ICBI and Inerrancy

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Let's begin our look.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/does-icbi-inerrancy/)

The text is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's begin to understand.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The ICBI Preface:

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/icbi-preface/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I've started us looking at the ICBI statement and going through and seeing what I think about each portion of it and what the ramifications are concerning the Geisler/Licona debate. Tonight, we look at the preface.

I do agree with the start definitely that Scripture is the authority and that has always been an issue. What Scripture says for the Christian should be taken with the utmost seriousness, which is something that makes this debate so serious. We want to know the message God wishes to convey to us through the original authors.

I do agree that the affirmation of Inerrancy is important. Note that the start says that it is being affirmed afresh, but each generation needs to make its own affirmation if need be. For instance, with Christology, Nicea was not enough. We also needed the council of Constantinople. Then, a new belief arose and we needed the Council of Ephesus. Finally, another heresy arose and we needed the Council of Chalcedon.

Of course, there are always going to be heretics and denials and there will be those who have not learned from the teachers of the past, but when the current debate was not found to be adequately dealt with in the past, then it was time to look again. In this case, we have an issue and since three signers of ICBI have different views, we need to look again at what was intended. We cannot just say one person is right. We need to find out why they are or are not.

In the next part, the writers acknowledge that the statement was made briefly in three days and despite what certain parties think, the statement itself says that it is not to be taken as a Creedal statement. In other words, ICBI is not infallible. That is reason enough that we can take a closer look and revise if need be. It is also reason enough for not using ICBI as a club.

Note also that the document is not offered in the spirit of contention, but in humility and love, with the request that that keep going in any dialogues that come out of the document. Unfortunately, this is not happening. The ICBI statement is being used in a way directly opposed to the way it was meant to be used according to the statement itself.

Finally, the preface says that response is invited to see if it needs to be amended. Again, it has been said that there is no personal infallibility for what has been said.

At this point, my thinking is that this is fine and all, but I fear that much is being made out of the three days when further refinement is necessary, especially since my ministry partner, J.P. Holding, has pointed out that most signers were pastors and/or theologians and not biblical scholars. Now a pastor and a theologian needs to know the Bible well, but that is not the same as being a biblical scholar. The pastor and/or theologian instead relies on the data of the scholar. Now one can be a scholar and be a pastor and/or theologian, but that does not necessitate one being so.

We shall continue our look tomorrow.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

ICBI's Statement.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/icbis-statement/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, we’ve been looking at the topic of Inerrancy and right now, I’m taking a closer look at what ICBI concluded. We fortunately saw last time that they admitted they were a brief meeting and thus, some work would be left to do in the future. Hopefully what is going on here is a start of that work. Even if there is disagreement later on, there is no need to start all over again. There can be no doubt some good work was done concerning ICBI, but there is still much to do.

There’s not too much here and I will put up a link at the end. To begin with, there can be no doubt ICBI wanted to give the highest view they could to Scripture. I agree with that, but we should be careful we don’t worship the Bible, which I think ICBI would also agree. The Bible is a revelation, yet I have met Christians who actually seem to think John 1:1 is talking about the Bible.

The first point wishes to stress that the Bible is from the God of all truth who speaks the truth. That is then the purpose of hermeneutics. The reason for interpretation is to try to find the truth. In any case, if not the Bible, we seek to find the message the author wished to convey. In the case of Scripture, we know the message that was wished to be conveyed was true. (Excepting of course statements like the lies of the devil being recorded. In this case, we have a true report of someone making an untrue claim.)

The next point teaches that the Bible is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it commands, and embraced in all that it promises. We agree. In fact, this is a great fault in us in that often we have made it a point to know doctrine without knowing the Lord of doctrine. We can get so caught up in the apologetics community in knowing the fine points that we forget to really learn the impact of what we believe. We can spend so much time defending the Trinity against Jehovah’s Witnesses that we forget what difference it makes.

The third point is the only one thus far I think I’d raise some qualms over. For one thing, I do not see any testament in Scripture to the Holy Spirit authenticating that the text is true. I am cautious of this seeing as I think there are other means and I think this one can be badly misused by Mormons. Second, I also do not think the Holy Spirit tells us the meaning of a text. I believe it is the Spirit that convicts us ON the meaning of the text. When we realize a promise of God, the Holy Spirit can use that to help us celebrate and praise him. When we are convicted of a sin from the text, the Holy Spirit can bring that home to us.

The fourth point stresses again the truth in all that Scripture teaches in all areas including our own lives. Again, I do not have a problem with this. As we have discussed however, the problem more often than not can be asking what it is that Scripture is really teaching and before we do that, we often need to see what lies within orthodoxy. Do young-earth and old-earth creation both lie there? Does theistic evolution lie there?

The final point is a reminder to not lessen Inerrancy. With this, we do not have disagreement. However, the danger as has been shown is to move Inerrancy from the Scriptures to our interpretation. We do not wish to lessen the Scriptures or Inerrancy in this look. I have no problem saying I believe the Bible to be true in all that it teaches. The question to ask is “What is it teaching?”

That is not the subject matter really of our discussion. It might show up some, but that is the work of the student to figure out, to which we should all be in a sense.

The link to the statement can be found here:

http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article 1.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/icbi-article-1/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I am sorry I have not written in awhile, but our household has been busy. I will also be out of town Friday night speaking at a conference in Cherokee, NC. If you are interested in going there, I'd love to see you. I will be speaking on an apologetic of love. I also wish to think SBC Today for choosing my blog on if ICBI = Inerrancy for a top blog post of the week. It is a great honor.

I have been discussing Inerrancy and my plan has been to go through the articles of ICBI and examine them. Today, I will be looking at the first article.

The first states as follows:

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the church, tradition, or any human source.

This is a statement I do not have a problem with and I see why it is at the start. The first point to appreciating the Inerrancy of the text is to recognize the source of the text. Of course, to say it is not the same as to demonstrate it, but that was not the purpose of ICBI. I simply say that to counter the rejoinder from someone who will think I am begging the question and assuming the Bible is inerrant.

No. I believe it is because after studying Bible contradictions, I have found that they are most often resolvable. I cannot really think of any glaring contradiction right now that I have not seen a valid answer to. This does not mean I consider myself a master of all of them, but I do trust in those who do know the Bible better than I.

I also have seen independent confirmation of the text such as other sources outside of the Bible that speak of events that the Bible records. There are also archaeological findings that have been made that have established the truthfulness of a biblical account when it had been doubted.

As for the denial, I agree with the denial as well. I think the Inerrancy of the Scriptures would be true regardless of if they were recognized or not. I also believe the texts are recognized as Scripture not based on what people say but based on that which is inherent to the text. I hold that men did not define the Scriptures but rather they discovered the Scriptures.

So at the end of the day on the first article, I do agree that the Bible alone stands in the unique position of all the books on the Earth. Of course, it bears many similarities to other books, but only in the Bible alone am I ready to grant sole trust. I will not give such trust to a favorite pastor, teacher, apologist, etc. Of course readers, do not ever give such trust here. If I am wrong about something, feel free to try to convince me. If any of us are wrong, we should want to know.

However, I do not have a problem with article 1. It is a good and basic start.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

On to Article 2.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/icbi-article-2/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, we’ve been looking at Inerrancy and especially at the statement from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Tonight, I’m going to be looking at the second article.

It reads as follows:

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Once again, there is not much problem with this. I will list some brief concerns but overall, I don’t think I would have no problem signing this.

I don’t see the conscience as a phenomena that would have been understood in biblical times however seeing as their idea of shame and honor meant that the behavior one would have known was right and wrong would have come from external sources rather than internal. However, if all the statement is saying is that the Bible is the one that gives us ethical principles that we are to follow, well and good. I have no problem with that.

I would also not like to see the emphasis being on morality. A concern of mine is that for many of our youth, including myself when I was growing up in the church, is that Christianity is seen as only a system of ethics rather than a whole worldview. Being a Christian means that you are a good person. It does not include aspects such as having a belief system about reality as a whole and even with that ethical system, you don’t really know why you do something except that the Bible says so.

Of course, this could be cleared up later on, but the Bible is our guide not just in orthopraxy but orthodoxy, and even when it comes to right living, I would add that we do not need to be giving the idea that the Bible is the source of morality and that a person cannot know moral truths outside of the Bible. Even the Bible itself I believe disagrees with this.

I do however definitely agree that nothing has greater authority from the church save God Himself than the Bible. This includes councils and yes, that would also include the council of ICBI. As I had said earlier, ICBI does not equal Inerrancy. One could disagree with some points of ICBI and still uphold Inerrancy. I am of the understanding that Henry Morris would not sign the ICBI statement due to its allowing old-earth creation to be accepted, but would anyone really doubt that Morris did not believe in Inerrancy?

So when it comes to the second article, our conclusion is positive. The Bible is valid in all that it teaches for the practice of faith. Its power comes from that of God Himself and is thus greater than all the works of man including councils and churches.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

On Article 3.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/inerrancy-article-3/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I am going to be returning to a look at Inerrancy. We've been going through the Chicago Statement seeing what was said in there in order to come to an understanding of Inerrancy and seek if there are ways improvement might be sought. Tonight, we look at the third article which reads as follows:



We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Much of this is meant to deal with Barthian doctrine. To begin with, I have no doubt that the affirmation is certainly true. Of course, to say that it is true is not to end the matter. We must look at what it means for that to be true and what the ramifications of it are.

To say that all the Bible is revelation by God means that all that is in there is meant for showing who He is and leading us to sanctification. Of course, it does not mean that everything in there is true, such as when it reports the lies of the devil, which is rather a true report of a lie, or HOW it is true. For instance, Genesis 1 is true, but does that entail true according to an old-earth view, a young-earth view, or a framework view?

Neither of these can be determined at this point, and that is just fine. All that needs to be said is that if it is taught in Scripture, we can be sure of its truth, which is also quite important to those of us who want to know the truth of salvation and the second advent of Christ.

As for the denial part, we agree with the denial. The Bible is what it is in virtue of itself. It does not become true when someone believes it to be true. Rather, someone comes to the conclusion that the Bible is true and as a result they affirm its truth. I would also say Inerrancy is arrived at the same way. If the Bible is Inerrant, it is Inerrant whether someone believes it or not, but that lies in the text and that can be discovered by men by a study of the text. If someone does not approach the text thinking it is Inerrant, a study of the text should be able to satisfy them that it is.

The Bible does not change based on how we respond to it. It is what it is and what we do cannot change that. There is no experience that we have that can change what it is. An experience can change the way that we perceive the Bible, but what will happen is that we will either move to a truer or falser view of Scripture. The Scripture itself does not change. We change in relation to it.

Thus, with article 3, we have no problem. What about article 4? Well that's for next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

On to article 4.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/icbi-article-4/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Today, I'm going to be continuing our look at the topic of Inerrancy and seeing what is said in the fourth article of ICBI's statement. This article reads as follows:


We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Again, I really do not see any problem with this and I would just like to comment. There can be no doubt that the fall tainted humanity so that there are consequences. Perhaps our minds do not reason as they should in some way. We have no evidence however that Adam was a super-genius before the fall nor does Christianity necessitate it. Thus, making such judgments is difficult as the data is really non-existent.

We do realize there are inadequacies in language as we indicate when we speak of something as so great as that words cannot contain it or there are just no words to describe it. It is the problem that the message we wish to convey is so incredible that the words do not seem to be sufficient containers of meaning.

I think immediately of the work of Dr. Habermas with near-death experiences as he talks about people who have an experience that is heavenly. They'll often try to describe it and say "No. That's not it. When I say that, you think of something else instead and that just won't explain it."

Language was what God had to use to make a revelation such as we find in Scripture. That is something that could be passed down and handed on to other generations. Of course, there are difficulties with such a procedure. Peter himself said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand.

We too often come to Scripture with the idea that it must surely be easy to understand because it is God's Word. We say this while at the same time saying that God is magnificent and beyond our comprehension. You cannot really dumb down God as it were. Now I do think salvation can be learned from the Scripture, but I do not think that the Bible itself fits into the box of easy to understand.

Does that mean that there was a mistake in using language? No. It just means we have to do what we so often hate to do, work harder. If we believe that the message of Scripture is valuable however, we will do it. This will mean we can seek to learn the original languages as much as possible, understand the social context of the time, and get a grasp on other factors like textual criticism, philosophy history, etc. that are all relevant to understanding the biblical text.

Thus, we conclude with a hearty approval of article 4.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article 5

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/icbi-article-5/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I apologize for the delays in writing. I have been busy. I also want to thank a kind reader who sent me a very encouraging message today. It is greatly appreciated.

I'm going to continue our look at Inerrancy tonight with article 5 of the ICBI statement which reads as follows:



We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.



This is something I can agree with easily a well. I do hold that there can be seeming contradictions between the Scriptures, but those are more apparent and not real. It can be difficult understanding the relation between Law and Grace for instance. Or there's the eschatological debate of "Is there a distinction between Israel and the Church?"

At the same time, we do realize we are not a religion like Islam with one book that came down very quickly in a relatively short period, but a book that has a written history consisting of around 2,000 years or so, depending upon what date is given to Job and the Mosaic writings.

Since I have mentioned Islam, it could be asked if we have the problem of abrogated verses. No. We do not. While we do not live under the Theocracy of Israel any more, we do still acknowledge a rule of God. There is debate over how that is displayed in the world today depending on your view of eschatology, but all Christians affirm we are not in a state where we have to offer sacrifices and such.

However, does that mean that the laws that were given about sacrifices are absolutely useless to us? Not at all. We may not have to undergo the Levitical system today found in Leviticus, but that does not mean that we can cut Leviticus out of our Bibles, and it's not just because there are moral passages in there. The passages on how to offer up offerings are important as well since we can find images of Christ in them and we can learn about the nature of God, forgiveness, how great it is today, and about the history of Israel.

It is important to include that revelation on a normative basis has ceased. Some Christians do think God still does speak some today, but few would say it is normative and what is said should be written down and included as Scripture. This would also present a problem to groups like the Mormons who believe in a living prophet today and who believe in extra books being Scripture outside of orthodox works and it would be a problem for Jehovah's Witnesses who believe the Watchtower is a continuing channel of truth today giving meat in the proper time.

So we conclude then that we can agree with article 5.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article VI.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/icbi-article-6/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've lately been looking at the teaching of Inerrancy and for that, we have been looking at the ICBI statement. As per the title of our blog, tonight we will turn attention to article 6.


We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

It is ironic that this post is being written after a visit my wife and I had with the Mormons today. In the introduction to the Book of Mormon, we are told it can be compared to the Bible and that Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on Earth. That led to my asking the question to the Mormons of if that is the case, then what in the Bible is incorrect.

Unfortunately, nothing was stated explicitly other than that the Bible has been translated many times, an objection that was dealt with by a brief history of textual criticism. It is a very serious charge to say that the Bible is incorrect in what it teaches.

Note that this is something important about Inerrancy. It is not making a statement on what the content of the Bible is explicitly. It is saying that whatever it is that the Bible is teaching, then it is that that is true.

Lately I have been doing reading on eschatology and I notice that no matter which side I read in this debate, both sides point their case to the Inerrant Word of God. One cannot say "The Bible is Inerrant, therefore this side is wrong." Each side in the debate holds that the Bible is Inerrant. It doesn't help us to claim that the other side doesn't believe what the Bible teaches. In a sense, of course, if someone is wrong, they do not believe what the Bible teaches, but they do not do so intentionally. That person really believes wrongly that the Bible teaches X and because they believe the Bible teaches that, they themselves believe that.

Let us be clear then that when we are in exchanges with fellow believers, we ought not be painting our critics as people who do not believe the Bible. We need to try to show that they are in error in their understanding of what the Bible teaches. They can just as much hold to Inerrancy. Now it could be that they do not hold to Inerrancy and for that different techniques will need to be applied, but if someone says that they do believe in Inerrancy, then let it be left at that.

Thus, in our conclusion, I do not really have a problem with article VI. I do affirm that all of the Bible is of God and that goes to the original documents alone. (Inerrancy does not apply to translations.)

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article VII.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/icbi-article-7/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through lately the doctrine of Inerrancy and taking a closer look at the ICBI statement. Tonight, we're going to be looking at article VII. It reads as follows:


We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

At this one, I can agree to it, but I would appreciate if we had had more. For instance, Ben Witherington has written about the act of prophecy in his book "Jesus The Sage." Of course, it is doubtful we could know about this since I question that revelation like that is going on today.

The denial is quite important however. The Bible was not based on people making lucky guesses. Prophecy was not just someone looking at the events of the time and making predictions. After all, when you have prophecies like those of the seventy weeks of Daniel, it's hard to imagine about how those could have been predicted. The same with the numerous other prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. There are no doubt some that could have been filled intentionally and by planning, but not all could.

The purpose of such however was not just God showing off, but it was God showing that he knows the end from the beginning and therefore Israel ought to trust Him. Of course, there was the importance of them giving reasons to trust Him and of giving messages to other nations giving them the opportunity to repent.

We can too often approach such prophecy as if it is not really meant to tell us about God, but that is the primary purpose of it. Very little of what the prophets did was actually prophesying, in the sense of foretelling the future. Most of what they did was in fact leading the people to be righteous. They were meant to turn the hearts of the people back to YHWH.

The importance of it being accurate was because it was from YHWH. If someone made a prophecy and it did not come true, then that prophet was shown to be a false prophet and the penalty for that was death. God protected his Word very closely. If someone's word did not come true, they were not from YHWH and were guilty of leading Israel into apostasy.

The bottom line in this one then is that all Scripture again comes from YHWH and by His inspiration, the prophets were able to know things that they would not have known otherwise. While it would have been nice to have seen more written on the nature of Inspiration and interaction with more scholarly works on the subject, we can conclude with saying that we agree with this article.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article VIII

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/icbi-article-viii/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. First off, my again thanks to a kind contributor who made a sizable donation to our work today. It is much appreciated. Tonight, we're going to be continuing our look at Inerrancy by looking at the eighth article of the ICBI statement. It reads as follows:




We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

This again is something important to note and something obviously misunderstood. We do not hold to a dictation theory. There are some very very few evangelicals who have held to such a position, but when one reads the writings of the writers of the Bible, they can usually tell that there are stylistic differences.

Isaiah, for instance, is highly poetic in what he says. Micah has quite a few puns in his prophecies. The Psalms have a wide variety within themselves. When it comes to the NT, some of the books are basic in their Greek, such as 1 John being one of the first ones that Greek students learn to translate. Luke and Acts, on the other hand, are ones that are quite difficult to translate.

Paul is highly logical in his thinking. He goes from point A to B and then to C. This is also one of the reasons that Peter would say that Paul's writings are hard to understand, as many of us when reading the great thinkers of the past do have a hard time understanding what it is they are saying. James, on the other hand, is a more simple writer who prefers to use more examples from every day life. He writes about horses and ships and springs of water and uses analogies of farming.

Presuming that the same John who wrote the gospel also wrote the apocalypse, there is definitely a great change in style from one to the other. John's gospel is one that tells a story in a more straight-forward narrative position with an emphasis on who Jesus is. The apocalypse contains much imagery that relates to events that take place sometime in the future from the time it was written, how distant you think it was depending on your analogy, but all agree the book contains much symbolism and it's one of the ones commentators fear the most. However, I would also say that a large emphasis is on who Jesus is in it.

The importance of this to Inerrancy is also that this can explain many so-called contradictions. The writers wrote with their own personalities and in their own words. This would be especially true if Paul used a scribe, as he most certainly did at times, and could be even that Paul would just say what he wanted said, let the scribe put it in his own words, and then write a signature to the letter which would be along the lines of "I'm Paul and I approve this message."

Thus, we agree with Article VIII.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article IX.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/article-ix/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I want to make sure you all know that this weekend I will not be posting on Friday night at least due to my being a speaker at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics. If you happen to come, please be there for my talk on "Should You Believe In The Trinity?"

Tonight, in our look at Inerrancy, we're going to be looking at the ninth article. Let's go to the text.



We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

This is a funny point for me to write about after reviewing Dawkins's "The Magic of Reality." If you read that review, within that book, Dawkins writes about why is it that the writers did not tell us about electricity or include a cure for cancer in the text. This is a fairly common objection found in your usual internet atheist.

Aside from prophecy to get people to repent, God was not really beaming down information into the heads of the writers. I do not think that Paul was sitting down to write an epistle and then just wait for God to suddenly turn a light on in his and help him to dispense great theology.

I think Paul was just a great thinker and that the Holy Spirit in some way guided his thinking. The Spirit did not tell him what to think. Now there could be a slight few exceptions to this, but they would certainly be just that, exceptions.

Did the writers write from a limited basis? Of course. That hasn't changed in fact for 2,000 years since all writers write from a limited perspective. That does not mean that they wrote inaccuracies. If that was the case, every major science paper would need to be labelled inaccurate since all scientists today have a limited perspective and could be false.

This article concurs that God worked within the limitations of the people. It is a modern idea that the people in the Bible should have written with modern ideas in mind. An example of this is when people look at the listing of a bat as a bird in Leviticus. A bat isn't a bird! True, but a bat has wings and the word used then meant "winged one." We should not fault the Bible because it did not have a word for "winged mammal."

Thus, when I get done looking at this article, I once again have to say that I agree and I think that this is an important contribution. It is also a reminder of how we need to look at the historical context for the Bible to best understand what is going on in any particular verse. Thus, in conclusion, we support article 9.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article X.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/article-x/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I've been spending my focus lately looking at the doctrine of Inerrancy, a doctrine I do agree with, and examining the ICBI statement on Inerrancy. Our look tonight will be at Article 10 which reads as follows:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

So anyone ready to discuss textual criticism?

My wife and I have lately had Mormons over and this kind of topic has come up. Is it true that all we have is copies of copies of copies of copies? Are we simply playing a game of telephone? Could it be that all of the early copies we have have been altered from what the originals said?

To begin with, in order to know that all of the copies had been altered from what the originals said, one would have to know what the originals said to demonstrate that there has been a change of that magnitude. As all freely admit however, we do not have the originals so that kind of charge is problematic.

Second, with all the writing going on at the time in many languages and dialects and cultures and quotations being made by the church fathers, one would literally have to have the super speed of Clark Kent and a vast knowledge of language and specific knowledge on where each manuscript and copy was in order to go and change all of them. It just couldn't be done.

So do we have telephone going on? No. Instead, copies are made from the oldest manuscripts. We can cross-reference all the copies that we have and see what the originals said. Most mistakes that we catch are usually simple things like spelling mistakes. They are easily caught.

Inerrancy also does not extend to the copies. There is no rule that a copyist has to copy everything down perfectly in order to save Inerrancy. For instance, take a translation like the Wicked Bible. In this Bible, the "not" was left out of "You shall not commit adultery." Yeah. They got into a little bit of trouble for that. Does that mean that Inerrancy went out the window? Not a bit. Mistakes had happened before that, but that was in the copying and not the original writing.

When you have a new translation made today, generally, it is made from looking at the oldest and best manuscripts that we have. A translation is not made from a translation and that translation from a translation. They're also not normally done by one person but by a committee of persons as a way to avoid bias.

Thus, I conclude that there is no problem with Article X. Mistakes in copies do not violate Inerrancy.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article X.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/article-x/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I've been spending my focus lately looking at the doctrine of Inerrancy, a doctrine I do agree with, and examining the ICBI statement on Inerrancy. Our look tonight will be at Article 10 which reads as follows:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

So anyone ready to discuss textual criticism?

My wife and I have lately had Mormons over and this kind of topic has come up. Is it true that all we have is copies of copies of copies of copies? Are we simply playing a game of telephone? Could it be that all of the early copies we have have been altered from what the originals said?

To begin with, in order to know that all of the copies had been altered from what the originals said, one would have to know what the originals said to demonstrate that there has been a change of that magnitude. As all freely admit however, we do not have the originals so that kind of charge is problematic.

Second, with all the writing going on at the time in many languages and dialects and cultures and quotations being made by the church fathers, one would literally have to have the super speed of Clark Kent and a vast knowledge of language and specific knowledge on where each manuscript and copy was in order to go and change all of them. It just couldn't be done.

So do we have telephone going on? No. Instead, copies are made from the oldest manuscripts. We can cross-reference all the copies that we have and see what the originals said. Most mistakes that we catch are usually simple things like spelling mistakes. They are easily caught.

Inerrancy also does not extend to the copies. There is no rule that a copyist has to copy everything down perfectly in order to save Inerrancy. For instance, take a translation like the Wicked Bible. In this Bible, the "not" was left out of "You shall not commit adultery." Yeah. They got into a little bit of trouble for that. Does that mean that Inerrancy went out the window? Not a bit. Mistakes had happened before that, but that was in the copying and not the original writing.

When you have a new translation made today, generally, it is made from looking at the oldest and best manuscripts that we have. A translation is not made from a translation and that translation from a translation. They're also not normally done by one person but by a committee of persons as a way to avoid bias.

Thus, I conclude that there is no problem with Article X. Mistakes in copies do not violate Inerrancy.

[firstfloor]

I would like to recommend Prof. Dale Martin’s lecture series on the New Testament available to view at OpenYale. In my opinion, absolutely nothing should be treated as inerrant. Advancement is impossible if our ability to question dogma is suppressed. Truth will always survive the discovery of new information. Only lies need protection. The Bible is awash with inconsistencies of which any serious discussion of historicity has to take account (see Prof. Martin).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Would you care to cite some examples?

[Jedidiah]

I've heard plenty, but none that carried any significance.

[firstfloor]

A few months ago I declared my bedroom clock inerrant. So I don’t need to adjust it anymore. Now all my colleagues arrive late for work.

[firstfloor]

examples as requested.
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

[ApologiaPhoenix]

examples as requested.
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

Choose five of the biggest ones there for us to blow out of the water.

[Jedidiah]

examples as requested.
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

You will probably not get good response to this topic as it has been done to death, and virtually all the problems are a matter of not looking at all the details.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XI

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/article-xi/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we're going to be continuing our look at Inerrancy and the ICBI statement on the topic. So far, we haven't really found much that we've disagreed with. There's no guarantee that we ever will. Nevertheless, hopefully this will be a look at Inerrancy that will increase our knowledge of the topic. We look tonight at Article XI which reads as follows:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

I agree that Scripture is by divine inspiration and is thus infallible. It is not meant to mislead us, but the problem is that we're often great at misleading ourselves. Scripture is not an easy book to understand and too often we have been under the impression that just anyone can understand Scripture. Some parts I would say can be understood by anyone, but there is a lot that requires serious study in order to grasp.

This ought not surprise us. If you want to understand God's creation in the body and how to heal it, you spend several years in study to be a doctor. If you want to study the heavens, you spend several years studying astronomy. If you want to know about the planet beneath our feet, then you will spend much time studying geology. Any area requires in-depth study in order to be knowledgeable on it and understand it beyond the level of the layman. Why expect Scripture to be different?

If we want to know what God means in a certain part of Scripture, then the idea is for us to be disciples. Disciples do not wait for their master to spoon feed them everything that they need to know. Instead, disciples are actively studying to know all that they can. The master is usually a guide helping to ask the right questions so that the student can find on his own. We all know about the proverb that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. It is the same with teaching him how to think. The good teacher does not tell the student what to think but rather guides the student into how best to think, even if those conclusions might disagree with the teacher.

Thus, as we wrap up this look at Article XI of the statement on biblical Inerrancy, once again, I do not have a problem with it. I think that the Bible is true in whatever it is that it is teaching. The only problem it seems comes when we think our teachings are infallible and inerrant. That belongs to the text alone.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XII

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/article-xii/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, as we continue our look at biblical Inerrancy, we probably will get into some controversial stuff as we look at article XII which I do have some concerns with. Let's take a look at what it says first.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Now I will say that I do agree that Scripture is Inerrant in all that it teaches. However, I wonder about the last point. Could it be the case for instance that science could ever overturn a Scriptural teaching? If the historic belief is that God wrote two books, then we need not fear anything whatsoever in science. Hence, my opinion on scientific matters is simply that we should let the investigations go where they may. Of course, if we are scientists, we can participate in them, but if we believe the Bible is true, we need not fear any scientific conclusion. Naturally, I am aware that that does not mean conclusions by scientists necessarily. Science might show that macroevolution took place. It cannot show that there was no God driving macroevolution.

Would that mean that we'd have to rethink a lot of our interpretations? Yes it would, and we should be open to doing such. The whole Galileo issue might have turned out better had we taken a position like that. Today, I think the creation/evolution debate would turn out better if we did that. I have no problem with using extrabiblical evidence to help us in our understanding of the Bible. If we say "Well the Bible obviously isn't teaching that because this evidence seems quite clear and is otherwise" then we can look more at what it is teaching. For instance, I've been impressed lately with the work of John Waldon on The Lost World of Genesis 1.

It could be I am misunderstanding the article, but I want us to be sure that if we do the science right and we do the biblical interpretation right, we will find truth in both cases. If macroevolution is not true, no need to fear science. True science working will eventually figure that out. If it is true, there's no need to fear that for if we believe the Bible is true, then we will need to say "Maybe we were understanding this wrong" and start to seek a different interpretation. Does this violate Inerrancy? Not at all. We're still saying that what the Bible says is absolutely true. We're just saying that we were wrong on what it said.

So if the idea is that science cannot overturn the Bible, I agree. If it means however, that we ignore what is said in other fields outside of the Bible, I don't agree. I say we should be fearless truth seekers wherever we go and we should rest assured that when we find something true in any field, it won't disagree with Scripture.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XIII.

It is much easier than it is made out to be.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/article-xiii/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're looking at Biblical Inerrancy right now and at the moment, it looks like the waters are churning and the sharks are seeking to devour. Let us hope that soon some sanity will be regained and this will all end. Until then, I do think a study on Inerrancy has been beneficial and tonight, I plan to look at article XIII. It reads as follows:

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

People. Let's start with that first affirmation. Inerrancy is about the truthfulness of Scripture. Well what is the specific content of that truthfulness? Inerrancy cannot tell you that. Inerrancy cannot tell you the what that is Inerrant. Inerrancy only tells you that the what is Inerrant. This seems to be something that's been missing in all of this. If a person believes that the Bible teaches X and therefore, X is true, they are not violating Inerrancy. We can question their interpretation, but not whether or not they affirm or deny Inerrancy.

When we come with our view of the passage and say "This is my interpretation of the passage" we must be clear that's what it is. It is our interpretation. Our interpretation is not inerrant. We could be understanding the text wrong and in that case, we need to be open to correction.

"But some of these views have been held for centuries!"

Granted they have, and that can place a weightier burden on the person who is making the claim, but that does not make the claim false. The way we determine if a claim is true or not is not by waving around Inerrancy like it's a weapon, but by doing something unique. It's called "Examining the claim."

If someone thinks the claim is wrong, that is not enough. It is not even enough to argue it. Otherwise, we might as well say there are no good reasons to believe in Christianity because there are non-Christians. Before atheists get excited with that, we could just as easily say there are no good reasons to be an atheist because theists exist. It is not enough to say "Here are my arguments, therefore the other side is wrong."

You can say you've given good reasons for the other side to think they're wrong and they could most certainly be wrong, but if they do not find your reasons convincing, then you must look at why. In the current debate, because Geisler lists reasons for thinking the text is historical and therefore Licona is wrong, it does not follow that Licona is violating Inerrancy.

Well why does Licona hold that stance? It would be good for some people to actually read his material and figure it out rather than the comments I see on the Christianity Today article such as "He's wanting to deny a miracle" or "He's having a crisis of faith."

Yes. Licona wrote a book demonstrating the greatest miracle of all only because he does not believe in a miracle of that power. He just obviously believes that it's ridiculous to think God could raise a mass of dead people like that. Obviously if God could not raise the dead, then Matthew 27 if historical could not be an act of God, but if He can, then the possibility is there but not the actuality. Licona has written a whole book to demonstrate that God can raise the dead in at least one instance. He has even in his debate with Patterson pointed to a miracle of people coming out of comas suddenly due to prayer. Yes. He obviously has something against miracles.

Well it's just a crisis of faith.

Over what? This is someone who took on the leading scholars in liberal thought head-on on their own terms and I must say having read his book, he wins the fight. He regularly enters into debates and excels at them. It seems people who make these statements seem to rule out one possibility.

Licona holds the position because of historical research.

Now he could be wrong in the position still, no doubt. That does not mean that he holds his position for wrong reasons. At what point then is he violating Inerrancy? It is at the point when he can look at the arguments and say something like "Okay. You all have convinced me. Matthew did intend to have the resurrection of the saints be seen as a historical event. I see my arguments do not work in this regard. However, I just believe Matthew was wrong in this regard and the event did not happen."

That is when Licona is denying Inerrancy and not a moment before. In order to deny Inerrancy, he must believe that the Bible is wrong in what it teaches. How can he be denying Inerrancy if he says "The Bible teaches X, therefore I believe X."? Granted, that does not mean he believes Inerrancy full throttle, but it is a necessary condition to believing Inerrancy. One can say the Bible teaches Jesus existed, and I believe Jesus existed, but that does not make one an Inerrantist. An atheist could say that and they are not an Inerrantist. An Inerrantist though cannot say "The Bible teaches X, and I believe in non-X."

So what is it that the Bible teaches that is true? That is found in the area of research. That's not just historical research but literary research as well. It will require much study, yes, but let us roll up our sleeves and do it. When someone comes with a contrary interpretation, before we raise the alarm about a threat to the church, let us instead say "Okay. That's an interesting take. I'm skeptical of it now, but I'm willing to examine it."

After that, we can also say "Is this interpretation, if true, in line with Christian orthodoxy?" For instance, let's suppose someone came forward with an interpretation of Scripture that denied the Trinity. If we do believe we have the truth on our side and that the Bible does teach the Trinity, well we can examine the argument in its strongest form without fear.

The second question is also important for the issue of which beliefs are in line with orthodoxy. Fortunately, as far as I know, no one has questioned Licona's salvation in the professional field because of his view, and I hope all would realize that that would be entirely out of line. The raising of the saints is not something that all of Christianity hangs on. (I mean the one in Matthew 27. I do believe that for Christianity to be true, that must include a future physical resurrection) We can then say to someone who has such a view "We believe you are in line with Inerrancy. We just think you're wrong."

If only such a position had been taken at the start. As one looking at this debate most every day, (I grant I do have the bias of being married to Licona's daughter as always) I have often thought how much better it would be if Licona had had this time to spend preparing for debates and doing research on the resurrection rather than have to answer constant charges that kept him from further ministry.

Just as sad now is that the skeptical world is writing about this debate now also and telling us that this is what evangelicalism is like. You're not allowed to follow evidence where it leads. You have to tow the line and don't you dare go against the system. Don't offer contrary opinions!

And frankly, who can blame them for thinking that?

Why should they look at us and think that we are people who are willing to follow the evidence where it leads when we are ruling out conclusions not liked from the start? Can we honestly tell them that we believe that a full look at an issue will lead to Christianity being true if they think we have stacked the deck in advance? When I meet someone skeptical, I tell them without question to please read the best they can on both sides. I have no fear. If you believe your view is true, you can walk into a bookstore and buy any book without fear.

Wouldn't it be great to learn this?

As for the latter part of the article, I think this one is highly important as well. How many skeptics have said that the Bible doesn't get the definition of pi right? How many have made statements about astronomical phenomena not realizing that the Bible speaks in observational language instead of technical language. The Bible has hyperbole when it tells us we are to hate our families to be a disciple of Christ.

At any rate, today's has been long, but I have been reading on the controversy and this controversy is why I'm doing this study. It is so much simpler than we really think it is. May we restore some sanity to this and restore our witness to the world.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XIV.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/article-xiv/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Today, I'd like to continue our look at the doctrine of Inerrancy and we'll be doing that by looking at Article XIV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This article reads as follows:


We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.


Once again, there isn't much here that could be disagreed with. If there's been a problem with the statement I've seen so far, it's that it's really simple. Of course, that can be good at times as one can just state what one believes and find who does and doesn't support it, but when it comes to finer matters, it becomes difficult.

The idea of biblical contradictions is often construed as if the Christian is having cognitive dissonance and if they find something that is an apparent contradiction, there is no need to look further. Just stop right there and do not do anything. If you seek to resolve the contradiction, then you are just trying to deny that which is right in front of your face.

To begin with, I think there is a great deal of the Bible that is not plain. Thus, when someone tells you that they are going with the "plain" meaning or the "clear" meaning of the text, be on your guard. It could simply mean that which is plain or clear to a 21st century American. Is that the way it would have been seen at the time of the writing of the part of the Bible you are reading?

If there is something that is an apparent contradiction, is it wrong to give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible? No. In fact, I think this should be done with any book. If you think there is a contradiction in the Book of Mormon or the Koran, by all means feel free to ask about it, but if it can be explained well, then leave it at that. Don't just press the issue because you think you found something. If the Book of Mormon and Koran are false, as I believe they are, then you will be able to demonstrate that on other grounds.

In doing so, you are not being consistent. This is also not the case just for religious books. If you think Aristotle contradicted himself between what he said in the Politics and what he said in the Nichomachean Ethics, then study it. Aristotle was a smart guy after all so he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's the case that he changed his mind. Maybe you're misunderstanding. You don't just want to immediately say "Well he didn't know what he was talking about." Wrestle with the text. Good hermeneutics applies not just to the Bible but to any ancient work.

Now I do believe that contradictions by and large have been resolved and numerous ones could be presented for dialogue. Suppose one hasn't. Based on the track record I've seen in the Bible, I think it is fair to give the benefit of the doubt. Even if one is not resolved, this would not render the whole Bible false. Even if the text was errant, which it is not, Christianity would still be true.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XV:

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/article-xv/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're going to be continuing our look at biblical Inerrancy today and sometime on the day of this writing Mike Licona will be giving his talk on this topic at EPS and it will be a great one! For now, let's go to the ICBI statement and take a look at Article XV:

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.


Accommodation is a teaching that Jesus did not really believe what the Jews around him did, but he acted in accordance with what they believed while all the while he knew better. Thus, even if Jesus did not believe in Inerrancy, he acted as if Inerrancy was true for the sake of the Jews.

Now to be sure, some ideas could be on a limitation of humanity, but not all. Did Jesus have to in some sense study like the rest of us? Yes. We find before he made a decision also like choosing the twelve apostles, he prayed about it. Chances are Jesus went through an education process like any Jewish boy would in his time.

The striking reality about Jesus however is that he often was willing to easily go against the establishment when he believed that they were clearly in the wrong. For instance, in Matthew 15, he did not hesitate to say that all foods were clean. This does not mean that he opposed the dietary laws as dietary laws in Leviticus. Instead, he was saying that righteousness does not come about that way. The age of the old purity code was coming to an end. It was time for the new purity code to begin that would be purity of heart more than purity of diet, and one's diet could not affect that.

When someone was interpreting Scripture wrong, Jesus said so. When the Sadducees confronted him, he pointed to Scripture to show that they were wrong. In fact, he told them that the reason for their error was that they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. He told His opponents that the Scriptures they studied spoke of Him and yet they did not come to Him. Not only is He indicting them on lack of study, He's saying that even prior to the cross, there is enough information from his ministry and miracles to know that He is the Messiah and they should come to Him.

When we see Jesus speaking about Scripture, we find Him speaking of it in the highest regard saying that it is written and that the Scriptures cannot be broken and that He must fulfill the Scriptures. It is hard to imagine that one like Jesus would acquiesce on some points but did not hesitate on the very points that led to his crucifixion.

I affirm then at the end that I too agree with this. However, I do not believe in Inerrancy simply because the Bible claims that it comes from God, but that it claims it and shows it. Self-testimony is part of evidence that must be taken into account. It is insufficient to prove the divine origins of Scripture by saying that the Bible says so. That is circular reasoning. The confirmation is found in that it proves to be such by study, which is again another post.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XVI

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/article-xvi/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, we've been going through the ICBI statement on biblical Inerrancy. If you have not heard it yet, I recommend also going to RisenJesus.come and listen to Mike Licona's talk on Inerrancy at EPS, as his situation with Geisler is what sparked all of this. For now, we're going to take a look at article XVI of the statement.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Okay. This is one that I will not be able to comment so much on seeing as I am not an authority on church history. From what I have read in the Fathers, they do accept the Inerrancy of Scripture and its authority. When I look in church history, I see nothing but respect for the Scriptures among Christians.

So for the sake of argument, I will assume that the statements here are true and discuss what kind of difference it makes. For the purposes of what has been debated lately, Inerrancy has been integral, but that does not mean that every interpretation has been integral.

Of course, there are some positions that I do believe are more important than others. If someone has a different interpretation on say, the parable of the pearl in Matthew, well that's interesting and we should study it. However, if there is someone who says that they believe the doctrine of the Trinity needs to be called into question, they're free to put forward the idea, but they will need to make an incredibly strong case in order to show that.

There have been various ideas in Christian history on how to interpret the text and we need to realize that. We dare not act like our interpretation of a text is the final word of the matter. We should always have a faith that is seeking understanding. For myself, my position on a number of secondary issues has changed over time because of being open to evidence.

As for apologetics, there have been changes there as well. I do not hold to the same arguments that I used to and some I defended strongly in the past I don't defend as strongly any more because I do not find them as convincing. As has been said, while we hold the Scriptures are Inerrant, we are not to think of our interpretations as Inerrant. The Scriptures are the final authority and we are not.

In conclusion, I do agree with this statement however. It does not show Inerrancy is true, although I think that it is, but it is important that if the position is historical, we do not need to abandon it lightly. While we should always be open to going where the evidence leads, we need to remember that if a position is highly contradictory to what we've held before, we will generally want a higher degree of evidence.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XVII:

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/article-xvii/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Things are looking quite good here since Mike Licona gave his talk at EPS as the evangelical world seems to be in agreement with him. Not necessarily in the sense that his interpretation is correct, but that it is within the realm of orthodoxy and within the realm of Inerrancy. I pray several more evangelicals will stand up now and let this be known.

For our purposes however, we are going to continue our study tonight looking at Article XVII which reads as follows:

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Okay. Now this is one that I do wonder about as it is something I do not see taking place in Scripture. Notice when I say that I question this, it does not mean I question Inerrancy. I think one could consistently not accept the ICBI statement and at the same time still accept Inerrancy.

My concern with this is that this is something way too subjective for my tastes. Exactly how is it that one knows this is the Holy Spirit telling them this instead of their own wish fulfillment? Now yes, I do believe the Scriptures are true, but I think a Christian can want the Scripture to be true, have no good reason to think that it is, get a feeling about it, and lo and behold, that's the Holy Spirit.

A lot of us have a problem with the song that says "It can't be wrong when it feels so right" and the thinking of "If it feels good, do it." However, when it comes to Christianity, we don't often do better. "This feels really good! It must be the Holy Spirit at work!"

Keep in mind the Holy Spirit could also lead us to sorrow and repentance. Does anyone think it feels good to know you've done something you shouldn't have?

This is also a problem with marriage I think in our culture. We can base too much on the feeling of being in love when that feeling will die and what's left? Hard work. Our society does not really value hard work so what happens? We give up until we get that feeling again.

Furthermore, I hate to say it but atheists have a point when they talk about how people in a church can't agree on a vote. Is it the case that the Holy Spirit can't make up His mind? No. I think it's more of a case that the Holy Spirit expects us to use ours but we expect Him to choose for us by little "clues" we think are biblical, such as feeling.

"But I don't have any reasons for believing the Bible is Scripture. Isn't my feeling good enough?" Sure. Until you have to talk to Mormons and you have to tell them why your feeling supposedly trumps their feeling. You have no evidence. They have no evidence. You both have a feeling. Why should they trust yours over theirs?

Instead, you could go to your local library and/or bookstore and start getting books on the Bible and learn about why people believe it to be Scripture. Why do they think it is inerrant? Feel free to read those also on why some people don't think it's Scripture and don't think it's inerrant.

Once you have that evidence, it could most certainly lead to some very good feelings. It's not necessary, but it can. This position is not against feelings. It is against having feelings take the lead in matters. God gave us emotions and we should take advantage of them, but emotions tell us more about us than they do external reality.

Now does the Spirit play any role in Scripture? I think He does, and that role is conviction. I think the Holy Spirit convicts us via the natural law written on our hearts. In being convicted, we are prepared to come to the Messiah. This could be a feeling. It could not be. Not all people operate the same emotionally.

So I do have a statement in ICBI I disagree with, but I cannot say I disagree with Inerrancy.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XVIII. This is the big one.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/article-xviii/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we're going to be continuing our look at the topic of Inerrancy and I believe of all the articles we have looked at, this one is likely to be the one most relevant to the Geisler-Licona situation. Article XVIII reads as follows:

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

At the start, I wonder about the idea of "Scripture interprets Scripture." A text is an instrumental means in this case but it is used by a person to interpret another text. One Scripture can help explain another Scripture but it cannot per se interpret that Scripture. Interpretation takes place in the mind and the text of Scripture has no mind. Of course the author of Scripture does, but the author is not the one interpreting here.

Also, do we exclude sources outside of Scripture? This is problematic as it assumes Scripture is written in a vacuum. Scripture at times points to other sources, unfortunately ones we don't have, such as the Book of Jashar. It is apparent that whoever wrote 1 and 2 Kings used other sources as he frequently states when he says "Are not all the acts of X recorded in Y?"

Besides, unless we read Greek and Hebrew, we do have to rely on other sources. The words used came from somewhere. When Paul wrote his epistles, he did not have a big list of acceptable Greek words to use when writing Scripture. He used the language he knew. Of course, there were words he did create, but there were several he didn't and it's just fine to study other ancient literature to see what they meant.

It was claimed for a time, and still is by several, that the creation account in Genesis was a rip-off of other creation accounts and the same could be said of the flood. I do not hold this, but this does not mean they were not an influence. Could it be that the way to study Genesis could involve studying other creation accounts and seeing how the ancients used them? Perhaps, shock of shocks, we could get more out of Genesis not by studying modern science, but by studying ancient writings like Genesis! Maybe Genesis was written not to describe a scientific account but a more functional account.

Okay. So what about Geisler's situation with Licona about dehistoricizing the text?

The problem is it assumes the text is historical to begin with. Now maybe it is. I'm open to that. It cannot be assumed however.

Licona regularly brings out that events that we would deem miraculous in nature often happened when great kings died in other writings of the time. Let us consider the following from Licona's paper:

In what is certain poetic literature, Virgil reports sixteen
phenomena that occurred after Caesar’s death: prolonged darkness, dogs and
birds acted unusually, Etna erupted, fighting in the heavens was heard (a detail
that we saw has a parallel in the portents reported by Josephus prior to the
destruction of the temple), the Alps shook near Germany, a powerful voice was
heard in the groves, pale phantoms were seen at dusk, cattle spoke, streams
stood still, the earth opened up, ivory idols wept and bronze idols were sweating
in the shrines, dark intestines appeared outside of animals in their stalls, blood
trickled in springs, wolves howled, lightning appeared in a cloudless sky, and a
bright comet was seen.

The paper can be found here: http://risenjesus.com/images/stories/pdfs/2011%20eps%20saints%20paper.pdf

Now Geisler could accept that all of these are historical. That is his prerogative if he wishes to do so. However, let us suppose that he does not. Can Licona accuse him of dehistoricizing the text? No. He knows that the text is not meant to be seen as historical. Yet what will be the reason for saying it has to be historical in the Bible?

If we say, "It is because it is in the Bible" then we are simply begging the question. How will that be to a watchful world that thinks the way that conservative Christian scholars do biblical studies is to say "Well if the Bible says it, then it's true." This will be apparent especially when the case comes of supposed gods like Mithras and Horus and Dionysus who "die and resurrect." Are they just not accepted because they're not Bible?

Such argumentation will die the death of a thousand qualifications, especially if we tell people that they can study the Bible to see that it's true and they can say "Well it says the exact same thing that is said about Mithras. Why do you believe the Bible instead?" "Because the Bible is historical." "How do you know? "Because it's the Bible."

Note that this does not rule out the event being historical. It could be that these events that did not really happen at the death of an emperor were written as stories to give honor to the emperor, and yet when the Son of God dies, God makes some stories a reality to up the ante in favor of the honor of His Son. That is entirely possible.

The point is that frankly, we don't have enough evidence for dogmatism either way. I consider Licona's suggestion an area worthy of further research. We should study it more and I am sure that if Licona's view is found to be faulty upon research, he will be the first one to abandon it. Let us study the suggestion however before deciding an answer.

"But the text is written as a narrative!" The same could be said for the accounts of the deaths of the Roman emperors. Also, despite whether one thinks Licona is right or wrong, does anyone really think that Licona is just blindly missing all these details that seem like a narrative? Looking over blog chats on this, it seems people actually think he is so foolish that he has not noticed that.

Also, this is not about belief in miracles, especially since Licona wrote a whole chapter on defending that historians can believe in miracles and allow them in their work and the whole book itself is to explain one miracle, the resurrection of Christ from the dead!

"Couldn't someone say Christ's resurrection is not historical?" Absolutely. But to do so, they must provide an explanation to all the counter-evidence Licona gives in the book. There is far more for that than for the Matthew 27 event. The problem is so many people are interpreting this as an all-or-nothing game. If Matthew 27 does not describe a historical event, then why can it not be that none of it is historical? This is the mindset we see in fundy atheists also.

"How do we know what's what?" This is where we have to use a method not really familiar to a lot of Christians today called "Studying the text." We actually just don't sit down, pray, and expect the Holy Spirit to tell us everything that people spend years of scholarly research trying to figure out.

In looking at this whole situation, I'd like to present the argument in a way that shows why Licona is not denying Inerrancy. Look at this argument.

Matthew wrote the text and intended it to be historical.
Licona takes it as historical.
Licona is not denying Inerrancy.

No one has a problem with this one. It makes sense. Now let's look at it this way.

Matthew wrote the text and intended it to be historical.
Licona takes it as apocalyptic.
Licona is denying Inerrancy.

Some people seem to think that this is what is going on, but the conclusion does not follow. Think of how many passages have people denying Inerrancy then.

Is Matthew 24 intended to be read in a Futurist or Preterist sense today?

Is Genesis to describe an old-earth or a young-earth?

Does Romans 9 describe a Calvinistic work or an Arminian one?

Does Hebrews 10 say salvation can be lost or not?

We could go on and on and on. There can be no doubt all of us have some wrong interpretations of the Bible. When that happens, we do not get the message the author intended. That does not mean we are ascribing error to the author. It means we are failing to understand the material. The problem is not with the material, but with us.

This is actually what needs to be the case for the above argument to work.

Matthew wrote the text and intended it to be historical.
Licona knows this, but says that the text is not historical.
Licona is denying Inerrancy.

In this case, then yes, Licona would be denying Inerrancy. He is ascribing error to Matthew at that point and Geisler wins the day. The reality is that Licona knows about Geisler's reasons and does not find them sufficient. If someone does, so what? They have to be sufficient in Licona's mind for him to be denying Inerrancy.

Also, just posting the ICBI statement will not work as some think. Regularly, it seems that on the net, someone will post the ICBI statement and think that settles it. To begin with, it doesn't as this still assumes that Licona is dehistoricizing what is historical. Second, one can go against ICBI and still support Inerrancy. It is my understanding that Henry Morris would not sign the document since it allowed for old-earth views to be considered within Inerrancy. Does anyone want to state that Morris did not hold to Inerrancy? (And note by his standards that Geisler would be denying Inerrancy)

This also means the framers argument would be invalid. (Not to mention that Moreland and Yamauchi both say Licona is not denying Inerrancy) It assumes that ICBI is the final word on Inerrancy and to deny ICBI is to deny Inerrancy. Now by and large, I have no problem with ICBI, but I do have a problem with equating it with Inerrancy. People affirmed Inerrancy and knew what it meant before ICBI, much like they did the Deity of Christ before Nicea.

What needs to happen now? This whole thing needs to be buried. I would like to point out that Licona is not speaking the words of recanting, as Geisler and Mohler as well are. Instead, this is what Licona has said:

If Geisler were to apologize, I would embrace him and forget the entire matter. Nothing more need be said and we can all move on.


Right now on Geisler's page, there is a call for this to go on and I applaud all those who are saying such. This has not been good for evangelicalism and it is time for it to come to an end with the realization that Licona is not denying Inerrancy.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Article XIX:

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/article-xix/)

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Per our last post, we have not received a response from Pastor Tim and my posts mentioning my blog were deleted, although thankfully someone else has posted a link to my blog. We'll just wait and see what happens. For tonight, we'll continue with our look at the ICBI statement and see what we find in Article XIX, which reads as follows:

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.


Let's get one thing clear, and fortunately I have not seen this being said in the Geisler/Licona debate, but this is not a salvation issue so if anyone thinks it is, they're wrong. Also, I do not think that one can rightly accuse Licona of holding a watered-down version of Christianity. Licona has spoken out in favor of miracles a number of times and his book is in fact a monumental work establishing the reality of one miracle, the resurrection of Christ.

However, Inerrancy is important, but it is not an essential, and we must be careful to draw the line there. I have no doubt that there are several people out there who do not affirm Inerrancy who have a greater love for Jesus Christ than I do, and I do not doubt as well that I have much that I can learn from them when I read their opinions on the Scriptures.

It's my belief that Inerrancy is a great help to us in that we can trust that whatever it is that we find that the Bible is teaching, we can be sure that that something is true. The question comes down to "Well what is the Bible teaching?" Inerrancy cannot tell you that. You cannot simply say that because someone has a different interpretation, then they are denying Inerrancy. Young-earthers have said this about old-earthers. Old-earthers have said it about young-earthers. All it does is get the debate emotionally charged with each side now not defending their view so much as defending the idea that they're not going against Inerrancy and with one side thinking that if that view is shown to be false, then that person is shown to be violating Inerrancy. It doesn't work that way.

How do we know what the Bible is Inerrant on? Well basically, we can say it is on everything, but we want to know what that everything is. What we must do is what we don't usually want to do. We must study the text. We will have to work with it and let us not shriek at the mention of that term "Extra-biblical sources." The Bible was not written in a vacuum. For instance, pick up your normal English Bible. Here are some facets that weren't found in the originals.

The originals did not have English. They were written in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

The originals did not always have names. Matthew's gospel did not include his name on it.

The originals did not have chapters and verses.

The originals did not have capitals, punctuation, and lower-case letters as ours do.

So in essence, all of these are "extra-biblical" but we would not dream of throwing them out! (Although I have thought it would be nice to read a Bible without chapter and verse listing sometime)

Inerrancy is a truth, but it is not a weapon and sadly, it has been used like one, much like the word "liberal" has been and the word "Denial" or some variant thereof. Other words include "Midrash", "Apocalyptic" and "Dehistoricizing."

Thus, I have concluded my look at the ICBI statement. I don't have too much trouble, but I do see a statement that needs to be refined. The statement is very basic and is open to many different views on who's violating it and who isn't. This is to be expected. We refine our doctrine as we go along in many ways.

Let us make it a point in this debate however to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. While we may not agree with a view of Inerrancy, that does not mean Inerrancy is itself wrong. I hope to blog on this in the near future.

We shall continue next time.