An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

[Sparko]

Geisler seems to be arguing that the ICBI statements say that any narrative part of the gospels has to be taken as actual recorded history and if anyone interprets it differently they are defying inerrancy.

But that just doesn't fly. While I believe the narrative parts of the gospels ARE historical, that doesn't mean that someone who doesn't believe that is claiming the bible has any errors in it. If they take a part as figurative or symbolic that doesn't equate with them saying the bible is lying or in error. It just means they are taking part of the narrative as a literary form or device.

[jpholding]

http://normangeisler.net/articles/Li...leWithICBI.htm

Geisler hires about Great Man to speak and tell the heathens to shut up:

"As the former and only President of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Dr. Michael Licona's views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI."



R. C. Sproul

May 22nd, 2012

Uh...what, you ask?

No, seriously. That's it, aside from a recitation of Sproul's qualifications. No arguments or explanation. Just a Great Man Speaking. So shut up heathen.

I was already getting less impressed with Sproul because of how condescending he was in person, but now he's lost 50% more credibility.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

When Geisler put up what he thinks Packer really says about this, someone commented the following on the post:

Br Geisler, years ago, at a meeting that I attended, you expressed a wish that MacArthur and Ryrie would shake hands and go fight a humanist. How I wish this issue could go in the same direction.

Reply?

“In essential unity; in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible is an essential doctrine. What Ryrie and MacArthur were debating about is not one of the fundamentals of the Faith.
Norm

It could be argued that Geisler is really referring to Mike as a heretic now saying he's outside the fold for denying Inerrancy. After all, it is supposedly an essential. (I wonder how you could be a Christian before the NT was written)

[Sparko]

http://normangeisler.net/articles/Li...leWithICBI.htm

Geisler hires about Great Man to speak and tell the heathens to shut up:

"As the former and only President of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Dr. Michael Licona's views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI."



R. C. Sproul

May 22nd, 2012

Uh...what, you ask?

No, seriously. That's it, aside from a recitation of Sproul's qualifications. No arguments or explanation. Just a Great Man Speaking. So shut up heathen.

I was already getting less impressed with Sproul because of how condescending he was in person, but now he's lost 50% more credibility.

dang and that is one heck of a smug, condescending photo of him too...
5-rc-sproul_125w_tn.png

[Manwë Súlimo]

I find this supremely ironic after watching ~10+ hour study course of Licona expounding on good apologetic arguments for the historicity of the Resurrection. Anyone that thinks Licona is a heretic or even a "bad" Christian needs to find the nearest house fire and jump in it.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

David Tee has responded to a thread at Hope's Reason about this.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2011/...a-controversy/

In reading thepassage in question, why is there any confusion? If you love Jesus and God then you believe their words, 1 Cor. 13. The passage is quite clear that this actually took place the moment Jesus died for our sins. There is no need to ‘interpret’ these words, there i sno no need to add special meaning to this action, Matthew is reporting exactly what took place at the crucifixion.
Why God did this, we do not know but it was something that God wanted done for the people at that time. To preach on it, believers can say how powerful God is. If unbelievers do not accept this event, that is their choice BUT the believer does NOT alter God’s word to appease someone who does NOT believe.

Well done Geisler. You've got someone who says words don't need to be interpreted. What kind of fundy thinking is this whole thing anyway? I suppose since I don't believe Jesus is literally coming back on clouds then that makes me suspect.

[Sparko]

David Tee has responded to a thread at Hope's Reason about this.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2011/...a-controversy/



Well done Geisler. You've got someone who says words don't need to be interpreted. What kind of fundy thinking is this whole thing anyway? I suppose since I don't believe Jesus is literally coming back on clouds then that makes me suspect.

Geisler is a futurist, right?

So why does he not take Jesus literally in Matthew 24, especially the part about:

Matthew 24:34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

He's a dispie all the way. It's only because of DDW that Preterists are allowed to attend SES.

I remember reading his responses to preterism in his fourth systematic theology.

No preterist would even blink at his arguments.

[Sparko]

He's a dispie all the way. It's only because of DDW that Preterists are allowed to attend SES.

I remember reading his responses to preterism in his fourth systematic theology.

No preterist would even blink at his arguments.

seems like an odd position to hold if he is demanding such literalism from the bible narrative, yet he doesn't take Jesus at his own word.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

David Tee has replied:

Clearly you removed the 2 verses so you removed the context. He was not speaking of just one battle but all the ones he fought. That chapter is different from Matthew’s in that what David is describing is his perception alone and he is describing God’s actions in a comparative tone while Matthew is merely and simply reporting what took place and he is not reporting what he saw alone but what everyone saw and heard that took place at that time in Jerusalem.

If you read on in 2 Sam. 22 you will see David making other personal descriptions about God, calls Him a lamp, a shield, etc. are we to take the most literal and popular meanings of those words and say God is both a physical earthly lamp and a shield?

Being literal is not open to cherry picking verses to support one’s misconceptions about another passage of scripture. What is literal about Matthew is literal in a limited sense in the chapter you mentioned. yes, David LITERALLY spoke those words but that doesn’t mean he was being literal in his descriptive narrative. Matthew was being literal in writing and reporting.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2011/...na-controversy

[SarahB]

http://normangeisler.net/articles/Li...leWithICBI.htm

Geisler hires about Great Man to speak and tell the heathens to shut up:

"As the former and only President of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Dr. Michael Licona's views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI."



R. C. Sproul

May 22nd, 2012

Uh...what, you ask?

No, seriously. That's it, aside from a recitation of Sproul's qualifications. No arguments or explanation. Just a Great Man Speaking. So shut up heathen.

I was already getting less impressed with Sproul because of how condescending he was in person, but now he's lost 50% more credibility.

Yeah, it seems universal that attributes such as condescension can affect how we assess a man's personal integrity. Imagine if he were to have tossed around childish insults and name-calling; you probably wouldn't think much of him at all.

How dare he be condescending? Maybe if he knew who you were, he would have been more deferential.You don't get out much on the circuit. Perhaps you could take up wearing monogrammed clothing.

"Hi, I'm the Information Broker; how'r you doing?"

[SarahB]

Geisler's test to see if you're a valid authority on the subject matter.

Question 1. Do you agree with me?

If yes, then you are a perfect authority and everything you say is further proof of my being correct.

If no, then you are to be bullied endlessly until you are ready to answer "yes" and your opinion is absolutely useless and an example of how obstinate and wicked you are.

<shhh> Um, Nick, isn't that exactly was goes on here? <shhh>

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sarah, stop derailing threads on entirely different topics with your JPH obsession. You are doing that enough. You could care less about this topic here and have offered nothing on it. So cut it out.

[One Bad Pig]

You are doing that enough. You couldn't care less about this topic here and have offered nothing on it. So cut it out.

fify

[Dee Dee Warren]

librarian