« Al Mohler vindicates Norm Geisler by Peter Lumpkins |
| SBC Voices and Calvinism by Peter Lumpkins »
We now learn Dr. Mike Licona is apparently not a member of the ETS. Does Dr. Geisler's argument still have merit?
Certainly something to think about.
With that, I am...
Posted by peter lumpkins on Sep 15, 2011 at 02:41 PM in Inerrancy, NAMB, resurrection, theology | Permalink
Apologetics, Biblical Authority, Biblical Interpretation, Inerrancy, Mike Licona, NAMB, Norman Geisler, Resurrection, Theology
| Digg This
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
If this is correct and Licona is not a member of ETS it seems that a question still begs to be answered. What does that have to do with inerrancy? As evangelicals we affirm the ETS and their position on inerrancy. We may not sign documents but we certainly use the standards set up by these past scholars to inform our research. So, could this be the reason that we have Brian McLauren as well as John Piper referred to as evangelicals and no one blinking an eye?
Tim Rogers |
Sep 15, 2011 at 03:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.