Pastor Tim's Small Pop

[ApologiaPhoenix]

A pastor I've engaged with has spoken out again on this issue. I have responded.

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. I'm going to interrupt going through the ICBI statement tonight to look at a reply that I saw on the internet yesterday from Pastor Tim, who I believe I have written about before. If my memory is faulty right now, oh well. I started having some dialogue with Pastor Tim on the net early on when this started. Unfortunately, the mindset I see there is one I think is highly detrimental to the church. I will be commenting on his blog post and on some comments he's made in response to notable thinkers who have shown up.

I've been upfront with a possible bias seeing as I am happily married to Mike's daughter. However, there are numerous issues Mike and I disagree on biblically. Right off, I can think of two of them that are secondary doctrines. We have our own back and forth sometimes on some issues, but always in an agreeable fashion. If he was wrong, I would tell him I thought so. On the issue of if the text is describing a historical event or not, I'm not sure at this point. However, I am sure he is not violating Inerrancy.

Pastor Tim's blog can be found here

At the start, I see a problem as the well is being poisoned. I think in many ways I can relate to Sheldon Cooper of the Big Bang Theory. Some friends showed my wife and I two episodes and told us Sheldon was most like an Aspie, which is what my wife and I both are. (Aspie refers to someone with Asperger's) I wonder about the "geeks" chasing after a Nobel Peace Prize however. (Most would like one in one of the sciences.) Pastor Tim say the geeks will accept any theory of truth to be accepted into the world of academia.

Which is obviously why we do what we do. Yep. Those of us who are the apologists aren't interested in truth. We're just going to accept whatever we can in order to be recognized. That explains why we're so popular and Joel Osteen is so not.

It seems that absent from those who are against Mike is the bizarre idea to them that he could actually believe what he believes on the basis of evidence. Surely that can't be it! He must be swayed by liberalism! He must have a hard time believing in miracles! He must just want to water the text down! Whatever the reason is, it can't be evidence!

Or maybe it is.

Pastor Tim finds it amazing that Mike was allowed to give his talk targeting Geisler, but Geisler was not allowed to respond. How scholarly is that?

Okay. Who says Geisler wasn't allowed to respond? Did Geisler or someone representing him submit a paper to be read? If so, then can we see evidence? If not, why should Mike be disqualified from giving his paper? I suppose if I gave one against Richard Dawkins that we'd have to call up Dawkins to give a counter-paper and if he was unavailable, well so much for mine.

These papers go public and it is quite fine to present it in this fashion. This was already a public issue because Geisler made it a public issue and once Pandora's Box is opened, there's no getting everything back in. By the way, if we're talking about the right to speak, Geisler said in his response to the EPS paper that Mike has not restrained his family and friends from speaking online. If that's a problem, then why not have the sword cut both ways and say that Pastor Tim should be honoring Geisler and not speaking about it online?

Or is it the case that those on Geisler's side can speak but those of us with Mike cannot.

Pastor Tim says that Mike is approaching the text as if there are errors that need to be reconciled.

Question time everyone! What error has Mike said is in the text?

Answer: None.

This would be an error. Mike would have to say something like "We know Matthew recorded this incident as if it was a historical event, but it was not a historical event. Matthew is simply wrong. Therefore, I will say it's apocalyptic to save Inerrancy."

That's not what is being said at all. Mike is not saying "I know the account is historical, but I deny its historicity." At the start, Pastor Tim is begging the question. Of course if the account is historical then Mike is denying Inerrancy, but that is the question at issue. Is it historical? Keep in mind that others like William Lane Craig have taken the same stance, but strangely enough, there is no pressure on Craig, even though this has been pointed out to Geisler on his Facebook page.

Pastor Tim also talks about how leading apologists have had followings by lowly and ignorant pastors. Let me say something about that here.

There is NO excuse for a pastor to be ignorant.

If you are an ignorant pastor, you either wise up, or you give the pulpit over to someone more capable.

Now not every pastor is meant to be a professional apologist any more than they're meant to be a professional counselor. However, every pastor should have some basic training in apologetics and in counseling and in any other area of ministry. He should also be able to have a point man he can refer to on these issues. In my current church here, we have plenty of apologists and our pastor studies the subject. In my old church, I was the main one who studied and would have been the go-to guy for apologetics. In that case, the pastor could do his work and if a question came up, he could send someone to me to answer it. I'd have no problem with such a relationship because one pastor cannot do anything.

A pastor is supposed to be a man of knowledge however and in our age, having zeal is often seen as a replacement, while Paul bemoaned his people who had zeal but not in accordance with knowledge. I don't care how passionate you feel about Christianity. That does not give you the right to stand in a pulpit if you don't have real knowledge about what you're talking about. The pastor should be seeking to constantly learn and educate himself for the feeding of his flock. After all, if you're ignorant, chances are they'll be ignorant as well and when they evangelize, they'll be presenting ignorance to a skeptical world.

It won't end well.

Speaking about these apologists, Pastor Tim says the following:

They should answer, for the world, the following question. Do they truly embrace inerrancy or are they merely mouthing the words because of the political coverage and name recognition it has given them?

For me, I truly do embrace Inerrancy. The problem is, this won't be enough for Pastor Tim when he knows I'm open to Mike's view. This is what amazes me about these guys. They seem to know what authorial intent. They know exactly what Matthew meant. They know exactly what all the framers of ICBI meant. They even know exactly what I mean when I say I embrace Inerrancy and somehow it means that I don't embrace Inerrancy despite what I say to the contrary. Pastor Tim however tops this all with this line:

Make no mistake about it, these apologists have made a huge income off of the evangelical world and much of that income has come out of the Southern Baptist Convention. The books, speaking conferences, and other events that move these names among us funds these apologists in their world-wide travels. Just follow any of the apologists listed on the above linked blog on Facebook or Twitter and one will see world locations through their camera lens.

Well I have been secret about it, but my wife and I did not vacation at Ocean Isle Beach on our honeymoon. Instead, Mike fired up his private jet for us and flew us off to a five-star hotel in Aruba where we spent a week together. Right now, we're back at the mansion and I just berated a servant for not serving my morning breakfast properly.

Forget anything I've said about just having a part-time job in this economy and needing to even have government aid to make it seeing as my old job just let me go a few months before my wedding. (To be assuring however, it looks like a really great job is coming up. It's practically a sure thing. It'll just take a couple of months.)

If there's big money going on in all of this, please tell me where it is? I can assure Pastor Tim that the Liconas are not living in luxury. Neither are the Habermases, the Craigs, etc. I did not enter this field wanting to make money. In fact, my wife and I have it a point that we never want to be rich. We want to be comfortable and have enough to be able to make it and enjoy ourselves some every now and then, but we don't want wealth.

For myself, I haven't got a penny from Southern Baptist Conventions as well. I can also say that when an apologist like Craig does a tour like Reasonable Faith that is in another country, there is much fundraising that takes place because it does cost money to fly someone over and have them speak and to give them food and a place to stay. The apologists don't have the bank account on their own.

As for Pastor Tim's last sentence about seeing world locations through the camera lens, I have looked and looked at this sentence and I have no idea what it is he is trying to say. At any rate, this whole paragraph is a great smear on all apologists saying that we are just in this for the money and we don't care about truth. Many of us have been working to bridge the gap between the world of apologetics and the world of the lay person and show the lay person that apologetics is for them. They too can partake of the fruits of the academy.

Posts like this make it all the harder as Pastor Tim seems to encourage that divide.

Pastor Tim refers to the writing of Max Andrews linked to in the blog as scholarly arrogance at its best. In what way? What has Andrews said that is arrogant? Pastor Tim then says that Andrews says concerning that if the account is historical or not, that he takes the agnostic position and then decides to tie him in with Thomas Huxley who was an agnostic.

Agnostic about the existence of God! Not about a particular issue.

Is it wrong Pastor Tim to answer a question with "I don't know."?

One of my favorite TV series has been Monk. I can imagine introducing Pastor Tim to the series and getting near to the end of an episode. "Well Pastor Tim. Who do you think did the crime. Monk's figured it out. Have you?"

"No. I don't know who did it."

"You don't know! You agnostic! How dare you take a position of unbelief!"

Or could I say that if Pastor Tim is wanting to go with tradition, "Well Pastor Tim, here you are a Southern Baptist and you're saying that we need to go with what tradition has said. Are you sure you're not a Roman Catholic?" (I mean no insult to my Catholic friends in that but just going on how generally I see that the two groups don't get along.)

Pastor Tim goes on to say this:

Here is the issue in a nutshell. The “method” these leading evangelical apologists take is a method of “demonstrable proof” from a text that calls us to faith. Wonder what would have happened if Jesus would have taken this position when the pharisees approached him? He would have never referenced Jonah.

Pastor Tim. The Koran also calls us to trust that Muhammad is a prophet. Do you have faith? Faith is not blind belief. It is trust in what has been shown to be reliable and it is shown to be reliable by demonstration. If your position is true, then you should seek to destroy any evidence of Christianity. That will after all lead to more faith. The disciples ought not to have preached the empty tomb. They should have just said "Despite any evidence to the contrary, don't bother looking. The tomb is empty! Just trust us! Now convert!"

In fact, this is why Jesus referenced Jonah. He was giving the Pharisees demonstrable proof. He had done many signs in the miracles but he was saying that he would perform the ultimate demonstrable proof of who he was when he rose again from the dead.

The methodology being protected by leading apologists associated with the Evangelical Philosophical Society (Wm. Lane Craig Gary Habermas, Max Andrews, Paul Copan) is a methodology that subjugates the historical text of Holy Writ to secular Greco-Roman literature.

No. This is not being subjugated. It's just saying the Bible was not written in a vacuum. Paul had Greco-Roman rhetoric in his letters. That's demonstrable. The gospels are in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies. That's demonstrable. If Pastor Tim has ever given a sermon using powerpoint, then he should understand this. The gospel writers used a medium familiar to their readers.

There is nothing wrong with extra-biblical sources being used. For instance, consider how Paul says we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, the Bema. Okay. That sounds interesting. Then you find out that we've found the Bema that Paul spoke about that Gallio sat on and what a large and imposing figure it was. This was no ordinary throne! All of a sudden, our understanding of Bema is improved, but this is because we have something extra-biblical.

Consider when we have the Samaritans say that we know that Jesus truly is the Savior of the World. That's really good to hear. Then, we learn from extra-biblical sources that that was said of Caesar. All of a sudden, we know that the Samaritans are setting Jesus in contrast to Caesar.

Let's not forget the wealth of information we have now on Second Temple Judaism and how that helps us to understand the text all the more. I've given just a couple of examples, but several more could be given.

That, friends is not inerrancy.

Really? How come? There's no reason for this statement given. It's just given. Pastor Tim doesn't argue he. He merely asserts it and thinks that that settles the issue. Why is it that as soon as we use extra-biblical sources, we are violating Inerrancy?

Anyone that accepts Licona’s methodology is advocating a text full of errors and only those with a proper understanding can spot those errors.

Blech! What's with this water?! It's got poison in it!

I accept Licona's methodology and I deny that the text is full of errors. I do affirm a proper understanding however can help reconcile "supposed errors." What can Pastor Tim say to this however? "No. You believe the text is full of errors!" I've said that I don't. How could it be that Pastor Tim knows more about what I mean by what I say than I do? Now it could be that I am wrong and the text is full of errors, but I cannot be wrong in that I know that I believe the text is not full of errors. My belief can be wrong, but I cannot be wrong in knowing I believe that.

Looking at the comments, I agree with the commenter who said Pastor Tim spoke like one who had not done research. When I dialogued with him back earlier when this all started, I was convinced that he had not even read Mike's book on the topic. I seriously doubt he has at this point, but he's prepared to tell his congregation that it denies Inerrancy. He might not have said that in the pulpit, but he has said it on his blog.

Unfortunately, it looks like several or showing up and telling Pastor Tim that he's wrong on this, but he's unable to accept any correction. It is as if Geisler has spoken and the case is closed. There is something to sticking to one's guns of course, but when there are many people more educated than you being as gentle as they can telling you, you really need to think through these issues because you're just not engaging with the argument, you should listen.

Francis Beckwith made a fine point to Pastor Tim about a reading of Exodus 33 with a literalist bent in that it would produce God with a body. This argument was not responded to at all by Pastor Tim.

It's also pointed out that Geisler is wanting to take the case to ETS, even though Geisler left ETS years ago due to its not having a strong stance on doctrine. (All of a sudden, the organization suits his purposes however) Beckwith also points out that while Pastor Tim thought a scholarly exchange should take place, on his own blog, he opposed the meeting between Geisler and Mike at SEBTS.

Tim's response?

Second, let me move to my claim. You are correct, I do not know that Dr. Geisler was asked to respond. As, one commenter has stated Dr. Geisler is not a member of ETS. However, what I do know is that Dr. Al Mohler takes the same position as Dr. Geisler and he was never mentioned in Dr. Licona’s paper in any shape or form concerning his position. The only mention of Dr. Mohler was Dr. Licona’s attempt to show a divide in young earthers and old earth proponents. If Dr. Licona’s position is so “orthodox” then why, pray tell, does one that advocates orthodoxy in every paragraph he writes and speak express in writing that it is not inerrancy?

Why does Mohler say this? Because Mohler believes it, but Mohler is wrong. I have shown that in my own reply to Mohler http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...himes-in/]here. Are we to say that Mohler is infallable? It is as if there is some kind of group think going on here. Furthermore, why should Mike respond to Mohler who just made one post and that was it? The main one who's gone after him is Geisler.

Third, Dr. Geisler did refuse to accept the invitation to SEBTS. However, Dr. Mohler did as well. The reason I expressed he did not need to be on such a panel, is very clear. My position is that inerrancy is best seen among those the people in the pew. Those in the pew understand inerrancy and will spot someone that does not advocate in a “New York minute”. Scholars are working from a “collegial” perspective. Thus, no scholar desires to go against another scholar’s position. Dr. Geisler and Dr. Mohler are two of the few scholars that will publicly speak out on this issue. This debate does not need to be covered over by scholarly language and hidden away in the towers of academia. Inerrancy is not an academic position it is a position that the people in the pew hold the pastors in the pulpits responsible to maintain.

So Geisler did not need to go because there was no need since this should be shown to the person sitting in the pew, but when it came to EPS, where there were no persons sitting in the pew, Geisler did need to have a chance to respond. What? Can anyone make any sense out of this? Is it not more likely that Beckwith has pointed out a contradiction?

Dr. Geisler and Dr. Mohler are two of the few scholars that will publicly speak out on the issue?

Well I suppose so since it seems that those who speak out in favor of Mike become the next targets of the machine, get disinvited to conferences, and lose their jobs. Could it be some scholars don't speak out because they do want to provide for their families like Pastor Tim does?

And do note that there were several who spoke out in favor of Licona in a petition he had. These were all disregarded. Geisler and Mohler are not NT scholars. The ones who signed the petition are. What is it that Geisler and Mohler know that the leading NT scholars do not know? What is it that Pastor Tim knows that the leading NT scholars do not know?

The person in the pew is also the one that while supposedly can spot the denial of Inerrancy, will sadly in our day and age have no response to what someone like Bart Ehrman says, unless that response is fideism, that is, believing without evidence. If that is the case, Ehrman shuts them down for any effective evangelism. My stance is the person in the pew needs to be more educated and interacting with the scholarly world. Pastor Tim moves us in the direction of fideism.

In response to Peter Grice, Pastor Tim says:

First, you say;
“Apologists affirm and defend Inspiration
Why? The Bible says it is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and it says “In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God” (John 1:1) it also tells us “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and it says ” he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). There is no need to affirm or defend what God has said.

One does not know where to begin with this really. The Bible says it is inspired by God. So does the Book of Mormon. So does the Koran. Would Pastor Tim accept that from the Mormon or the Muslim? Then, Pastor Tim moves on to John 1:1 and John 1:14.

This is the point where I want to start screaming.

John 1:1 and John 1:14 when saying the Word do not mean the Bible. They are talking about Jesus. I hope Pastor Tim knows that, but it is hard to get that impression from reading this. When we bring that over to John 14:9, I wonder that has to do with the price of tea in China.

I wonder what Pastor Tim would do when a skeptic approached him about the events that happened when a great man died according to Virgil.

"Well those are not historical."

"Why not?"

"They just didn't happen."

"But the event in the Bible did?"

"Yes."

"Why did those in the Bible happen but not those in Virgil?"

"Because the Bible is historical."

"How do you know this?"

"Because it says so."

"How do you know that's true?"

"Because it's the Word of God?"

"How do you know that?"

"It says so."

"But the Book of Mormon and the Koran say the same."

"They're not stating the truth."

"How do you know?"

"Because they disagree with the Bible."

This is entirely circular in how it goes. If the Bible is inspired, and I believe it is, one should be able to demonstrate it. Otherwise, they're holding to a double-theory of truth. You remember that theory don't you? It's the very one that Geisler condemned in an open-letter. If the Bible is true to reality, open investigation by a skeptic should be able to come to that conclusion. Of course, there are reasons some don't, and we can help counter those, but the Bible will be able to have contact with reality if it is true.

Pastor Tim says one should not think the Bible needs defending. Why should someone think that? One can think of the Spurgeon quote where he'd sooner defend a lion than the Bible. Well Spurgeon was wrong. The Bible will not defend itself. That's not it's place. If you believe in the Bible, you will want to defend it and honor it in the face of those who seek to deny it and you will want to do so with the best of arguments.

Pastor Tim also says:

However, it seems that apologists stopped realizing that an unbeliever will not accept any argument of faith without the “spirit of God” drawing him. The apologist will never convince an unbelieving world God exists. The apologist will never convince an unbelieving world the Bible is God’s Word. Those are the tasks of the Holy Spirit.

By himself, the apologist will not convince the unbeliever. That is true. However, the apologist should not claim to do this by himself. Of course, the Holy Spirit is there, but the Holy Spirit can also use a good argument. In fact, we should give the Holy Spirit the best that we have and that includes our best arguments. We should not come to the unbeliever completely ignorant and expect the Holy Spirit to make up for our laziness.

You seem to be presuming there is hidden meaning within the text that have to be teased out through the “scholarly” process. It is once again another way of saying there is “truer truth”. Or as I put it in the OP a “canon within a canon”. Certainly no one intends to presume that God is bound to anything. However, neither does God give us a text that has hidden meanings for us to ponder and only those with enough scholarly insight can find the full meaning of the text. That, my brother, is a form of gnosticism if not full blown gnosticism.

And here we have yet another example of "The Bible was written for 21st century Americans." Oh there are a number of things that are plain in the Bible. There are a number that are not. We have Pastor Tim appealing often to the pew-sitter. Okay. Which one do I go to?

Do I go to the Presbyterian church where they will talk about how the Bible teaches Calvinism?

Do I go to the SBC one that has the Bible clearly teaching dispensationalism?

Do I go to the Pentecostal one with the Bible clearly teaching that charismatic gifts are today?

What about the one that has an Arminian statement of faith? Is that one getting what the Bible is clearly teaching?

What about the one that holds to an old-earth interpretation? Hugh Ross is a pastor of a church after all.

Or do I go to one that holds to a young-earth view?

What about one that has a preterist approach to eschatology?

What about one that holds to eternal security?

Or do I go with one that denies eternal security?

Which person in the pew do I go to? They all affirm inerrancy, but they all disagree on what the text means.

You know, that text that is so clear that we don't need the scholarly world to understand it.

I think in reality that the text is NOT clear on several matters and for that we need hard study. We actually need to dig into the text and wrestle with it. We need to avail ourselves of the biblical languages. (By the way, those languages are not taught in the Bible. You have to go outside the Bible to know what those words mean.) We need to learn the social context of the Bible. We need archaeology and philosophy and history. We need to look at the world and say "If the Bible is true, whatever I learn can help me in my understanding of the Bible," and then have at it.

It seems Pastor Tim's approach is afraid of higher learning as it will some how dilute the teachings of the Bible. As one who values higher learning, I have no fear of it. I have spent some time recently reading on an issue for instance in biblical doctrine that I disagree with. I regularly read books by the cults and by atheists because I want to know what their arguments are. It's great to go into a library and/or bookstore and get what you want without fear.

Pastor Tim also says:

Further is the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, a statement that Dr. Licona has affirmed to be part of the ETS. You say we should not be insistent on the “literal-historical narrative”. However, ETS affirms something different in Article XVII than your statement;
“We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatical-historical 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, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.”

Actually Pastor, that's article XVIII, and it is one I wrote about here. Once again, we find this idea of just trot out the ICBI statement and that settles everything.

Apparently, all of the scholars that side with Licona did not know about that article, even though two of them were signers!

Pastor Tim later says:

Paul penned his words to the Corinthians approximately 55AD. Matthew penned his words to this circulatory letter approximately 60AD.

Question Pastor Tim. How do you know when Paul wrote Corinthians? Does the letter itself contain a date? How do you know that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew? Do you see his name anywhere in that book? I don't. Please don't dare tell us that you're using...GASP!...

EXTRA-BIBLICAL MATERIAL!

Why yes. Yes you are, and you're using extra-biblical material to increase your understanding of the text. We do the exact same thing, but when we do it, you have a problem with it.

Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Would one not agree that Paul was the most “well read” among the two? With that being the case then a question glares us in the face. Why did Paul not make such a reference in his defense of the resurrection when he wrote about it in 1 Corinthians? Is Dr. Licona calling the account that Paul points to in 1 Corinthians into question as well? Paul never referenced this “myth” that Dr. Licona has suddenly found. Paul would have been the one to bring this out as he is the basis for using extra-biblical information and making it a part of the Holy Writ under the inspiration of God. Thus, since Paul did not call into question this “poetry” Dr. Licona has found and attributes to Matthew’s intent, I believe I am well within the “Denial” statement of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Article XVII.

Okay Pastor Tim. Why did Paul also not include a defense of the virgin birth? Why did he not include a defense of Christ doing miracles? I believe I have a simple answer for your question here.

Paul is speaking about the eschatological judgment at the end. Little resurrections here and there in the middle would not matter. The question is "Will we all be resurrected at the end?" Paul's basis for this is the resurrection of Christ as the firstfruits. (To which Paul Copan raises the point that if Christ is the firstfruits, how could it be that those resurrected saints would have glorified bodies prior to Christ?) Since we are identified as being in Christ (And not in resurrected saints) then we will also be raised with Christ and raised as He was.

He would not bring up the Matthew 27 incident any more than he would bring up Lazarus because it was completely irrelevant. Furthermore, this would have been part of the oral Jesus tradition and Paul would not have needed to reference it.

Finally, Mike has not referred to this as a myth. He's referred to it as apocalyptic. Myth and apocalyptic writings are not the same thing.

Now I did post on Pastor Tim's blog yesterday that I would be posting this today. He has not put that comment up. I doubt he will. (It would kind of be like how we have evidence that Geisler has deleted or had deleted disagreeing posts from his Facebook page.) Hopefully this will get around somehow.

I urge Pastor Tim to reconsider what he's doing right now. I have no doubt that he really thinks he's fighting for Inerrancy, and in a sense he is, but the bigger picture is being missed.

As it is right now, many young minds are saying they don't want to join the ETS and some are saying "Well if this is what believing in Inerrancy entails, then so much for Inerrancy." Inerrancy is being presented as something weak that cannot stand up to scrutiny so one must simply silence the opposition.

Do not dare present ideas that go against our tradition. You will not be accepted. In order to get to play all the reindeer games, you must walk the line with us, and if you do not walk the line, then you must recant or you will be shunned from the community.

Which will lead people in the end to believe that the Bible has many errors.

In fact, Stephen Bedard, another internet blogger, wrote recently that an atheist wrote something in the local paper showing how this conflict shows that the Bible isn't true. Do a web search for "Geisler" and "Licona" and you can see what the atheist world is saying about the conflict. It's becoming apparent to them that if Geisler's case wins the day, it means you cannot be objective and be an evangelical scholar.

Now by Geisler's case, I do not mean just that the event is historical. Geisler could be entirely right in that. I mean the way that he has presented his case and the methodology that he has used in dealing with an opponent. Many other Christians are calling for Geisler to let this go and make amends to Mike. The scholarly world, the evangelical world, the Christian world, and the whole of the world are not being benefited by this.

Let us also remember what Mike has said. If Geisler apologized to him, he would welcome him with open arms and put it all behind him.

I'd love to see that happen, but at this point, I am skeptical of that. (I just hope Pastor Tim will not now say I'm endorsing skepticism since I stated that position) I do think this is starting to come to a close, but will it be a wound that gets properly healed, or will it be a scar that remains for a long time on evangelicalism?

We shall see.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Pastor Tim goes again.

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. As it stands, I didn't do a blog yesterday due to my coming down with the flu and I'm still in recovery. As I've told my Mrs. before however, I am not one who is prone to just lie down and rest. I have to be doing something. Thus, today I am writing a blog once more. Today, I'd like to reply to Pastor Tim Rogers who wrote

http://pastortimrogers.com/?p=2724#comment-4779

Note in this that he said the following:

As one examines the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy there is this understanding that a large group of highly intelligent men sat around in a room for three days and hammered out a statement they all could sign. Mike Licona’s son-in-law, Nick Peters alluded to this over at his blog–Deeper Waters as he was calling for an openness to anyone interpreting the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in any way that suits their fancy;

“However, as I said at the start, this was put together in a 3-day period and should not be the final statement, just like Nicea was not the final statement on orthodox Christology.”

I am amazed that he would compare the statement in Chicago to the statement on orthodox Christology. It is this comparison that he concedes a major point of his argument. Why? Notice the comparison of the Chicago Statement to the one statement that every scholar begins when the debate of the Trinity is presented–The Council of Nicea. Does Peters really believe that all of the various writings that flow from the Nicene Council are hallmark statements on the doctrine of the Trinity? Even those who try to define the Trinity go back to the Nicene Creed using the intent of the council to define the doctrine.

Interesting to note that I did submit a reply to this on his blog that was not allowed to go up. Pastor Tim is free to post here. I'm free to respond here. Just letting that be known up front.

Anyway, so let's look at what I said. In each case, I was taking a concept that I believe is biblical, such as Inerrancy and the deity of Christ. (Note, I did not say the Trinity. The Council of Nicea was not about the Trinity but about the nature of the Son. Of course, if the Son is not of the same substance, there is no Trinity, but that does not make the council about the Trinity.)

Do I believe that all the writings that flow from Nicea are hallmark statements on the doctrine of the Trinity?

Again, that was not about the Trinity, but to answer the question, no. I also see no way that Rogers got that from my post. My point which I stated was that neither were the final word. I don't see that being disagreed with. It would have been nice had Rogers interacted with the point that I had made rather than a point I didn't make.

Furthermore, would I go to Nicea to show the doctrine of the Trinity? Not at all. Creeds do not establish the belief that they support per se. They do not give an argument for it. They just make a simple statement of what the belief is that has called for that creed. The Chicago statement does not argue for Inerrancy. It simply tells you what the believers think Inerrancy is.

As one who has interacted with them, I can guarantee Rogers that were he to start with the Council of Nicea to establish the Trinity, the Jehovah's Witnesses would quickly dispatch him. To be fair, I do not think Rogers would do this and I think that he would go exactly where I go first, to Scripture.

However, while that is what I believe he would do, these statements from him do get problematic.

Thus, when one speaks of the Trinity the first place one returns is the Nicene Creed.

And in the comments sections:

Whenever anyone debates the doctrine of the Trinity they go to the Nicene Creed. Certainly we can see the Scripture contains the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But instead of rehasing that entire debate was move to the Council of Nicea for the simple reason they have released the defining statement concerning the Trinity.

Once again, I wonder what reading Rogers is doing. The original Nicene Creed ended with saying "We believe in the Holy Spirit." The Council was not about the Trinity but about the deity of Christ. I fear that Rogers is doing what commenter Darren said and placing the creed and thus ICBI on the level of Scripture. (Incidentally, if Rogers wants a creedal statement on the Trinity, he can go to the Athanasian Creed.)

Do I think Rogers is intentionally doing this? No. Do I think he really places those works on par with Scripture? No. However, his words seem to indicate otherwise and he needs to finely nuance those better. As I have said, when I debate the Trinity, I will go to Scripture first.

I do agree that ICBI was not written in a vacuum, but I do not believe it was the final word either. Even after Nicea, there were other councils on Christology. We had to really flesh out our doctrine. If someone showed a contrary idea, then that needed to be debated instead of just pointing to earlier statements. The great danger is that we can think our statements are infallible, when as Christians we should be looking to Scripture.

Rogers goes on to say however:

This is the problem with Dr. Licona’s affirming the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy but then denying the ICBI commentary of the statement. There are three living framers of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and all three insist the ICBI Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics is the authorial intent of the Chicago Statement on Inerrency. Though we have multiple apologists trying to express their own views of the Chicago Statement it makes no difference.

At this point, one is reminded of Francis Beckwith's comment that if he were Freudian, he would be thinking Geisler has a case of Pontiff Envy. Let's ask some questions. How many of these are NT scholars? How many are qualified to judge Licona's work? Why should the rest of the world submit to these for all time?

The only reason someone should believe something like Licona's case is not because it is in accordance with ICBI, but because it is in accordance with the Bible. If it was the case that ICBI said one thing and the Bible said another, then as Darren rightly points out in the comments section, so much for ICBI.

When I see something like what is quoted above, I do think of the statement often attributed to Augustine, and whether it is historical or not and how it is to be interpreted I leave to the historians, but how he reportedly said "Rome has spoken. The case is closed." Now we have "ICBI has spoken. The case is closed."

To which Rogers has said "I am not open to debate! You can make all the arguments you want! It doesn't matter!" Well I'm not like that. Frankly, if the Jehovah's Witnesses have the better argument, I would want to believe it. If the Trinity was false, I would be thankful to them for pointing that out to me.

I am convinced it is true however, and that is not because of a study of the Nicene Creed, but because of a study of theology centered heavily in the Scriptures. I do not mind using extra-biblical material such as Jewish Wisdom Theology from Second Temple Judaism since the concept of the Trinity did not come out of a vacuum. (To be sure of course, the Trinity has already existed, but our understanding of it did develop.)

It is for that reason I do not hesitate to enter the debate. I love it when Jehovah's Witnesses came around. My wife and I were once about to head out to see her parents when the doorbell rang and it was Jehovah's Witnesses. We had no specific time to see my in-laws so I believe we did meet with them for a bit. If my memory is faulty there, we arranged for a later time, but I always love it when the Jehovah's Witnesses come by and I do not bring up Nicea at all. If they do, I do what I can to bring us back to the Bible.

Rogers however is apparently saying that he's not even going to examine the data. ICBI is right. Now keep in mind one can believe in Inerrancy without holding to ICBI. In fact, Inerrancy was around long before ICBI so unless Geisler and others wanted to say the ECF, the medievals, and the reformers were not inerrantists, they would have to agree. Note that Henry Morris would not sign the ICBI statement as well since it allowed for an old-earth, which he believed denied Inerrancy. Does Morris deny Inerrancy? Would he think Geisler does?

The problem with not being willing to examine the data is that your opponent just has to be wrong somehow! Now of course, if your position is true, your opponent is wrong somehow, but if you have to say a priori that he is wrong without examining the data, then you have a problem. I do not doubt that there is a flaw in the argument of the atheist, but it is still up to me as an apologist to examine the argument and the data that he presents and do my best to find that flaw.

Is Rogers willing to examine the data? That's a good question to ask, but as I said, I fear there has already been an answer.

Even if those who signed the statement at the time agree that Dr. Licona affirms inerrancy they must deny the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics in order to do so. Thus, those agreeing with Dr. Licona who were original signatories on the Statement of Inerrancy must either admit they are denying the Statement on Hermeneutics or they must provide evidence they disagreed with Summitt II, and if no evidence is provided, they must admit they originally signed the document under false pretense.

But we have repeatedly an idea that we must take the text literally, but what does that mean? If we go to 2 Samuel 22, we have a poem no doubt as Rogers recognizes, but it is a poem describing historical events. Is Rogers going to say that that poem is literal? Does Rogers think God hitched up an angel and came flying down shooting arrows at David's enemies?

What about Exodus 33-34? A normal reading of this passage would tell us that God has a body and that no one can see His face, but Moses was privileged enough to see His back. There is nothing in the text that indicates that the passage is anything other than historical, but is Rogers going to accept that God literally has a body?

In fact, descriptions of John the Baptist start out with quoting Isaiah 40:3. However, what is the next verse?

“Let every valley be lifted up,
And every mountain and hill be made low;
And let the rough ground become a plain,
And the rugged terrain a broad valley;

Does Rogers believe these happened literally? If someone decides that they do not think that the texts are that literal, are they outside of Inerrancy? Do Rogers and Geisler want to say that everyone that is not of a dispensationalist bent, for instance, denies Inerrancy? What of Preterists? Do they deny Inerrancy?

In fact, since Geisler is a dispensationalist, one could ask if it was the case that his eschatology was driving his framing. If so, then there could be reason to take such with a grain of salt. I am not saying that is the case, but it is something we have to be aware of.

The point is that literal is very difficult to understand. There are some Christians that do not take the resurrection in Daniel 12 as literal. There are some that do not see the first resurrection in Revelation 20 as literal. Are we to say that these are denying Inerrancy? If not in any case, where does denial end and affirming begin?

Furthermore, Scripture itself has interpreted Scripture as allegory. Paul sees an allegory between the Judaizers and the Christians in Galatians 4 in the relationship of the children of Hagar and Sarah. If we were to take the statement by the letter, would we have to say that Paul denies Inerrancy?

Perhaps we should instead say "We will seek to interpret Scripture the way that those who were its original audience would understand it." Of course, this could lead to difficulties for some in the old-earth and young-earth debate as a lot of old-earthers go to the science first and then interpret Genesis in that light saying "Well we know from science that the world is old, so we must interpret these passages differently." That would be using data however the original audience would not understand. I think the work of people like John Walton however is far more helpful in understanding Genesis as he seeks to use the ancient world to understand the ancient world, much the way Licona uses the first century world to understand the first century world.

And this brings us again to extra-biblical literature. It seems that Rogers has an allergy with the idea of something extra-biblical, but yet does not seem to hesitate to go to ICBI, which is also extra-biblical, and apparently as well Nicea, which is extra-biblical.

I can understand why someone would do that. I do not deny the Bible is above other works of literature and for the NT, it ranks par excellence above other 1st century works, but let us understand this about the NT. IT IS A FIRST CENTURY WORK! It was written in a culture that 1st century people lived in and understood. If not the 1st century Mediterranean culture, which culture should be the one who's "normal" reading is seen as the best? Why 21st century America? Why not 12th century Japan or 5th century Germany? Why is it our time and place that seems to get priority?

It does seem to some to place the Bible on a higher place by saying it is to have no contact with the world outside of it and it can be understood without any other aids. Well in some ways yes. Someone can pick up the Bible and get the message of salvation. However, if one wants to be proficient in the book, then one needs to study the world of the NT. In fact, to say one need not study to really understand the Bible is a position of arrogance. It is making oneself a pope and saying "All I need is me and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit will tell me all I need to know." That is not the role of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit does not encourage laziness. I do not say Pastor Rogers does this. I merely say I hope he doesn't. If he doesn't however, he should have no problem with what I've said in this paragraph. In fact, if he thinks all one needs is the Bible, then he'd best tell his congregation to go home. Why fill their minds with the ideas of what Rogers thinks the text means? They don't need that. They have all they need in Scripture.

It is also a safeguard of the Bible that I don't think works. I have no problem putting the Bible up against other pagan works since I believe it will win out in the end. In fact, the early church fathers did this. They agreed that Plato and Aristotle taught a lot of great wisdom on how to live, as they did. I agree with Lewis that losing what I have learned from those two would be equal to losing a limb. However, they also said "But those guys were grasping in the dark compared to Jesus."

The person who believes the Bible should be open to letting the Bible be investigated with everything the skeptic has. Bring on your objections and let us answer them!

Note also what else Rogers says:

This was a well thought out doctrinal statement and the framers of the statement knew somewhere in the future these statements would be challenged. The framers were already dealing with moderates and liberals who were using, as Dr. Adrian Rogers said, “the same words but different dictionaries.”

Note that Rogers here is poisoning the well by using moderates and liberals as if Licona and his supporters are in that camp. The reality is we despise liberal approaches to Scripture. That does not mean we don't learn anything from liberals, but it does mean that their system does not work. We stand for true and orthodox doctrine and we don't discount something just because it's miraculous. I've heard Licona publicly defend modern-day miracles. He has no problem with them. There is nothing moderate or liberal whatsoever in Licona. These are words that are tossed out however in order to automatically impugn the other side. (Note that this is done while referring to us as "brother" also.)

In closing, what Rogers needs to have again is actual dialogue, but it does not seem likely based on what I am seeing in the way he responds to comments and elsewhere on the blogosphere. As I have said earlier, I fear that Rogers's idea of how to handle debate is simply the use of the big stick of authority. As an atheist once said "Better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it."

We shall continue next time.