremist labeling of inerrancy defenders. He claims that we “simplistically” distorted the evidence in order to oust Robert Gundry from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) over his midrash denial of the historicity of certain sections of Matthew (B, 167). He charges that we engaged in a “political campaign” against Gundry (B, 167). Elsewhere, he alleges that we have utilized a “standard ploy throughout his [my] career” when “trying to get someone removed from an organization” (B, 262 n. 111). He adds the allegation that inerrancy is used as “a blunt tool to hammer into submission people whose interpretation of passages differs from ours…” (B, 125). These charges of an alleged sinister and continuous career of unjustified activity on my part are both untrue, unjustified, and unethical. Indeed, they are serious moral judgments of motives for which Blomberg should apologize. Someone has rightly asked why it is that those who defend inerrancy are attacked and those who attack inerrancy are defended.
Without attributing motives, one thing seems clear: “Blomberg is dead-set on broadening the acceptable borders of orthodoxy on inerrancy, the result of which would be a more inclusive statement that would embrace scholars (like Blomberg himself) who have moved well beyond inerrancy as traditionally understood and as expressed by the ICBI. This may explain the use of such passionate and uncalled for language in describing those who wish to retain a more traditional stand on inerrancy. Perhaps a lot of their passion and zeal arises from the fact that those who hold a more liberal view on inerrancy may fear their view may be deemed unorthodox too. This might explain their pejorative terms about inerrantists such as “watchdog.” But given the analogy, it is certainly better than being a “kitty cat” on these crucial issue. The truth is that evangelicalism needs more watchdogs to ward off the wolves in sheep’s clothing who are attacking inerrancy.”

Blomberg should apologize….

It’s hard to read that without having one’s eyes roll.

Note that no one is going after someone for defending inerrancy. What is going on is people are gone after because of how they are defending it and what they are defending. For the watchdogs, it seems Geisler has lost sight of what really matters. He goes after Licona for a masterful defense of the resurrection because it goes against his view of inerrancy, thus cutting people off from an excellent defense. He goes after Blomberg because while Blomberg shows the Bible is reliable, he does not agree with ICBI inerrancy as Geisler sees it.

The ICBI is driving everything else. It has practically become an idol.

It would be believable that Geisler does not go around seeking to remove people from organizations if we did not have evidence of this. Alas, we do. We saw it happen with Licona and I had immediate experience of this.

You can see a link to such a petition here. This comes from Max Andrews. The only change he has made is to remove the email of Geisler since this is personal information. The content otherwise is the same. Max Andrews has written about that here.

It is no doubt true that inerrancy has been used as a hammer and that hammer has been constantly wielded by Geisler himself.

Geisler then goes on to say the following are untrue.

“1. No one offered an “intelligent response” to Gundry (B, 167). Even Blomgberg acknowledged that D. A. Carson wrote a critique of it, as did Doug Moo. Not to mention the scholarly response given at ETS and articles published in the Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society (JETS, 2003).”

This would work if that had been what Blomberg said. It isn’t. Blomberg said “not a single critic of Gundry who believed his view was inherently contradicting inerrancy has offered what Carson defines as “intelligent response”–wrestling in detail with the exegetical and historical methods and their applications that Gundry utilized.”

It would have been nice had Geisler accurately represented what Blomberg said. Blomberg knows very well of the responses, but keep in mind Moo and Carson did not believe that it was a denial of inerrancy. They were arguing the proper way. They were arguing on exegetical grounds.

“2. A majority of speakers at ETS were in favor of retainng Gundry in its membership (B, 166). This is a misleading statement since, when given a chance to vote almost three-quarters of the membership voted to ask Gundry to resign.”

Blomberg says the majority that showed up showed up after Geisler went around politicizing the event and calling up people to come to the meeting. It’s noteworthy that Geisler in this never responds to how Blomberg shows Geisler after the Pinnock situation with ETS went around calling it the Formerly Evangelical Theological Society. (P. 143) Yes. When the society went against him, it was not evangelical. When he needed someone to go against Licona, it was evangelical.

Funny how that works.

This would deal with #3 as well

“3. The proceeding of the ETS which resulted in Gundry’s removal from membership was not fair or representative (B, 166-167). On the contrary, it was the result of a long (two year) process, during which papers and articles were presented pro and con. The meeting at which the vote took place was deliberate and orderly and the vote was taken properly. Even Gundry accepted its conclusion.”

and to go along with that, #4.

“4. The vote for Gundry’s removal was not a bare minimum “just over” what was necessary (167). The vote was 116 in favor of his removal and 41 opposed (as reported by Christianity Today 2/3/1984) which is almost 74% in favor of his removal. This is nearly three-quarters of the membership present and well over the two-thirds (67%) necessary. ”

Yes. This was the vote. Here’s the question. How many people abstained? How many people were still there period? Does this meant that the ETS at the time only had 157 members? This seems quite unlikely.

“5. ETS did not “expel” Gundry from membership (B, 167). The vote was to ask Gundry to resign, not to expel him. If he had refused to resign, then there could have been another vote to expel which was unnecessary because Gundry voluntarily resigned.”

Here, we see a distinction without a difference. Today, we would not see any difference between asking Eich to resign from Mozilla and expelling him.

“6. The process of Gundry’s removal was a “political campaign” in which “circulating advertisements” occurred (B, 167). This too is false. No “campaign” was held and no “advertisements” were circulated. Each ETS member was given a paper with quotations from Gundry’s book so that they could make an intelligent decision on how to vote.”

Since this process took years supposedly, how about this? How about each person voted being given Gundry’s book to read and decide based on that? If they were given portions of it to read, then who decided what portions?

In fact, that sounds eerily similar to the petition going around against Licona.

Who selected the portions of the book in that case? I seriously doubt it was Licona!

“7. “Gundry’s views were simplistically presented…” at the ETS meeting (B, 167). This too is false. Exact and complete quotations were given of Gundry’s views to each member. There was nothing simplistic about it.”

See above and see the petition against Geisler. Excuse me if I’m skeptical based on the evidence I have right before me.

“8. Geisler utilized a “standard ploy throughout his career…when he is trying to get someone removed from an organization,” namely, getting all the living framers to agree with him in order to oust a member (262 n. 111). I never did and such thing. In the Pinnock issue, Roger Nicole contacted all the founders of ETS, but I was not a founder of ETS and was not part of any such effort. I have argued Licona’s views are contrary to the ICBI framers, but I was never part of a “ploy” or effort to get him ousted from the ETS organization, nor any other group. Neither, have I done it “throughout my career” (which is now almost 60 years long because there was never another occasion in all those years where a group of framers were involved in getting someone removed from an organization in which I participated. These are serious, sinister, and slanderous charges that impugns the character of another brother in Christ and call for an apology from the one who made them.”

Once again, see the petition from above and I can tell people based on my personal experience that I have seen this happen. I was one of the first people to hear about Geisler going after Licona after all.

“9. Geisler resigned from ETS because they exonerated Clark Pinnock of the charges against him. This is partly true. After all, Pinnock claimed to believe in inerrancy, yet he has said in print that there were false predictions in the Bible (see Pinnock, The Most Moved Mover, 50), and he denied the Bible is the written Word of God (Scripture Principle, 128). I was also disappointed with the process by which Pinnock was retained because it was not completely fair and open. However, the main and underlying reason I left ETS was because I believed it has lost its integrity by allowing a scholars to join who did not have to believe the doctrinal statement on inerrancy as the founders meant it (see my article, “Why I resigned from the Evangelical Theological Socity,” at http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/ETS/2003-WhyIResignedFromTheETS.htm.)”

I just want to point out that the page of Blomberg’s book where he talks about this also contains how Geisler spoke of the Formerly Evangelical Theological Society, something Geisler has not addressed in this article.

“10. Geisler has become increasingly more conservative over the years as indicted by the successive schools at which he has taught (B, 143-14). This is false. In each case my move to an established school was because I was offered what appeared to be a better opportunity for service. In the case of the two Seminaries I helped start, they were after I retired and was asked by others to help them start two seminaries (where I still teach) which stress apologetics which has been a passion of mine from the beginning. It had nothing to do with the degree of conservativeness of the Seminaries. They all have sound doctrinal statements. None of them was significantly more conservative than the others.”

I urge people to just read what Blomberg himself said, though it is amusing to hear that Geisler wants to avoid the charge that he has become more conservative.

“11. Only a “tiny minority” throughout history held that inerrancy is the only legitimate form of Christianity (B, 221). This is a purely “Straw Man” argument since almost no one holds this view. ICBI, the view we are representing, states clearly that “We deny that such a confession is necessary for salvation” (CSBI Article 19). It adds, “We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history” (CSBI, Article 16). ICBI also held that there are “grave consequence” (CBSI Article 19) for denying inerrancy. But it never affirmed that is the only legitimate form of Christianity. So, this criticism is an empty charge, applying to almost no one.”

One such person affected by this view as Blomberg points out is Bart Ehrman. I have in fact met many “ex-Christians” who would also qualify under this. While we are pleased to see Geisler say inerrancy is not necessary for salvation, it has been put on too high a pedestal by him. When one goes after a masterful work on the resurrection because it does not agree supposedly with a view of inerrancy, then we have a problem.

Moving on, another point worth mentioning

“Of course, Blomberg laments that an overwhelming majority (nearly 74%) of the ETS voted to ask Gundry to resign from ETS because of his denial of the historicity of certain passages in Matthew. Blomberg remains proud that his is one of the small minority who voted to retain Gundry in ETS. Indeed, as even Blomberg admits (B, 168), the framers of the statement (of which I was one) “had Gundry in mind” when the CSBH statements were made which we certainly did. We wrote: “WE deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (CSBH Commentary on Article 13). No amount of re-interpretation can override the clarity of this statement or the testimony of living framers as to its meaning. And when the framers die, the written words of the framers (as here) will remain to vouch for the meaning of their words.”

This is not what Blomberg says on page 168. He says

“Geisler and Roach may well be correct that the framers of a later document known as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics ahd situations like Gundry’s in mind when they penned ‘We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.’ ”

Yet Blomberg continues to say

“But if so, the wording of this document failed to meet the challenge, because it cannot be applied until there is agreement on which narratives “present themselves as factual.” Approximately half of Jesus’s parables are presented without any contextual matter (like the use of the word “parable”) to indicate that they are not presenting themselves as factual. Internal evidence and formal similiarity to texts inside and outside the canon that are specifically labeled as parables allow us to intuit their nature. Similarly, it was internal evidence and formal similarity of Matthew to Jewish midrash, buttressed by the external evidence of divergent parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, that led Gundry to his position. However mistaken he may have been, if one admits there is a single parable in the Gospels not explicitly called a parable, then one cannot use the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics ant more than the Chicago Statement on inerrancy, to exclude Gundry’s position.”

Blomberg is then saying even if Geisler is right in what he had in mind, then it still does not work. He is not at all saying that he knows what Geisler had in mind and he is saying that the wording that was used is not sufficient and if Geisler says all we have is the text, then Blomberg is following proper procedures. Why can Geisler point to his intent over and over while saying authorial intent cannot interpret a text?

Let’s move on.

“It is incredible that anyone, let alone a biblical scholar, would defend the orthodoxy (i.e., compatibility with inerrancy) of Mike Licona’s Greco-Roman genre views.”

No. It is not incredible. Those of us who do read the relevant scholarship are not at all shocked. (Should Geisler know that this will be my work on my Master’s in NT? I will be looking to see if the resurrection of the saints is historical or not. I seriously doubt I can turn in a paper that says “Inerrancy, therefore historical” and get my Master’s. If so, please let me know so I can start teaching now and working on my PH.D.)

Geisler then goes on to quote the 1,001 critiques he has of Licona. You know, the ones where he has ignored that myself, J.P. Holding, Max Andrews, and others have already answered him but alas, everyone else is supposed to answer Geisler and he is to answer to no one.

Geisler’s charges could be taken seriously if he would take the critiques of his position seriously.

In conclusion, Geisler has once again said something that will convince the few followers he has left, but the scholarly world as a whole will ignore it. This is probably why his latest book is published by Xulon, a self-publishing firm, since it is quite likely no academic publishing company would take it. Will there be buyers? Oh yes. I suspect most of these will be at the schools that Geisler and his followers teach at where it will be required reading. Will it prepare the readers to interact with real NT scholarship? No. If anything, it will set them back further and get them closer and closer to apostasy when their views cannot stand up and they have to run from scholarship.

As for Blomberg, I am pleased to keep reading his excellent works and even more pleased to call him a friend now. In fact, those who are interested in his latest book are invited to listen to my podcast, the Deeper Waters Podcast on April 26th this year. I will be having him on as my guest again to discuss it.

Also, for all interested, Geisler’s critique can be found here because as I have said, I care about letting people see critiques that I know about.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Can We Still Believe The Bible?

What do I think of Craig Blomberg’s latest book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I was one of those fortunate enough to get a copy in advance of Blomberg’s latest book for review purposes. As it stands, I was expecting to get a book on new findings that demonstrate the reliability of the Gospels and answers to atheist objections and matters of that sort. I was disappointed in that regards.

But sometimes, it’s good to be disappointed.

Blomberg’s book was not what I expected, and that’s a good thing, because he dealt more with issues surrounding the Bible. I don’t think he wrote this for skeptics of the faith as much as he wrote it for Christians to get them to focus on what’s really the most important, and there have been too many debates lately that have lost that focus.

The book moves in a gradual path from one point to the next connecting the chapters. There is a progression that the reader can easily pick up on that answers the major contemporary issues that are surrounding the Bible today. Also in this, Blomberg goes to great lengths to avoid extremes. There’s more of a happy medium in the topics that he raises that he encourages us to embrace.

The first topic Blomberg deals with is if we have the right words of the Bible or not. After all, if the text has just been so terribly corrupted, then how can we even begin to say we believe the Bible since we have no idea what it says?

We’ve seen those memes before that have the facts about the Bible about how the copies we have are late and there are only copies and copies and we possess no originals and since all of this is true, well we just can’t really trust the Bible.

The sad reality is that if the text of the NT cannot be trusted, the text of any other ancient document cannot be trusted. Now keep in mind at this point I am not saying the information conveyed in the text is true. I am simply saying that the text has been handed down reliably.

For every ancient text, we only have copies. Some of these are indeed centuries away from the original text. Sometimes, we only have a few extant copies. Yet the time span of the Bible is closer by far than other ancient texts and when it comes to the number of texts that we have, there is an embarrassment of riches.

In fact, we have more evidence of the reliability of the Biblical text than we did when Ehrman had his crisis of faith that he recounts in several of his books. Yet still, this idea persists that we can’t know what the authors of the Bible originally said. (Interestingly, Ehrman does think he can get to what the oral tradition was behind the text of the Bible. So Ehrman thinks he can take an inaccurate text and use that to get an accurate oral transmission?) A sign of this is that recently on Peter Boghossian’s Facebook page he put up a link to Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman and said he was sure the apologists would not comment.

As if any of us were just unprepared for Ehrman and had nothing to say.

This is also especially so since there is always new information coming. A book that came out shortly after Blomberg finished the manuscript I’m sure is The Early Text of the New Testament. There is even a rumor that we could have a 1st century copy of Mark, which would really devastate much of this ideology.

For those interested, Blomberg even goes into Old Testament textual criticism. He notes that the skeptics would have a stronger case here, but it is not made. I suppose the NT is the one that most want to deal with and sadly, too many Christians do ignore the OT.

On the other extreme, Blomberg advises not heeding groups of people like the KJV onlyists. As he tells us, each generation it seems this movement arises again and must be dealt with. I won’t go into what Blomberg says here, but he goes so far as to say the KJV onlyists go past the Muslims in the way they choose one text and just exclude all others.

The next topic to consider is the canon of the Bible. Did the church get it right with the canon? Blomberg here shows how many of the books were debated for the OT and the NT both but eventually made it in. He makes a case for why the Apocrypha was not included in the sacred literature and discusses the books that were selected to possibly be in the canon but in the end, were rejected.

What’s the other extreme to having the canon be flexible entirely? Well it’s to say that the Bible stands alone and is our only guide for anything. This gets ridiculous when we see many books on a Biblical Guide to X, where the topic is concerning matters the Bible was never meant to address. One can find principles that are consistent with the Bible, but let’s not get that confused with what the Bible is really authoritatively teaching. If you want to learn algebra, your best bet is a math textbook and not the Bible.

The next section deals with the topic of translations of the Bible. Why are there so many? Blomberg points out that there are different theories on biblical translation. Some go for a word-for-word translation as much as possible. Some want to focus on getting the meaning across more than a literal translation of the words. Then some try to go in the middle. There’s a time and place for each. It would be a mistake however to always think that the literal is best.

Naturally, there are some translations to avoid such as the NWT of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Mormons. I was also thinking Blomberg might have included something I read when I was in Bible College, which is the Scholar’s Version, the one put out by the Jesus Seminar which included the Gospel of Thomas.

Meanwhile, there is an extreme to avoid here and that has been a debate over gender-inclusiveness in the Bible. Now if we’re talking about turning God into a female for instance, then yes, I have a problem with changing that language, but when we talk about mankind in the generic sense, I really don’t have a problem. There are commands that are clearly wrong for men and women both and changing the language to indicate that is not an issue, yet sadly so many Christians have been ready to attack anyone that moves in a direction they don’t really like. This included an all-out attack on the TNIV.

Blomberg ultimately concludes that one can take any of the best-selling translations of the Bible and find the Gospel message in there. While I have my own preferences at times in translation, I do have to agree with that one.

Next we come to a big one. What about Inerrancy? As many know, I have been caught in the thick of this one having been someone who was a student at Geisler’s first Seminary he founded and even being one of his students for a time. I also happen to be the son-in-law of Mike Licona so when the Inerrancy wars started, I was right there.

One of the first points I really liked in this chapter was how Blomberg dealt with this idea that there is no academic freedom for many scholars since they have to agree to something in a statement such as Inerrancy. Blomberg points out that most scholars agree to that who teach at these institutions because in their background study for years, they’ve come to the conclusion that they agree and they don’t take such claims lightly. If they do change their minds, they move on from that institution to another. Unfortunately, stories like that don’t get attention. It’s when a professor gets “ousted” that the media suddenly show up.

Blomberg also says that “Inerrancy can be wielded as a blunt tool to hammer into submission people whose interpretation of passages differ from ours, when in fact the real issue is not whether a passage is true or not but what kind of truth it teaches.”

Too many times I have seen the idea put forward that because Inerrancy is true, a teaching is true. It could be young-earth creationism. It could be pre-trib dispensationalism. It could even be that the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 is a real historical event instead of something apocalyptic!

Consider for instance the doctrinal basis for being a member of the Evangelical Theological Society.

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”

So to answer someone like Geisler who would ask “Could Mary Baker Eddy join the ETS?”, the answer would be no. She would not agree with the second. Yet notice that believing in the first does not mean one automatically believes in the second. One can believe the Bible is Inerrant and still get the second question wrong in thinking the Bible does not teach a Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses do this. Yet they could certainly not join ETS.

If you want to know if a person denies Inerrancy, it is not to be found in looking at what that person thinks the Bible teaches. Where is the knowledge that they deny Inerrancy to be found? It is in saying that they think the Bible has errors in it.

It is not a surprise then that the opposite extreme in this chapter is someone like Geisler again. Blomberg points out that if Geisler and those like him had their way, there would hardly be anyone left in ETS. This is the same Geisler who likes to use ETS as a weapon in the Licona debate to point out how Gundry was voted against (Which is covered in the next chapter) but ignores that the vote didn’t go his way with open theism. At this, Geisler left the institution and called it the Formerly Evangelical Theological Society. Now that he needs the Gundry vote again for his case, then he can start using the ETS once more. Blomberg points out that Geisler has repeatedly left Seminary after Seminary, including the one he founded, because none of them were conservative enough for him. I concur with Dr. Michael Bird.

“I thought a big highlight was Blomberg’s critique of extreme views of inerrancy by Robert Thomas and especially Norman Geisler. It becomes clear that Geisler in particular is not a particularly pleasant chap to work with and has never found an institution that was worthy of him. Seriously, Geisler is the villain of this chapter and comes across as being slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.”

Craig Blomberg – Can We Still Believe the Bible?

It is good to see evangelicals like Bird and Blomberg coming out and standing up to what has been going on and being willing to really use all the historical tools that we can to examine the Bible instead of imposing modern standards on the text.

Related to this is the fifth chapter on genre categories in the Bible. Again, Blomberg covers both testaments. He asks questions about the nature of Job, Jonah, and the authorship and dates of books like Daniel and Isaiah and asks if the critical approach to any of these would really be a death knell for Inerrancy, concluding that they would not.

When it comes to the NT, he brings up the Gundry issue that I hinted at earlier and again points out the way Geisler behaved in this one. Gundry had the idea that much of Matthew was midrashic and thus not meant to be read as historical. It was something the readers would have known about and thus would not be a danger to Inerrancy.

Geisler would have none of it and encouraged the ETS to oust Gundry from membership. Most of the society however said that Gundry should be allowed to make his case and let it be critiqued in the scholarly circles instead of by censuring him. If there was little to his proposals, they would not gain scholarly support and would die out. Yet in the end, Gundry was voted out of the society. How did this happen when so many were saying what they said?

Answer. Geisler started a political campaign and had friends show up who normally would not come to meetings. The views presented were not presented in their fullest and just barely over the 2/3rds needed voted to remove Gundry. Blomberg points out that someone as stalwart as D.A. Carson did not see a violation of Inerrancy here, though he certainly saw no credibility to Gundry’s views. No shock Geisler has followed similar tactics against Mike Licona.

The simple solution to all of this is to do what we encourage skeptics to do. Follow the evidence where it leads. If the evidence shows that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies for instance, and scholarship across the board tends to go this way, then let us go with it. Let us find a way to shape our worldview according to the facts. Let’s not shape the facts according to our worldview.

The final chapter is on miracles. Now I must admit this one was probably the one that I thought could be improved on the most as in dealing with objections to miracles, there are mainly endnotes referring to Keener and Hume. For a book like Blomberg’s I would have liked to have seen some of the argumentation take place, although I certainly agree that pointing to someone like Keener is the way to go.

In this chapter, Blomberg looks at the miracles in both testaments and focuses mainly on the purpose of the miracles and their nature in comparison to claims in other religions. He notes many of the accounts are rather restrained and are meant for a specific purpose instead of just show. This is especially so in the case of Jesus’s miracles in the NT. He also uses the NT time to go after the health and wealth word of faith teachers. Many people Jesus healed did not have faith.

There are two extremes to avoid. The first is to believe all miracle claims. All claims of miracles should be believed or disbelieved based on the evidence that we have available. The next is to be overly skeptical of all miracles, and this includes Christians who believe the miracles of the Bible, but stalwartly refuse to admit any miracle in any other religion. This becomes a double-standard.

Meanwhile, you can also have claims such as John MacArthur with the “Strange Fire” conference where all charismatic were painted with a broad brush. Now I am in no way charismatic, but I agree that MacArthur crossed a big line with this one. Naturally, one can be on guard, but one should always be open to being wrong, and I have many Christian brothers and sisters in the charismatic movement. I have no desire to question their salvation.

In the end, I think Blomberg’s book is an excellent one. It’s not one on biblical apologetics per se, but it does fill a necessary gap. Blomberg’s writing remains us where our true focus needs to be. I highly recommend this one for students of Scripture.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Further Reply to Randy Hardman

Is there a danger in the apologetics community? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In a previous blog this week I wrote a reply to Randy Hardman on the nature of the apologetics community. Now I wish to look at part two and part three of Hardman’s series.

One characteristic I note is that in part one, Hardman told us a lot about his own experience. I did the same. Yet when I look at part two and three I see Hardman telling us more about his own experience. Now naturally, he’ll know more about that than anyone else, but I wonder what interaction was being done with the evangelical community?

For instance, at the most recent ETS meeting, the entire theme of the conference was Inerrancy. It was discussion largely about what it means for evangelicals to believe in Inerrancy and what Inerrancy is including having a book released around the same time on five views on Inerrancy. I do not see any awareness of this on Hardman’s part.

Going back a few years, what about the Geisler controversy, which readers of this blog know I was quite well aware of and wrote profusely on. I do not see any mention in the writings of Hardman on any of that. I do not see him acknowledge that many evangelicals would say while they hold to Inerrancy, it is not a necessity for salvation.

Hardman writes in part two about faith as science. He includes this line:

“For every atheist that’s incorrigibly committed to the truth of his philosophical naturalism there is an evangelical incorrigibly committed to his theism in such a way that neither one lacks the need to feel absolutely certain.”

Now I do not doubt that such evangelicals exist, but I would like to have seen some interaction with who these people are. Furthermore, what is this about absolute certainty? I think of how Peter Boghossian has written about dialoguing with an OT professor who said it would take finding the bones of Christ to make him abandon his faith.

Of course, there are myriad problems with this, such as how you would identify the bones. (Perhaps they would have a unique DNA make-up due to a virgin birth) That is why I have made it my claim instead to say that one needs a better explanation of the data surrounding the rise of the belief in Jesus’s resurrection and the early church’s survival.

Also, as those who study history will tell you, including Mike Licona in his book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach”, history deals with probabilities. You cannot prove X necessarily with history, but you can say beyond any reasonable doubt. Can we absolutely prove that Alexander the Great conquered the world? No. Would you have to be completely clueless on history to think otherwise? Yes.

Hardman goes on to say

“For these evangelicals, conviction leaves no room for doubt, and so in popular Christian apologetics doubt is something to be assuaged with answers.”

Again, I wish I knew what evangelicals were being talked about. If he wanted to talk about doubt, why not refer to who I have referred to before in part one, namely Gary Habermas. Habermas is an evangelical who has written more about doubt than most in the field have.

Habermas classifies three kinds of doubt. For the kind of doubt that Hardman is writing about here, intellectual doubt, yes, an answer to the question will satisfy it. What happens if the answer does not satisfy? Then one could be dealing with a different kind of doubt.

The #1 culprit is emotional doubt. This doubt is the kind that usually asks the question of “What if?” It can often disguise itself as intellectual doubt but the major difference between it and intellectual doubt is emotional doubt is never satisfied and for many of us, if we were thinking rationally, we would not be worried about it.

Let me give a personal example. Shortly after I got married, I had a bad case of gallstones and it was decided that I should have my gallbladder removed. Now I had had anesthesia before as I am no stranger to surgery, but this time I was scared. I have a wife now! What if I go under and never come out? How will she handle it? What will happen?

Allie thought I was being crazy about such fears.

She was right.

Yeah. It could happen, but is it really something to be concerned about? You could show me all the statistics in the world and my position was not changing. It was entirely emotional in nature. The problem in this case is unruly emotions and you need to find a way to get those emotions in check.

The other kind of doubt is the worst kind to deal with. This is volitional doubt. These are people who not only do not believe, they have firmly decided they will not believe and no evidence could convince them. (Think of certain people who write books about training street epistemologists and encouraging practicing “doxastic openness” as an example of this.)

I still would like to know who these people are. Gary Habermas again gets before audiences with his minimal facts approach and says he’ll use only the data that liberal scholars will concede and still have it that Jesus rose from the dead. There is no requirement for Inerrancy. There are some who do not have a problem with evolution. Some do, but they will also dispute it on scientific grounds. Are the arguments valid? I can’t answer that, but I can say that is the way to dispute evolution if one wants to.

Hardman is right that Inerrancy being central is a problem. I cringe to think of the student who says “If John is wrong on how Jesus died, maybe everything else is wrong too!” I think of the guest on Unbelievable? once who was presenting a contradiction of how Judas died to the Christian guest and was saying that if we can’t be sure of the Bible on this point, what basis do we have for believing in something like the crucifixion?

I don’t know. Maybe history….

There is only one document in ancient history that people seem to have this all-or-nothing approach to and that’s the Bible. If the Bible is wrong on one thing, it must be wrong on everything. If it is right on one thing, it must be right on everything. No historian would treat the Bible this way. The fundamentalist Christian and the fundamentalist atheist sadly treat the Bible the exact same way.

Too many Christians have this attitude that the only way we can know what happened historically is if we treat the Bible as Inerrant. It is a wonder how the first evangelists of the Christian Gospel somehow spread the word without an Inerrant Bible. It’s also a wonder how they convinced anyone else since they would have to be convinced of Inerrancy first.

Now to be fair, there are events we’d have a harder time verifying, but this is true of any report in history. Can we prove that Cato or Caesar or someone else said something at a particular time? Not likely. Can we make a stronger case for more important events in their lives, such as that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or that he was assassinated on the Ides of March? Yes.

So when it comes to Jesus, the resurrection is central. We can make a stronger case for that. Can we make as strong a case that He was born of a virgin? No. Can we make as strong a case that he turned water into wine? No. I’m fine with that.

Hardman also talks about the great risk involved with the question of “If evolution is true, is Christianity false?”

I do not know what the great risk he sees in this is. It was a conclusion I reached years ago and I’m still able to even hold to Inerrancy just fine. I just determined that I’m not a scientist and I do not have the time or desire to really focus on the science questions as my area of study is the NT, so I’m fine with just letting it be. In fact, as a Thomist, my arguments for God’s existence are not rooted in the origins of the universe or the creation of man, but in the doctrine of existence itself.

Hardman goes on to say

“It is trust, not data, that allows one to wrestle through the night with God, through the unanswerable, and, indeed, the irrational. It allowed me to approach questions differently and it allowed me, a couple months later, to re-examine my own life and concede what was true: I didn’t know Christ as much as I knew about him.”

And this is Hardman’s experience. I can write about my own as well and say for me, it has been the knowledge that Jesus did rise from the dead that has sustained me in my times. I just sit back and look at the evidence and realize that this is true. Who else has done this? Greg Koukl. In his series on surviving spiritual storms, he says that whenever he wakes up scared that maybe it isn’t true, he thinks about the facts.

After all, if we could control our feelings that easily, then we would wake up scared and just tell ourselves “Don’t be scared” and then go right back to sleep. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I know that when I have nights when I’m worried about something and try to tell myself to relax, I usually do a terrible job.

So now we have Hardman’s experience. We also have mine and Koukl. Question. Why should we take Hardman’s experience to be the one for all of us? Second question. Why should we take mine and Koukl’s experience to be the one for all of us? It could depend largely on what kind of doubt it is that you’re dealing with.

As we move to part three, we find more of the same from Hardman.

“This post still deals with what I find to be a strange irony in the discipline of apologetics, namely, the insistence on a “rational and well thought out” faith with the insistence on upholding scriptural inerrancy and creationism.”

And again, where is the interaction with ETS? Where is the interaction with Five Views on Inerrancy? What about the Geisler controversy? Is there in fact any interaction with one of the latest works that I think should not be neglected, The Lost World of Scripture, by Sandy and Walton?

Nope.

Hardman says

“It is my conviction that when we insist that young people have to choose between evolution and God or the critical results of scholarship and faith, we are not at all helping students overcome some of the intellectual barriers and questions they might have. Rather, we contribute to the swath of students who find Christianity to be opposed to reason.”

I agree, but this is not entirely revolutionary. Hardman writes about the problem, but what about the data? Does he interact with it? Does he consider a work such as “You Lost Me” about how so many people are walking away? Now naturally, I think some of this is because of the lack of apologetics training, but it is also definitely just as important how we teach people and that means focusing on the essentials.

Hardman goes on to relate an experience that demonstrates the problem:

As I was currently enrolled in a Biblical Studies program at Asbury Theological Seminary, he posed me a question: “Randy, what do you think? Did Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source?” I don’t really know what answer he expected from me but I just looked at him and said, “Absolutely! That’s pretty near consensus in NT scholarship…I don’t see any reason to doubt it!”

My friends eyes widened as he sat back in his seat, threw his hands up in the air, and said, “No, no, no…They didn’t use Mark as a source. That’s just a theory promoted by the Devil and populated through Bultmannian scholarship.”

As it stands, this other person doesn’t even realize that this kind of thing goes back far farther than Bultmann. Now how will this be answered? It will be answered with data. The sad reality is that Hardman wants us to avoid an extreme, but has he himself not gone for an extreme just as much? His argument goes that we assume creationism and Inerrancy must be central, but could it be that he in fact has assumed that that is assumed?

In fact, I and many other apologists follow the model when we debate, such as on Peter Boghossian’s Facebook page, that our data is that which comes from the best scholarship in the field. This is in fact the position of evangelical scholars themselves! Go listen to any of them! I have had several show up on my podcast and they’re very often talking about scholarship. If you read their books, just note the bibliographies and how much scholarship they interact with.

Hardman goes on to say the same about a young-earther with a PH.D. who chose to commit himself to the Bible instead of The Origin of Species.

Hardman says

“The problem, as you are probably suspecting, is this: When we caricature Christianity by such narrow boundaries, we run the risk of making Christianity anti-intellectual. Even more dangerous, however, is that when we promote views like these in the vein of “apologetics” and “Christian intellectualism” we run the risk of making our intellectual Christianity anti-intellectual.”

The sad aspect here is that it looks like Hardman is just as guilty of this caricature. This could be disputed, but unfortunately no evangelical scholars are cited to show that this is the position of evangelical scholarship. How can evangelical scholarship view it inimical to interact with scholarship when it itself interacts with scholarship?

In conclusion, as I finish Hardman’s case, I wonder where he has been. Here he is wanting to say “We shouldn’t be marrying Christianity to doctrine X” when so many evangelicals beforehand have been saying the exact same thing. This is not new.

Note also that as pointed out, there is a lack of interaction with evangelical scholarship. It is quite interesting to hear the evangelical community being told its doing something wrong and yet where do we see the data? What scholars are being cited?

I conclude the problem is not apologetics once again. It is us. It is part in fact of an American mindset approaching the text. It is a fundamentalism that got a grip of our culture and unfortunately we’ve let it maintain its grip, and this mindset is held by atheists and Christians a lot. (Note that Craig Evans describes Ehrman as being on a flight from fundamentalism.)

The solution is really moderation in all things. Apologetics is not the problem. Pride can exist in any field whatsoever. You could have the lowliest job on the planet and still have to struggle with pride. The problem is the people that are involved and the way that we are training our youth today. (In fact, I have a good friend who went to a highly fundamentalist Bible College and is now having to rethink and unthink so much of what he “learned.” I’ve been fortunate to be able to help him, but I also wonder what if he knew of no one who had wrestled with these questions before?)

I can’t help but think about the 1 Timothy 3 admonition about requirements for leadership.

No doubt, the same should apply to the apologetics community.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Here Comes Inerrancy Again

Has the focus on Inerrancy died out yet? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I am someone who does hold to Inerrancy, yet I do not think I can say I hold to ICBI Inerrancy. I think in light of new information in historical studies, we need to reconvene and have another meeting to determine what we mean by Inerrancy. This is not because of a lack of trust in the Scriptures, but because of the new information. If Inerrancy is true, it will survive any new information that comes our way. If it is not, it won’t. If it is not true, let us abandon it. If it is true, let us find a way to defend it.

Yet I do not really fight the Inerrancy battle any more. It’s not because I think it’s a losing battle. It’s not because I don’t think it can be defended. It’s not even because I do not think the doctrine is worthwhile. It is because it becomes a central point of the faith and that if it is seen as fallen, then it takes everything else with it.

An example of this is young-earth creationism. Now I know several people who are YECs. There are biblical scholars I respect who are YECs. My own wife is a YEC. My ministry partner is a YEC. I am not. I hold more to John Walton’s view on Genesis 1.

Yet here’s an important difference. The people who I respect who hold this view also do not make it an essential. Too many people who are YECs have it as a fundamental of the faith. If you deny YEC, you’re denying Christianity. You’re denying Inerrancy. You are an enemy of the faith trying to destroy it. You are liberal in your approach. You are making compromises with modern science.

What will happen when this is the focus? Young students will go off to school and get information for the first time that contradicts their YEC view. Do they simply dispense with that and go off and study the works of leading scholars and come to a different view? No. They decide that Christianity itself can’t be true.

What of Inerrancy? It’s the same way. Young people are often told that this is an essential of the faith. Then off they go to college unprepared. What happens? They get presented with 1,001 Bible contradictions and they have no idea what to do. In the end, they abandon their faith. It’s not just young people. I’ve had mature adults tell me that if there is one contradiction in the Bible, then it’s not true and Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. I’ve heard atheists say that if this one part in a Gospel contradicts another, then can we trust anything historically in the Gospels?

What happens for the apologist is this becomes what I call a game of “Stump The Bible Scholar.” The critic thinks if they find one contradiction that you can’t answer, then they can just dismiss all of Christianity. How many such alleged contradictions are there? Hundreds of them. Is it fair to expect any of us to have to carry around an answer in our heads to every single contradiction? No.

Yet some in the field still have not got the memo. Case in point, though he has been quiet for a long time, Geisler has written a long piece again with Inerrancy coming under attack once more! Once again, my focus will be on his attack on my father-in-law, Mike Licona.

As Geisler writes “He redefines “error” to include genre that contains factual errors. He claims that “intentionally altering an account” is not an error but is allowed by the Greco-Roman genre into which he categorizes the Gospels, insisting that an CSBI view cannot account for all the data (MP3 recording of his ETS lecture 2013).”

Simple fact. Licona is right. Let’s consider one example. Can Geisler tell me what order the temptations of Jesus happened in? Is it the case that Jesus was tempted to jump from the temple pinnacle first, or was he tempted to worship the devil first? Luke says he was tempted to worship the devil first. Matthew says he was tempted to jump from the pinnacle of the temple first. (To be sure, all of them agree that the absolute first was the turning of stones to bread)

Does Geisler want to actually suggest that Jesus went into the wilderness twice and fasted 40 days and 40 nights twice and then the devil came and tempted him twice and used the exact same temptations but switched things around? Doubtful.

Does this affect Inerrancy? Hardly. The ancients were not as interested in chronology as we were. They could have a thematic account and that works fine. In fact, if it’s said someone wants to alter an account and therefore it’s not false, well everyone of us knows that this is false.

To use an example, suppose some Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door. I have a good dialogue with them and they leave. Well my folks love me and they want to hear about my apologetic endeavors so I call and tell them the story. I don’t remember everything, but I tell them a basic account.

Then I call Licona to tell him how it went. Am I going to tell the story differently? You bet! Why? Because Licona knows the apologetics language so something that would make no sense to my parents makes perfect sense to Licona. That is altering. One account will have details the other did not have. This is also considering the fact that I am the author of both accounts.

Geisler’s greatest problem I think is his absolute inability to interact with genre criticism. He states

“Another aspect of non-inerrantist’s thinking is Genre Criticism.”

No. This is a genre of historical thinking in fact. To say the Gospels are in fact sui generis, that is, in their own category, yet this in fact practically becomes a category. The question we have to ask is can Geisler produce any NT scholarship that indicates that the Gospels are in fact sui generis or at least that they are not Greco-Roman biographies?

What Geisler is doing is in fact arguing they are not Greco-Roman biographies based not on reading Burridge and giving a sustained argument against his view, but by saying that it leads supposedly to a false conclusion, denying Inerrancy. (Which it doesn’t. You can affirm the Gospels as Greco-Roman Biographies and believe the Bible is Inerrant.)

Let us suppose I held this argument.

If evolution is true, Genesis is false.
But Genesis cannot be false.
Therefore, evolution cannot be true.

Now to be entirely clear, I do not hold to such a position at all. My view of Genesis would not change whether or not evolution is true or false. If I wanted to show that evolution is false, what would I do? Well I’d go out and I’d study the sciences and I’d read all that I could on both sides and then when I had informed myself of the position, I’d make a logical argument based on the evidences.

My argument would not convince anyone who held to evolutionary theory as it is, and indeed, it shouldn’t. The case against evolution must be made on a scientific basis if it is to be made. The case against the Gospels being Greco-Roman biographies must be made on a historical and linguistic basis.

Geisler goes on

“Although he claims to be an inerrantist, Mike Licona clearly does not follow the ETS or ICBI view on the topic.”

Are we to believe that Inerrancy did not exist until ETS or ICBI came? Are we to believe that it is only in light of modern information from ETS or ICBI that one can truly hold to a position called Inerrancy? This is quite interesting. One must reject modern information that has come to light to understand the Gospels, but one must accept modern distinctions that have arisen to define what Inerrancy is and if you do not hold to ETS or ICBI, you do not hold to Inerrancy.

If Licona says he is an inerrantist, let’s do something interesting. Let’s believe him. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Does Geisler suspect Licona has some hidden ulterior motive that he wants to destroy the faith of some? If anyone thinks that, then the view is simply laughable. Yet the term “non-inerrantist” is a sort of code word that is thrown around in order to tell someone “Do not trust this person! This person is the villain!”

No. Let’s listen to their case instead. That works much better. Unfortunately for Geisler, the more he does this,the more he will drive people away from ICBI and from ETS. If anyone wants to know an excellent reason why I’m skeptical of ICBI and even joining ETS, it’s because I’ve seen Geisler’s usage of ICBI and the way he wants ETS to be ran. In fact, I know of other up and coming minds in the field who think the same way.

“Licona argues that “the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios)” and that “Bioi offered the ancient biographer great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches…, and the often include legend.” But, he adds “because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins” (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 34).”

Note also that Licona says this at the beginning of his book. He’s not writing this book for evangelicals. He’s writing this book for scholars who may or may not be evangelicals. He’s making a case from a historiographical standpoint. At the end, he does admit the honest truth about historical genres and bioi. This is entirely true. If one reads a bioi, it can be difficult to know.

What needs to be present is in fact historical argumentation against this claim instead of just presenting it as problematic in itself. The argument cannot be dismissed because it supposedly leads (And it doesn’t) to a conclusion that we don’t like. It must stand or fall on its own terms. Let’s consider again another example of this. Let’s consider an atheist.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, my father who died as an atheist is in Hell.
I do not like the thought of my father being in Hell.
Therefore, Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Now let’s consider an opposite perspective that a Christian could make.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then I am without hope in this world.
I do not want to be without hope.
Therefore, Jesus did rise from the dead.

Now either Jesus rose or he didn’t. Neither of these arguments however are persuasive.

Geisler goes on to say

“This led him to deny the historicity of the story of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:51-53 (ibid.,527-528; 548; 552-553), and to call the story of the crowd falling backward when Jesus claimed “I am he” (John 14:5-6) “a possible candidate for embellishment” (ibid., 306) and the presence of angels at the tomb in all four Gospels may be “poetic language or legend” (ibid., 185-186).”

For the first one, this is an assumption. Geisler is presupposing the account is historical, when that is in fact the very fact that is under the topic of debate. It will not work to say that if you cannot take this literally (A concept Geisler does not understand), then nothing in the Bible can be taken that way. (A mistake Al Mohler also makes.) If Geisler wants to show the case wrong, he needs to make a historical and literary argument. He does not need to wave around Inerrancy. Frankly, the whole concept of Inerrancy should never have been brought up. As for the charge of embellishment, Licona is presenting an argument for possibility in a scholarly situation, which is what he’s supposed to do. He himself does not hold to any embellishments in the text. This has been pointed out repeatedly and one can hear it for themselves on Chris Date’s podcast here. The same can be said for the angels at the tomb. Licona is not denying that there were angels. He’s presenting an argument in a scholarly venue and to show he is not begging the question at the start, he cannot just assume there are no legends or embellishments in the text.

Of course, we also have the changed date in John, but again, I wish to ask Geisler, who changed the order of the temptations? If this is being done for thematic purposes, the audience knows this. Now I do not agree with Licona on this one, but Geisler needs a stronger case. Licona also informs me that Geisler in “When Critics Ask” does not even mention this problem. Does Geisler have a solution?

Geisler goes on to say quote Licona saying

“So um this didn’t really bother me in terms of if there were contradictions in the Gospels. I mean I believe in biblical inerrancy but I also realized that biblical inerrancy is not one fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The resurrection is. So if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is still true even if it turned out that some things in the Bible weren’t. So um it didn’t really bother me a whole lot even if some contradictions existed” (emphasis Geisler’s)

It is interesting to see that the resurrection being a fundamental is not worth highlighting, but saying that Inerrancy isn’t a fundamental is. Does Geisler think one can be a Christian and not believe in Inerrancy? Does he think one can be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection? I would hope he would answer yes for the former and no for the latter. Yet here, Geisler is putting a secondary doctrine before a primary doctrine. This is exactly the problem with his critique of Licona in the first place.

And for the record, it wouldn’t bother me if there were contradictions. I’d have to change my views on inspiration and Scripture, but my Christianity would not fall apart if the Bible had contradictions in it.

Geisler goes on to say

“This popular Greco-Roman genre theory adopted by Licona and others is directly contrary to the CSBI view of inerrancy as clearly spelled out in many articles. First, Article 18 speaks to it directly: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (emphasis added). But Lincona rejects the strict “grammatico-historical exegesis” where “Scripture is to interpret Scripture” for an extra-biblical system where Greco-Roman genre is used to interpret Scripture. Of course, “Taking account” of different genres within Scripture, like poetry, history, parables, and even allegory (Gal 4:24), is legitimate, but this is not what the use of extra-biblical Greco-Roman genre does. Rather, it uses extra-biblical stories to determine what the Bible means, even if using this extra-biblical literature means denying the historicity of the biblical text.” (Emphasis Geisler’s)

Note again that there is no argument to a position like Burridge’s. As for Scripture interpreting Scripture, how? The Bible cannot interpret something. One can explain something by looking at another passage, but interpretation is done by minds. Geisler also says that there are genres within Scripture, but has this strange idea that there can be no genre of a whole book within Scripture? Does he think a prophecy book, like Nahum, is the same genre as a historical book, like Joshua?

Geisler also says it the problem is that it uses extra-biblical stories to determine what the Bible means.

Geisler, I suspect some Christians who are strong YECs want to talk to you about this. After all, you use extra-biblical science, something the ancients had ZERO access to, to interpret Genesis 1 and argue that it cannot be talking about a young Earth in that text. Why is it you can use extra-biblical sources that the ancients could not access to interpret an ancient document, but Licona cannot use extra-biblical sources that were contemporary with the literature to interpret the text?

Please note also these YECs would say that you are denying the historicity of Genesis 1 by using extra-biblical science and compromising with unbelief. They would also say that you are denying Inerrancy by having an interpretation that denies the literal reading of Genesis 1. Now I think that they are wrong, but they are accusing you of something similar to what you are accusing Licona of, except Licona actually uses information that is relevant to the time.

It won’t work to say you don’t do this. After all, in this very entry you say

“Of course, as shown above, general revelation can help modify our understanding of a biblical text, for the scientific evidence based on general revelation demonstrates that the earth is round and can be used to modify one’s understanding of the biblical phrase “for corners of the earth.” However, no Hebrew or Greco-Roman literature genre should be used to determine what a biblical text means since it is not part of any general revelation from God, and it has no hermeneutical authority.”

So once again, Licona uses information that is contemporary and the people of the time would have recognized to interpret a passage? BAD! Geisler uses modern science that the ancients did not have in order to interpret a passage? GOOD!

There’s more also on dehistoricizing but as said, that’s the very question under debate. I was not aware that Geisler had become a presuppositionalist….

Geisler continues,

“Furthermore, similarity to any extra-biblical types of literature does not demonstrate identity with the biblical text, nor should it be used to determine what the biblical text means. For example, the fact that an extra-biblical piece of literature combines history and legend does not mean that the Bible also does this.”

Yes, which is also why Licona has not said that the Bible does in fact do this.

In new material, Geisler tries to defend himself.

“Some have objected to carrying on a scholarly discussion on the Internet, as opposed to using scholarly journals. My articles on Mike Licona’s denial of inerrancy (see www.normgeisler.com/articles) were subject to this kind of charge. However, given the electronic age in which we live, this is an archaic charge. Dialogue is facilitated by the Internet, and responses can be made much more quickly and by more people. Further, much of the same basic material posted on the Internet was later published in printed scholarly journals.”

Note also that Geisler did not meet with Licona willingly for a round table dialogue. All Licona asked for were witnesses to be present. Why would this be denied? Would not Geisler want to make sure the meeting was held in the most honorable method? Yet Geisler refused.

One can say this is an archaic charge, but in reality, it was entirely unprofessional. Scholarly disputes are to be handled in the scholarly community. Geisler immediately posted in attack mode putting Licona on the defensive and as I will say later on, did in fact go after his job. For someone wanting dialogue, Geisler has not interacted seriously with his critics, as we will see. My responses go unanswered. J.P. Holding’s responses go unanswered. Max Andrews’s responses go unanswered.

Geisler goes on to say

“In a November 18, 2012 paper for The Evangelical Philosophical Society, Mike Licona speaks of his critics saying “bizarre” things like “bullying” people around, of having “a cow” over his view, and of engaging in a “circus” on the Internet. Further, he claims that scholarly critics of his views were “targeting” him and “taking actions against” him. He speaks about those who have made scholarly criticisms of his view as “going on a rampage against a brother or sister in Christ.” And he compares it to the statement of Ammianus Marcellinus who wrote, “no wild beasts are such dangerous enemies to man as Christians are to one another.” Licona complained about critics of his view, saying, “I’ve been very disappointed to see the ungodly behavior of a few of my detractors. The theological bullying, the termination and internal intimidation put on a few professors in SBC…all this revealed the underbelly of fundamentalism.” He charged that I made contacts with seminary leaders in an attempt to get him kicked out of his positions on their staff. The truth is that I made no such contacts for no such purposes. To put it briefly, it is strange that we attack those who defend inerrancy and defend those who attack inerrancy.”

The reality is people looking at this on the internet saw what Geisler is pushing hard to deny. He was being a bully and to this day still is. Licona himself has told me about the presidents of Seminaries who got the calls Geisler never says happened, or the professors at those Seminaries who heard it from those presidents. These do not wish to give their names due to not wanting to be targeted. Why did Licona lose his job at NAMB but because of this Inerrancy debate? (Licona loved what he did at NAMB, but decided to resign because Geisler’s attack on him could make him a centerpiece of debate and he did not want NAMB dragged into that.)

Geisler’s behavior has been a major turn-off to people who once supported him, including myself, and now we want nothing to do with him any more. His legacy has been seriously damaged and there is no one he can blame besides himself. Geisler asks why we defend those who attack Inerrancy and attack those who deny Inerrancy.

Answer is, we don’t. We do not see Geisler defending Inerrancy. We see him attacking Licona for having a different interpretation and turning it into an Inerrancy debate. Licona has given a historical case. If Licona can be shown to be wrong in the case, then he will change it. If not, then he won’t. Licona is making a decision based on the evidence. Would Geisler prefer he not do that?

Geisler goes on to say

“While it is not unethical to use the Internet for scholarly articles, it wrong to make the kind of unethical response that was given to the scholarly articles such as that in the above citations. Such name-calling has no place in a scholarly dialogue. Calling the defense of inerrancy an act of “bullying” diminishes their critic, not them. Indeed, calling one’s critic a “tar baby” and labeling their actions as “ungodly behavior” is a classic example of how not to defend one’s view against its critics. ”

No. It’s not wrong. It’s accurate. This is what was going on. Yes. Geisler has been called a tar baby and perhaps what Geisler should do is take a good long look at himself and ask why that happened. Could it be the problem is really with him? Geisler is instead playing the victim here. He’s the one who went and pushed Licona down on the playground and doesn’t like it when other students come up and say he can’t do that and take a stand themselves. Geisler’s own actions are a classic example of how not to defend one’s self against one’s critics.

Finally we hear

“What is more, while Licona condemned the use of the Internet to present scholarly critiques of his view as a “circus,” he refused to condemn an offensive YouTube cartoon produced by his son-in-law and his friend that offensively caricatured my critique of his view as that of a theological “Scrooge.” Even Southern Evangelical Seminary (where Licona was once a faculty member before this issue arose) condemned this approach in a letter from “the office of the president,” saying, “We believe this video was totally unnecessary and is in extremely poor taste” (Letter, 12/9/2011). One influential alumnus wrote the school, saying, “It was immature, inappropriate and distasteful” and recommended that “whoever made this video needs to pull it down and apologize for doing it” (Letter, 12/21/2011). The former president of the SES student body declared: “I’ll be honest that video was outright slander and worthy of punishment. I was quite angry after watching it” (Letter, 12/17/2011). This kind of unapologetic use of the Internet by those who deny the CSBI view of inerrancy of the Bible is uncalled for and unethical. It does the perpetrators and their cause against inerrancy no good.”

Licona is right. The internet is not where scholars go to dispute their claims. Scholarly conclaves are the place for that. My ministry partner and I are not scholars however. Yet even with this video, Geisler STILL has it wrong. I DID NOT PRODUCE THE VIDEO! I do not know how many times I have to say this before it will sink in. Some people have noted that the date on this blog often comes out as 2007. I do not know how to fix it. That’s how technically inept I am. When art work is done for my podcast, it is done by my wife because I do not know how to do it well on my own. I cannot produce a picture like that easily and Geisler thinks I produced a video? Watch the video at the time and see how at the end, it says it’s a production of Tektonics ministries.

Geisler wants his critics to listen to him, but it seems he does not want to listen to his critics.

Now let’s look at other charges about the video.

First, Geisler says it was offensive to list him as Scrooge.

Okay. I think it was offensive to go after Licona and have him lose his job at NAMB and pass around a petition behind his back. In fact, I suppose my ministry partner will agree to something. It would be just fine for the video to be taken down as soon as Geisler publicly apologizes to Licona for how he did that and does something to make restitution. Until then, the video stays.

Geisler lists several people who complained about the video. Unfortunately, these are also not named so we cannot say anything about them. Yet why should I take them seriously? I know several people who thought the video was in excellent taste and wonderfully represented what is going on in the situation. Why should I choose Geisler’s sources over mine?

The time has simply come to rethink Inerrancy, and Geisler’s behavior has been a large catalyst in this. This is largely also in light of recent scholarly works that have come out such as Sandy and Walton’s “The Lost World of Scripture.” My review of that can be found here and my interview with Sandy on this excellent book can be found here. As Sandy and Walton say on page 303 “The alternative
is to recognize that inerrancy needs to be redefined in light of the literary
culture of the Bible. Hopefully this book is a step in the right direction.” (I recommend the whole of the 20th and 21st chapter)

More critiques of Geisler can be found here at Deeper Waters and a search feature can find several titles. (Hopefully I can get them all linked together once I figure that out. Again, I’m the one who was supposed to have made a video…)

I interviewed Mike Licona on my own podcast with the first 20 minute segment talking about this discussion. That can be found here.

A link to all of Holding’s material can be found here.

Max Andrews’s can be found here.

For those wanting to make sure I represented Geisler honestly, his piece can be found here.

We might respond to more of this piece later on. We might move back to Carrier instead. Time will tell.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 10/26/2013 Brent Sandy

What’s coming up on today’s episode of Deeper Waters? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, I reviewed a book called The Lost World of Scripture and recommended it as one of the best books I have ever read on getting a handle on the world of the Bible. Today, I am pleased to say that one of the authors of this fine book, Brent Sandy, will be my guest. Due to scheduling complications, we are also holding the show a little bit later and thus it will air from 6-8 PM EST today.

If I were to recommend one book on understanding the world of the New Testament it would be this one. I hope that this interview with Brent Sandy will bring out all the benefits that you’ll get by reading this book. (Unfortunately, John Walton did not come along for the ride this time, People who want to hear my interview with him on The Lost World of Genesis One are advised to go here.

The Lost World of Scripture brings out more than any other book I’ve read on the topic just how different the culture was for the average person back then than it is today. It is also a highly readable book yet one that still uses some of the best scholarly information that is out there. If readers will take the time to absorb the material that is in this book, they will approach the text in a far better light.

But what about Inerrancy? Now that will have to be discussed as this book will be controversial to some who hold to a more wooden form of Inerrancy. The authors do hold to Inerrancy however and that is an important part I think of why it is that they wrote this book. They want to make sure that we are really understanding what it is that the Bible is saying and are applying to properly.

I recommend that you keep this episode on reference and perhaps even consider taking some notes while you listen. (Unless of course you’re driving at the time) Learn the material in here and you will be able to deal with a good number of the skeptical objections that you will encounter in the world when it comes to questions about the nature of Scripture.

Skeptics of the Bible should also read this book. What happens too often is that too many skeptics think they’re informed on the Bible when they’ve simply read their own culture into the text, said it doesn’t make sense, and moved on as if they’ve demonstrated that the Bible is false. Not all do this of course, but too many do this. (Of course, too many Christians also read their own culture into the text and think they find biblical justification for their own biases.)

So please be joining me today to hear Brent Sandy speak on this important topic and when the book comes out on December 1st, please be sure to pick up a copy. The show airs from 6-8 PM EST and the call in number is 714-242-5180. The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Lost World of Scripture

What do I think of this volume by Brent Sandy and John Walton? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

One of the perks of being in the business of having a radio show on apologetics and getting great scholars on is that you can get to read advance books. Some of you reading this will want to go straight to Amazon and get this book. Unfortunately, as of this writing, it’s not out yet. It’s due out on December 1st. Yet if this is what you were wanting to do, then I tell you this in the strongest terms. Put this on your wish list immediately! If I could, I would give the book 6 stars on Amazon.

If you want to be keeping up with biblical studies at all and have a thorough knowledge of what is going on in the Bible, this book is required reading. This is the kind of book I think every skeptic should have to read before they go on about how many errors are in the Bible or ask questions like “Why didn’t anyone write it down immediately?”

As I started reading this book, after just finishing two chapters I knew I was reading one of the most important books in biblical studies that I would ever read. The information was also presented in an easy to approach format and even though I have read books in this field for years, much of the information was new even to me.

LWS (Lost World of Scripture) seeks to bring us back into touch with the historical background that the Bible was written in. The name is familiar to some since John Walton, a co-author, wrote The Lost World of Genesis One. I have high hopes that the viewpoints of people like Walton and his co-author, Brent Sandy, will soon became the norm in the world of biblical studies and maybe we’ll actually begin reading the Bible the way it was meant to be read instead of treating it like it was a modern book sent to us, a fax or email from Heaven as it were.

The largest emphasis I see in this book is on the orality of Scripture. We live in a world after what the authors have called the Gutenberg Galaxy. Want to get information out there? Write it down! (This blog post is just such an example!) In the ancient world, the rule was “Want to get information out there? Start talking!” The oral word was seen as more valuable than the written word. If you could go read a book by someone or else hear someone talk about what they said, the spoken word would be seen as more valuable. (And much more accessible as fewer people could read.)

This might sound odd to us, but it shouldn’t be. Many of us can know what it is like to get to read a book by someone and learn from it, but better still is it to get to sit down and talk with those people and learn from them. I do not doubt I have learned much from this book, but I also realize it could be possible to learn even more when talking with the authors (Which such a chance granted does not usually come in our world) and really get to discuss it with them.

When we treat the Bible as if it was meant to be read more than heard, then we will have problems in our society. Of course we should read the Bible, but the original recipients of the gospel would hear it. Even with the written words, they would still hear it as most could not read and would rely on a reader telling them what the written text says.

Also important is what this all says for Inerrancy. The authors make statements that will no doubt be seen as controversial for Inerrancy, but I think they are certainly true. We really need to examine what it is that we mean by Inerrancy. As each generation often needs to say what the truth is they uphold, so do we. We have uncovered more information than was had at meetings like the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Even saying “The Bible is true in all that it affirms” might not be enough, because there are times that we have to ask what is being affirmed. Proverbs are not iron-clad rules, for instance. They are generalities. Are we then saying Proverbs are generally inerrant?

Walton and Sandy do not have an answer to this that is definitive, nor should they. This is not a statement for just two people to make. This is something that would require the evangelical community as a whole coming together. This would require as many scholars as willing in the relevant fields to come together in light of new information and say that we today still want to uphold the truth of Scripture and give it the high place it deserves. How shall we go about doing this?

After finishing this book, I definitely conclude it is one of the most important ones I have read and so much of what I see online from atheists could be dismantled if they would be willing to engage with this book. So many Christians would have a deeper appreciation and understanding of Scripture if they would read what is in this book. If you care at all about biblical studies, you must go straight to Amazon now and put this in your wish list!

It is time to find the world that has been lost to us.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Determining What’s True

How do we study the Bible historically? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

After my blog post on the problem with fundamenatlism, I was asked on TheologyWeb that if by chance the Bible was not inerrant, how would we know what parts were true and what parts weren’t? This is a good question to ask.

Relatedly, on the latest Unbelievable? a skeptical teenager from Australia was on the line asking about the accounts of Judas’s death in Matthew and Acts. His contention was that if one of these was shown to be unreliable then everything in the Bible was unreliable, and the impression was given that this would go down to the crucifixion itself.

Both of these show a great concern to have. A Christian can be left with the attitude of “The only way I know that Jesus rose from the dead is that the Bible says so!” Meanwhile, the atheist can come with the idea that “If I find one mistake in the Bible, I can’t take any of it as historically reliable.”

This approach is highly problematic especially since one would not use it on any other work of ancient history. If you were reading an account of Plutarch and you found that he made a historical error at one point, you would not say “Oh well. So much for Plutarch!” If we are reading Josephus and we find that he made a historical error at one part, we do not say “So much for Josephus!” If we did this with ancient historians, we would know nothing about ancient history. For that matter, we would know nothing about modern history either since modern historians make mistakes.

Some of you are saying “Surely no one would make a mistake like that!”

Frank Zindler does.

Who is Frank Zindler? Listen to Bob Price’s description of him.

“One of the most effective (not to mention hilarious) speakers for atheism and secular humanism today is Frank Zindler, author, linguist, translator, Bible scholar, and scientist—truly a Renaissance Man.

He is an advocate as well for the much-despised but increasingly hard to ignore Christ Myth hypothesis, which he has ably defended in books such as The Jesus the Jews Never Knew and articles like “Where Jesus Never Walked.” ”

Apparently, the criteria for being a Bible scholar is having an opinion. Zindler is not a Bible scholar. To say the Christ-Myth is hard to ignore is like saying loud music as you get closer to a concert is hard to ignore. Want an example of what Zindler says?

“When the author of Matthew read Mark’s version, he saw the impossibility of Jesus and the gang disembarking at Gerasa (which, by the way, was also in a different country, the so-called Decapolis). Since the only town in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee that he knew of that started with G was Gadara, he changed Gerasa to Gadara. But even Gadara was five miles from the shore – and in a different country. Later copyists of the Greek manuscripts of all three pig-drowning gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) improved Gadara further to Gergesa, a region now thought to have actually formed part of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. So much for the trustworthiness of the biblical tradition.”

No ancient historian would take this approach. It is an absurd all-or-nothing approach. We encourage Zindler to do the same with any other work of history and see what he winds up believing about history.

Now someone might say “Well the Bible is supposed to be the Inerrant Word of God!”

Yeah. So what?

How does one get from that to “If there is one mistake, then everything in it is wrong”? If you show an error in the Bible, this is what you demonstrate.

“The Bible has an error.”

You do not demonstrate that everything in the Bible is error by showing one thing is. Let’s do the opposite end. Let’s suppose I demonstrate Jesus was crucified. Would you take that to mean “Now everything in the Bible is true!” No. Not at all. I woul dnot want you to either. That would be dumb.

What do we do then? We do what we are supposed to do. We study the text.

It means we get scholarship on both sides. It means we weigh the issues out. It means we avoid just one approach. It requires we work. We also accept some things can never be proven or disproven. Let’s suppose we read about a skirmish between two individuals in a Roman biography. That could be hard to prove or disprove. Let’s suppose then instead we read about the conquest of a city. That is much easier to prove or disprove. For the former, it could be a position of faith, in that faith will be seen as believing something to be trustworthy and reliable. It is giving the author the benefit of the doubt where we find general reliability.

This is also the method the apostles encouraged. They gave evidence that Jesus had risen. Miracles were one kind of evidence. Eyewitness testimony was another. This was how the Gospels were written as well. Luke explicitly states that he knows of many eyewitnesses and reports and he made a thorough investigation.

Inerrancy is not a position that we assume. It is one we reason to. If the Bible is without error, we should be able to demonstrate that insofar as it is possible. If we truly think it is, we should be more than happy to have it investigated. If we think Jesus rose from the dead, we should be open to historical investigation into that matter.

For our atheist friends, they need to realize that showing one error in the Bible does not show all of it is false or suspect any more than it would for any other work of ancient history. Are they just as willing to examine both sides, such as the evidence that Jesus rose or the evidence that miracles have happened? So far, the number I’ve seen that do that are minimal.

Perhaps that’s because they’re really the ones that are people of faith.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Problem WIth Fundamentalism

Are we walking a fine line with our faith? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote about how we are playing Evangelical Jenga. I described this as bibliolatry. To be sure, this is not the same as idolatry, to deal with any misconceptions. The term is a figure of speech. It is a position that gives a high view of the Bible but at the same time, acts as if the Bible will not stand up to criticism.

In light of the actions of Geisler, I am seeing this as more and more of a problem. Before dealing with that, let’s state upfront what my view is not.

My view is NOT saying that believing in Inerrancy is being fundamentalist. Not at all. By and large, I have no problem with the ICBI statements. I do hold to Inerrancy, but the difference with me is I seek to hold to it the way an ancient Jewish person would. For instance, consider this statement of Al Mohler.

“The Bible claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit right down to the inspired words”

Okay. This sounds good and holy to so many people, and then along comes Bart Ehrman. “What if you don’t have the inspired words?” Indeed. What if you don’t? I do not know of a textual critic today, conservative or liberal, who would say we have 100% accuracy in what the text of Scripture says. There are some minor parts in question. In 1 John 1:4 is it “our joy” or “your joy”? We don’t know. Does any doctrine of Christianity hang on this? Nope. Not a one. Not having exact wordage does not trouble me because we have highly reliable wordage.

When we talk about the exact words, what about something like this as I blogged about in the future of Biblical scholarship. Let’s just use one example, the baptism of Jesus.

In Matthew 3:17, we read these words at the baptism of Jesus.

“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Mark 1:11 says this:

“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Luke 3:22 also says this:

“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Okay. Mark and Luke agree, but Matthew is quite different. You can say the thrust is the same, but there is also the difference that Matthew is addressed to the crowds. Mark and Luke make it personal to Jesus. What was said?

If you want exact wordage, you won’t get it, but this wasn’t a problem for Jews. Consider in Exodus 20 when we get to the fourth commandment we read this:

“8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

When the Ten Commandments, and remember, these were said to be written by the finger of God, were repeated in Deuteronomy 5, what do we read for that commandment?

“12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”

Those two are different. Of course, the thrust of it is still the same. The Jews would do something like this even with the words of God. Now of course, they were copious in copying the manuscripts, but with retelling an event, there was no major problem with paraphrasing.

If we insist on having exact wordage every time, we will have problems when someone like Ehrman comes along. What happens when you’re a youth who has been taught that God gave us what we have down to the very words and then find out that some of those words are called into question?

To consider how problematic this is, look at what Geisler says in his article against Robert Sloan.

“However, this is no consolation for an inerrantist since even one error in the Bible would mean it is not the Word of God because God cannot error in even one thing that He affirms. After all, how many mistakes can an omniscient Being make? Zip , zero, zilch! None!”

While it is true that an omniscient being can make no mistakes, there is a problem here. It is something to talk about what a being like God can do. It is more important to talk about what He did do. Consider this statement I read this morning in Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus.”

“This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew). The fact that we don’t have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring these words.” (Location 201 of 4258 on the Kindle)

As one who debates internet atheists regularly, I will attest that so many times we can hear the objection about “If God is so omnipotent and omniscient, then why are there textual variants?” If we base our arguments on “God can” then we have to defend so much that we need not defend. Let’s base our arguments on “What does the evidence say God did?”

Now I am not saying God did not inspire the words of Scripture. I hold to that. I just hold that that does not require perfection in the scribes. God is not a micromanager. By and large, I think the scribes have done an excellent job in preserving the text, far better than other ancient manuscripts that we have. My concern is statements like those of Geisler and Mohler are setting our youth up for failure when they meet an Ehrman.

Suppose you have a youth who grows up in a church where Inerrancy is hammered on, but in the modern sense of Geisler and Mohler. This student is taught to honor the very words of Scripture as being what God wanted for us. God is capable of preserving His word. We must be clear on the exact words used in every case.

Then they get to Bart Ehrman. What do they find out? They are told that there are several several variants. Does Ehrman overdo his case? Yes. Are most of those variants non-consequential, as he himself admits? Yes. Is Christianity really in danger? No.

Now suppose this student believes in passages like 1 John 5:7 or John 7:53-8:11 or Mark 16:9-20. None of these passages I hold to be authentic. Most conservative critics would agree. What happens when the student hears this from Ehrman and reads that even conservative scholars agree?

The same thing that happened to Ehrman. When he was told that “Maybe Mark made a mistake” on a paper he wrote, the floodgates were open. It’s called the snowball effect of thinking.

We’ve all had this happen before. It is where you think one bad thing and then speculate about all the awful things that will follow next. You can work yourself into a panic over things that will never happen because your negative thinking just spirals out of control. It’s emotional reasoning and it’s a great producer of fundamentalist atheists.

So what do we do?

For starters, do we ditch Inerrancy and inspiration? No. Now if someone is convinced by the evidence Inerrancy is not true nor inspiration, they should not believe it. However, they should also be willing to be open to being wrong. On the other hand, the reverse is true. If someone does believe in them, they should be open to being wrong. If we want people to examine the evidence for the resurrection and go where it leads, we have to put our cards on the table and do the same.

Second, we must not be afraid to ask the hard questions. If we are sure our view is correct, we will want to ask the questions. We will want to go as deep into our studies as we possibly can. We will want to examine everything instead of just starting with our conclusion and going from there.

Third, we are going to have to get out of our modern understandings. Modernity has many beliefs we can agree with, but we cannot impose modernity on an ancient text. The Bible was not written to us. It was written for us. It does not speak in our cultural nuances. Because we are people who tend to value literalism, that does not mean that the Bible does. Because we value strict chronology, that does not mean that the Bible does. Something that is wrong by our modern literary standards might not be by ancient Jewish standards.

Fourth, we have to keep going on the essentials. We have to make a historical case for the resurrection. I don’t bother addressing “biblical contradictions” much any more except for if it’s a Christian having an episode of doubt. Why? Because it becomes a game of “Stump the Bible Scholar.” You answer one objection from someone and they don’t acknowledge it. Instead, they just go get another one and you have to answer that and if you don’t answer it the way they think works, then they can reject any aspect of Scripture as historical. Today, with web sites like “Evil Bible” or “The Skeptics Annotated Bible”, the non-Christian can look up a plethora of “contradictions” without doing any research whatsoever. The Christian must spend their time doing research that will be a wasted effort on the audience. I don’t have a problem with research of course, but our time can better be invested in the most important areas. I would rather we prove the resurrection, the foundation of Christianity, rather than Inerrancy.

The reality is we can deal with most of these problems by changing our approach. What about that student I used as an example earlier. Well I think Bart Ehrman is an example of just such a student who found out his view was wrong and everything snowballed after that. He started asking “Is it possible that X and Y really contradict?” One could say it’s possible, but one needs to show it. Imagine what difference it could make if Ehrman had truly followed in the footsteps of someone like Metzger instead of going the opposite way?

We claim to be people of evidence. Let’s live that way. Let’s go where it leads and really debate the issues instead of making pronouncements from Sinai.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Tag: inerrancy

Deeper Waters Podcast: 4/26/2014 — Craig Blomberg.

Like this:

Hounds Of Heresy Go Bird-Watching.

Like this:

In Defense of Craig Blomberg

Like this:

Book Plunge: Can We Still Believe The Bible?

Like this:

A Further Reply to Randy Hardman

Like this:

Here Comes Inerrancy Again

Like this:

Deeper Waters Podcast 10/26/2013 Brent Sandy

Like this:

Book Plunge: The Lost World of Scripture

Like this:

Determining What’s True

Like this:

The Problem WIth Fundamentalism

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: