ICBI and Inerrancy

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...ts%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

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.