« SBC Voices and Calvinism by Peter Lumpkins | Main | "Live Forever" by Drew Holcomb & The Neighbors »

Sep 16, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Randy Everist

To be helpful, Licona thinks the entire argument made by Geisler and Mohler is unhelpful and unpersuasive, at least that's how most readers of his FB page/note took it to mean, based on the overall context.

Further, it is indisputable that Licona has, since his book, moved to a closer-to-agnostic view of the two possible options, as he has said. So to suggest that Licona doesn't think Geisler's position on the interpretation of the particular text alone is viable seems a bit out of place. The bottom line is, no one has offered a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging account of a denial of inerrancy that doesn't result in us all calling each other inerrancy deniers against Licona specifically.

Why don't we demand Kostenberger retract his view that the rich man and Lazarus is a parable (or, if one believes it is a parable, demand that one who believes it is literal retract such a view, as it is a style foreign to authorial intent of the text in such a case)? Why doesn't Geisler acknowledge at least some genre-types to be a ruling out of "events that correspond to reality" (like parabolic events)? Assuming he does, why then is Licona's view tantamount to denying inerrancy while one who believes parables do not contain events that happened in space time do not deny inerrancy?

We're in need of some clear thinking on the matter, and it doesn't seem to be coming from Geisler in this case.

peter

Thanks Randy.

I understand your position. Allow me. First, I employed Licona's own words to state his conclusion, words which were, "unpersuasive and misguided." Now how much of a difference there is between Licona's own term "misguided" and your summation "unhelpful" I allow others to address. Suffice it to say, "misguided" is, at best, "mistaken" and at worst "foolish" if we're to believe standard usages. With that said, Licona does not appear to be as "open" ended on his understanding of Matt 27 as his defenders make out. In other words, there's at least one understanding that Licona appears to reject flat out--Geisler and Mohler's understanding.

Second, I do not see Licona staying in the more neutral stance about Matt 27 as he did in his first public statement about Geisler's criticism, when he, in effect, conceded he'd studied more from Greco-Roman lit. and now believed just as strongly that Matt 27 could be taken literally as he could be taken apocalyptically--a toss-up if you will. Hence, he even said he'd be willing to change the language to accommodate such a neutrality. However, in his response to Mohler, he moved away from the more neutral, compromised concession back to a more decidedly apocalyptic position, dubbing Geisler & Mohler's "case" for literalness both "unpersuasive and misguided."

In short, I don't think you're discerning adequately Licona's ambiguous posturing going on. One is now wondering exactly what Licona believes.

One thing is for sure: Licona is through in the SBC. And that's a shame. We all lose. But it is reality.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

The comments to this entry are closed.