Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    430

    Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth

    Dr. Norman Geisler recently wrote an excellent article: "Does believing in inerrancy require one to believe in young earth creationism?"
    http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...YoungEarth.htm

    Here is his conclusion:
    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


    After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.* (3) *It is not a condition of salvation.* (4) *It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.* As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.

    © Copyright Original Source



    (Predictably, YECs responded with an ad hominem attack: "The ultimate motivation of this prominent theologian?"
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ent-theologian
    This elicited a pointed response from Dr. Geisler: " A response to Ken Ham and AiG..."
    http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...nHamAndAIG.htm)
    Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-04-2014 at 08:02 PM.

  2. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    39,148
    Amen (Given)
    8669
    Amen (Received)
    20116
    I agree with Geisler's points numbered 1, 3, 5, and 7, along with the even numbered ones.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  4. #3
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,562
    Amen (Given)
    18972
    Amen (Received)
    6143
    I find it interesting that Gleason Archer stated that you can have either inerrancy or a young earth, not both.

  5. #4
    Child of the One True King Raphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Middle Earth, New Zealand
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,991
    Amen (Given)
    2419
    Amen (Received)
    2856
    To repeat KG: "So Geisler allows an alternative reading to the traditional reading of Genesis, but he tried to destroy the career of Michael Licona for trying to do the same with Matthew 27."


    Note: I am a YEC who has no problems with what Geisler said here, I've said it myself a few times.....but he's letting his hypocrisy show.
    TheologyWeb Needs YOU! - Please Help Us Upgrade Tweb! Click here for more info


    "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
    -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

  6. Amen Sparko, Goulette amen'd this post.
  7. #5
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphael View Post
    To repeat KG: "So Geisler allows an alternative reading to the traditional reading of Genesis, but he tried to destroy the career of Michael Licona for trying to do the same with Matthew 27."


    Note: I am a YEC who has no problems with what Geisler said here, I've said it myself a few times.....but he's letting his hypocrisy show.
    If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


    Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

    © Copyright Original Source


  8. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  9. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Xtian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,165
    Amen (Given)
    114
    Amen (Received)
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


    Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

    © Copyright Original Source

    Utter bosh which conflates natural facts with revelation through nature.

  10. #7
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,002
    Amen (Given)
    4551
    Amen (Received)
    2861
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


    Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

    © Copyright Original Source

    Seems to me like Geisler thinks the ICBI statements should be included in the holy Scriptures.

  11. Amen robrecht amen'd this post.
  12. #8
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,776
    Amen (Given)
    16589
    Amen (Received)
    3219
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


    Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

    © Copyright Original Source

    He's missing two important facts here. Michael Licona* does not "dehistoricize" the Gospels, and that modern science is not "general revelation". General revelation is what people throughout all time would have available to them.

    *I'll have to look for it, but he explicitly denies this accusation, and goes into why this is so.

  13. #9
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Seems to me like Geisler thinks the ICBI statements should be included in the holy Scriptures.
    No, but affirmation of the ICBI statements IS a requirement for membership in the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and for teaching positions at some Christian colleges and seminaries.

  14. #10
    Child of the One True King Raphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Middle Earth, New Zealand
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,991
    Amen (Given)
    2419
    Amen (Received)
    2856
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


    Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

    © Copyright Original Source

    I don't agree with him here.

    He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
    He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.
    TheologyWeb Needs YOU! - Please Help Us Upgrade Tweb! Click here for more info


    "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
    -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

  15. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •