New Resource: Defining Inerrancy

The following is taken from my blog at Deeper Waters.

As readers of this blog know, I've been on the forefront of Norman Geisler's attacks on my father-in-law, Mike Licona. I've been constantly at work showing that the criticisms don't work and that in fact, Geisler's approach as well as that of his followers will severely cripple the ability of the church to engage the culture. If anything will produce more Bart Ehrmans, it is the approach of Geisler.

Today, my ministry partner, J.P. Holding, and I have unveiled our latest work in this area bringing this out beyond just the blogs and YouTube. Now you can hold much of the information we've written as well as some new content in your hands, well, provided those hands have a Kindle or a tool that can read a Kindle.

May I introduce to you Defining Inerrancy!

This book is equipped to help you realize that not only do we hold to inerrancy, but that it can be defended without it having to be the style that Geisler and his company insist on. There is inerrancy that can stand proud recognizing the truths discovered through years of work and scholarship in the Gospels rather than one that will shun the academy and lead to a rigid fundamentalism.

Not only do we have excellent content in here, but we have a great foreword by Craig Blomberg himself. Blomberg in his foreword lays out the importance of the Ebook that we've written and why it is that he thinks that this battle matters as well.

The question in all of this has never really been about inerrancy, though some want to make it about inerrancy. It's been more about how it is that the Bible is to be handled in this time. Geisler's approach leads to a rigid literalism and disregards the work of the academy on grounds that no serious NT scholar will take seriously. You can be sure that the students who are taking Geisler's work and embracing it might be able to intellectually somehow convince themselves that Ehrman is wrong, but they will not be able to convince others.

For a Christian to be able to defend the NT today, he's going to need to be able to interact with modern NT scholarship and show from the viewpoint of scholarship when a case is wrong. Is there such a thing as bad NT scholarship out there? Just as much as there is bad theology and bad philosophy! What's the antidote to this? It's not to eliminate all NT scholarship any more than it is to eliminate all philosophy and theology. The antidote is good and sound scholarship. If your case is true, there will be evidence for that case.

I urge everyone to please go out today and pick up a copy of Defining Inerrancy and tell your friends about it as well. I hope that this volume will equip you to be able to go out and defend the truth of Scripture to a new generation and for that new generation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Rob Bowman on Synoptic Criticism and Evangelical Christian Apologetics

The following article is by Rob Bowman. It's rather lengthy so I'll just leave a link here.

http://biblicalstudiesorguk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/rob-bowman-on-synoptic-criticism-and.html

How To Debate Inerrancy

Craig Blomberg has done it again! He has written another humorous piece! All of this comes from him!

JOSEPH NORMAN’S TOP TEN TACTICS TO DEAL WITH FELLOW EVANGELICALS WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE, ESPECIALLY ON THE TOPIC OF INERRANCY

1. Never address the strongest arguments of your opponents.  Better yet, don’t even acknowledge that you are aware of those arguments.  Knock down the easiest arguments and declare victory.

2. Misrepresent the position of the persons with whom you disagree, so that it’s easier to rebut them.

3. Attribute to your opponents views that are not theirs but held by their close friends and scholarly collaborators. Better yet, associate your opponents closely with someone who is genuinely questionable and tarnish your opponents with the same brush.

4. When someone tries to post an argument on your blogsite that you can’t counter, don’t allow it to be posted or delete it after you realize you can’t counter it.

5. When you can’t come up with a rational response to a particular view, engage in a smear campaign against the people holding that view.

6. When somebody replies with a humorous response to try to highlight the silliness of your position that way, become outraged and demean them by declaring how badly they have behaved.

7. Don’t ever agree to debate your opponent live, or participate in a colloquium or round table discussion, or put your views in print in a context in which multiple people represent multiple points of view.  After all, that’s a surefire way for others to see the inadequacy of your actual arguments.

8. Always speak from the moral high ground.  Only you really care about truth, only your view can advance God’s kingdom; all others are dangerous and damaging, irrespective of the motives or track records of your opponents.  Be an alarmist every chance you can.

9. Seek to ban your opponent from organizations or institutions they are a part of.  Don’t let them speak or publish if you have the ability to prevent them from doing so. Then compel others who disagree with them to also censure them.  Blacklist even those acquaintances who agree with you when they refuse to censure your opponents.

10. Above all, never, never, never admit you were wrong or made a mistake.  Apologizing is for sissies.  After all, it really isn’t just the Bible that’s inerrant; you are inerrant also!