An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

[jpholding]

BTW I am up to W in the ICBI list and theologians are still dominant by far. Pastors are next in terms of domination. This gets all the more scary when I think how many boneheaded errors I've heard pastors (even big name ones) make over the years.

[Kenny]

You're complaining that a blog post directed at the general public uses terms as they are used by the general public. That's not "mere rhetorical mileage." That's speaking the language of your audience.

Do you really think that the general public (even the general Evangelical public) uses the term ‘inerrancy’ to refer to what the CSBI says in its entirety, including what it says about matters of hermeneutics? Frankly, I find that extremely implausible. But if that is so, then the general public is using the term ‘inerrancy’ in a way that lends itself to muddled thinking, and it is the responsibility of our leaders and teachers to speak more precisely so as not to contribute to such thinking.

[RBerman]

Do you really think that the general public (even the general Evangelical public) uses the term ‘inerrancy’ to refer to what the CSBI says in its entirety, including what it says about matters of hermeneutics? Frankly, I find that extremely implausible. But if that is so, then the general public is using the term ‘inerrancy’ in a way that lends itself to muddled thinking, and it is the responsibility of our leaders and teachers to speak more precisely so as not to contribute to such thinking.

Such things don't bother me. When a patient says, "I have the stomach flu. I was vomiting all night," the doctor knows that influenza is a respiratory virus and not a gastrointestinal one, but still just says, "Sorry you're sick. Here's what you can do..."

[Kenny]

Such things don't bother me. When a patient says, "I have the stomach flu. I was vomiting all night," the doctor knows that influenza is a respiratory virus and not a gastrointestinal one, but still just says, "Sorry you're sick. Here's what you can do..."

I'm fine with loose speech as well, in contexts in which it is not important to be clear about the relevant distinctions. But this is not one of those contexts. There’s a big difference between a person’s saying that the Bible is errant and a person saying that a particular passage of Scripture is not to be read as a historical narrative. And that needs to be made clear (especially when that person’s career might be damaged by a failure to make it clear).

And even placing political and practical issues aside, in the context of having a theological debate about doctrine we ought to speak precisely, in ways that make clear relevant distinctions, instead of in ways that tend to conflate them. Certainly it’s one thing for the doctor to speak to his patient that way, another for him to speak to a group of interns that way, or even to a group of lay people that he is trying to teach aspects of medical science to.

[ukchristian28]

There’s a big difference between a person’s saying that the Bible is errant and a person saying that a particular passage of Scripture is not to be read as a historical narrative

Yes, and it is indeed very important that such distinctions are made as it leads to gross misunderstanding. For example when I have suggested that a particular passage or verse is non-literal etc skeptics (and fundy Christians) have sometimes accused me of "not believing the Bible" or picking and choosing which parts I want to believe. People like Geisler shouldn't be adding to such confusion.

[RBerman]

Back to the previous topic: The question arose of whether the early church ever treated Matthew 27:52-53 in a historical manner. I found this quotation from Hilary of Poitiers (300-368): "Graves were opened, for the gates of death had been unlocked. And a number of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose. Dispelling the shadows of death and hell, Christ destroyed the spoils of death itself at the resurrection of the saints, who saw him immediately."

And this one from Apollinaris "the Younger" of Laodicea (d. 390): "The raising up of the saints' bodies was announcing that the death of Christ was actually the cause of life. They certainly were not made visible prior to the Lord's resurrection, since it was necessary that the resurrection of the Savior first be made known. Then those raised through him were seen. It is plain that they have died again, having risen from the dead in order to be a sign. For it was not possible for only some of the firstborn from the dead to be raised to the life of the age to come, but the remainder [must be raised] in the same manner."

Dunno if middle/late fourth century writers count as "early church" in this discussion. But at any rate, these two appear to have taken those verses as historical, rather than in a "Romans spoke this way fancifully when a great leader died" sort of way.

[Kenny]

Back to the previous topic: The question arose of whether the early church ever treated Matthew 27:52-53 in a historical manner. I found this quotation from Hilary of Poitiers (300-368): "Graves were opened, for the gates of death had been unlocked. And a number of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose. Dispelling the shadows of death and hell, Christ destroyed the spoils of death itself at the resurrection of the saints, who saw him immediately."

And this one from Apollinaris "the Younger" of Laodicea (d. 390): "The raising up of the saints' bodies was announcing that the death of Christ was actually the cause of life. They certainly were not made visible prior to the Lord's resurrection, since it was necessary that the resurrection of the Savior first be made known. Then those raised through him were seen. It is plain that they have died again, having risen from the dead in order to be a sign. For it was not possible for only some of the firstborn from the dead to be raised to the life of the age to come, but the remainder [must be raised] in the same manner."

Dunno if middle/late fourth century writers count as "early church" in this discussion. But at any rate, these two appear to have taken those verses as historical, rather than in a "Romans spoke this way fancifully when a great leader died" sort of way.

This is all well and good. By the primary issue, at present, is not whether Licona’s view is correct, but whether it is compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy. I don’t know about the former. But I’m confident that his view is, in fact, compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy.

[RBerman]

This is all well and good. By the primary issue, at present, is not whether Licona’s view is correct, but whether it is compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy. I don’t know about the former. But I’m confident that his view is, in fact, compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy.

I agree, but that's not nearly as interesting to me as whether he is correct, which topic is also under discussion in this thread.

[jpholding]

Just got this comment at the Forge:

That was me who posted the challenge there. A few days later I noticed it was deleted, several of my comments were deleted, and I was banned from posting anymore on the page!

As a result, my respect for Geisler has plummeted significantly. I expected better of him, and I hope the Evangelical community puts enough pressure on him and Mohler to cause them to admit their error and back off from Licona.

But, like you, I'm not holding my breath for these two.

Greg M

I don't think I need to comment.

[Manwë Súlimo]

[Kenny]

You don't understand JP. He doesn't owe you a response. He's the one to whom responses are owed.

[Manwë Súlimo]

The Dark Lord of responses.

[jpholding]

You don't understand JP. He doesn't owe you a response. He's the one to whom responses are owed.

I always heard he was called the Evangelical Pope. Maybe this is why?

In any event, I reposted this report on the Ticker just now (despite being out for USDA work...wifi has its used).

[jpholding]

Just finished my survey of ICBI signers. Results:

* At least 45 are dead.
* At least 84 have no scholarly credentials worth mentioning. (including one apostate, Franky Schaffer)
* At least 105 are scholars in field not related to what Licona was doing (mostly in theology, but some OT scholars)
* I can't match 71 of them with known persons (they may have died long ago, or their name is so common -- eg, "John Davis" -- that I can't be sure who to match them with...or they may be nobodies, like Hal Lindsey, who is also on there)
* At least 27 (still living) are some kind of NT scholar who could speak (conceivably) with some authority on what Licona wrote about
* 2 (Yamauchi, Moreland) agreed with Licona

Bottom line: Geisler's appeal to this as a group of "scholars" who he supposes would support him needs a hell of a lot of qualification.

[Kristian Joense]

"Bottom line: Geisler's appeal to this as a group of "scholars" who he supposes would support him needs a hell of a lot of qualification."

Yeah and there might well be more Licona supporters among them that just haven't spoken out about it (yet anyway).