For the past few years, Norman Geisler has been on a quest to stamp out anyone who is violating what he sees as ICBI Inerrancy. This has included going after the reputation and livelihood of godly men who have a passion for Jesus. He has now written a book on this called "The Jesus Quest: The Danger From Within" and has set up a website called DefendingInerrancy.net.
One of the first people who Geisler went after with this was my father-in-law, Michael Licona, and at that point I knew I could not stand idly by and I saw firsthand how dangerous Geisler's view is to evangelicalism. I had benefitted greatly from what Licona had said about biblical history and saw in Geisler's approach an Inerrancy that does not want to use historical scholarship on the Bible. I find this a dangerous view. If we believe the Scripture to be from God, then surely it can survive scrutiny. Instead of showing Licona to be wrong with an approach from historical scholarship, the claim of Inerrancy was waved and that was said to be enough. Licona wrote a massive work defending the resurrection and his reward was to be bullied.
Now Craig Blomberg has been on the list and recently an article was written against Michael Bird as well. Who all is next? Geisler has also adamantly refused challenges to his viewpoint. I even posted on his web site of defendinginerrancy a challenge from my ministry partner, J.P. Holding of Tektonics. My comment was never approved.
This is a place where we will allow people to comment however and we will take on questions. For those who are wondering about the methodologies of scholarship, please come here and ask the questions. Challenge us! We welcome it! Ask us why we do what we do, but be prepared to listen as much as to question. If we are wrong in our approach, show it. Don't just assert it. Yet if you are wrong in disagreement, do you not want to know it?
Note also that because one disagrees with Geisler, it does not mean one is not an inerrantist. Many Christian scholars today are, but they are not for reading the Scripture with the modernistic viewpoint Geisler forces on it.
If you want to discuss scholarship and Inerrancy, welcome aboard. This is the place for you.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand most of what you write, because I don't know the background.
What is the stance of N.Geisler? What is the stance of M.Licona? I mean what is the disagreement about?
I know Licona is an Apologist. Is Geisler also? What do they differ on?
Does this have something to do with young/old earth creationism etc?
Hi Dalibor. It all started with in Mike Licona's book, he suggested that the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:51-53 could be apocalyptic language not meant to describe a historical event but to show that a great king had died as strange phenomena are associated with the death of great kings in Greco-Roman bioi.
ReplyDeleteRather than look at his case for it, Geisler chose to just say Mike was saying the Bible had an error in it.
I'm not up on my Greco-Roman Biographies but I understand the Bible to be saying these people had visions of loved ones who had passed, something History isn't necessarily going to record. As the phrases used for graves opening up could be figurative Language for one leaving "Abraham's Bosom" and ascending into Heaven. But I think all possibilities should be discussed openly.
ReplyDeleteAh, I see. Thanks for explanation.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of that being a apocalyptic figure and not literal event.
As I understood W.L.Craig, he also said in one footage that he is opened to all possibilities on that one, including M.Licona's view.