Norm Geisler defends Al Mohler by Peter Lumpkins

Dr. Norman Geisler offered a stunning rebuttal to Mike Licona's critique of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler. Geisler concludes  >>>

Unfortunately, Mike Licona refers to Dr. Mohler and I as "detractors."  In response, I would like to repeat that I have both love for Mike as a brother in Christ and respect for him as a scholar.  However, I have a higher respect for the truth of God's inerrant Word and for my duty to defend it.  And I am firmly convinced that the Gospel record is seriously undermined by this kind of Second-Temple, pro-legendary interpretation that denies the sufficiency of the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture and flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Christian consensus on the historicity of the Gospel record. Hence, while I am not a detractor, I do believe that Dr. Licona needs to be a retractor of this serious challenge to the complete historicity and full inerrancy of the Bible.  Since he has expressed some doubt about his own view in his previous Open Letter, I would hope that his doubt about his own hermeneutics would not decrease and that his certainly about the inerrancy of the whole Gospel record, including this text, would increase.  I am praying to that end.

Norm Geisler's entire piece is worthy of considerable attention---"A Response to Mike Licona's Defense of Dehistoricizing the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27" by Norman Geisler

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

While I agree with you that KS's judgements concerning Dr. Geisler should not cause alarm, I disagree if his analysis is something that should not cause alarm. I believe KS has certainly revealed the problem. We have people that affirm inerrancy then question the very text of Scripture concerning its historicity. According to the Protestant principle that "Scripture interprets Scripture", no one claiming inerrancy of Scripture approaches a narrative passage questioning the factual historicity of the events it records. If one questions the factual history of Scripture based on secular reasoning and outside pagan genre declarations, then one has already predetermined portions of the Scriptures to be inaccurate.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter]

KS,

Perhaps your judgment is much more sober than mine that Geisler wrote a stunning critique. Granted. On the other hand I am not so sure a clean, sweeping division between inerrancy and hermeneutics can be maintained as you confidently suggest. Distinguished, yes. Separated, not so fast.

Now, as for being "typical Geisler posturing", you speak nonsense, frankly, which makes me highly suspicious that you know what you're talking about when you give a subtle, back-handed slap to the SBC. Hence, I think we have some a priori judgments driving your evaluation. If I am correct, it's judgments like yours about which the SBC need not worry herself.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[KS]

Geisler's critique is neither stunning nor worth serious consideration. Biblical inerrancy is simply not an interpretive principle and cannot determine when a literal or non-literal approach is called for in any given text. Since all acknowledge that non-literalisms are present in the Bible, and they do not create a problem for the belief in the truthfulness of the text, then taking a given passage non-literally cannot simply be equated with taking it to be false. One could therefore hold that the Bible is 100% metaphor and still affirm that it has made no errors in what those metaphors communicate. Only if one believes that what the text is wrong in what it means can one be legitimately criticized for not holding to inerrancy. This is just typical Geisler posturing, but knowing the SBC it will probably work.