J.P. Holding on Al Mohler: are apologists doomed to irrelevant frivolity? by Peter Lumpkins

 I like J. P. Holding. He writes some interesting pieces, pieces sparkling with special insights into contextual antiquity and Scripture (Holding's latest book defends the resurrection). I've personally benefited from a couple of books he recommended to me (resulting from an email enquiry to him sometime ago). His literary wit is matched only by Bob L. Ross who humorously gives many Calvinist brothers "what for" when they challenge him on his dissent from the "new" Calvinism (Ross himself is a Sovereign Grace Calvinist). Oops! Pardon me. Back to Holding  >>>

Like I say...I like Holding. But wit or no wit, Holding lately is adding to the unkindly impression that, in some important ways, Christian apologists are becoming more annoying than helpful, more interested in other Christians than defending the faith once for all given to the saints.

For sometime now, Holding has been on his soapbox against Norman Geisler for daring to challenge Mike Licona's idea of inerrancy,* a soapbox from which even Holding's supporters suggest is time to step down. But Holding's description of Dr. Al Mohler is completely unhelpful and over the top. In short, it's frivolous. Attempting to fill in some blanks from a Geisler piece, Holding writes,

First of all, who was this "key leader"? Those that immediately come to mind as candidates in the SBC aren't exactly what I'd call scholarly powerhouses qualified to assess the matter. I'm thinking here leaders like Charles Stanley, or Al Mohler (whom Geisler refers to beyond this) who frankly wouldn't know a Greco-Roman biography from an antelope's rump, and would think that the Agricola of Tacitus was some kind of Roman-era soft drink (embolden added, //link)

That I've registered my personal complaints about Mohler who could miss? That I've often publicly disagreed with Mohler's undeniable theological yearnings for the "Reformed" I readily admit. That I think Dr. Mohler appears at times more interested in promoting a broad, diluted evangelicalism than a robust Baptist faith I cannot deny. One thing I've never written nor implied about Mohler, however, nor ever will, is that he is a literary buffoon--a lame, empty intellect who deserves no respect for his ignorant, uninformed perspective--a reasonable deduction from Holding's caricature that Mohler "frankly wouldn't know a Greco-Roman biography from an antelope's rump, and would think that the Agricola of Tacitus was some kind of Roman-era soft drink."

Frivolity, pure and simple (not to mention heightened snobbery).

Nonetheless, to make things even more frivolous, when challenged by a supporter to give Geisler a break, Holding had this enlightenment to offer:

Ordinarily I'd say yes, but I owe Mike a lot, and his son in law is my ministry partner, so I'm pledged to keep on top of this thing (//link)

So, let me get this straight: rather than being passionate about truth and defending the faith once for all given to the saints, J.P. Holding is interested in a) returning favors b) pacifying his ministry partner? So it's really not about whether Geisler's points concerning Licona's inferior view of inerrancy are well-taken but about Holding defending Mike Licona because he's "owed a lot" and his son in law is Holding's personal ministry partner?   

Is this the best Christian apologetics can offer?

Frivolity.

Pure and simple.

Frivolity.

With that, I am...

Peter

*one might retort that Geisler is no more interested in defending the faith once for all given to the saints contra non-Christian worldviews than is Holding since Geilser too continually challenges Christians on their views (e.g. Licona on inerrancy). Fair enough. But Geisler challenges Licona's view of inerrancy not Licona's IQ. To read Geisler's latest piece on Licona's view, here's a link 

Comments

[J. P. Holding]

All right.

1) Provide evidence that Mohler is familiar with such concepts as Greco-Roman biography. Note I said nothing about "IQ" which has nothing to do with familiarity with factual data. Note as well that I have not at all broadly questioned Mohler's intellect as you imply, only his specific knowledge in a specific area.

2) I am not "pacifying" anyone. Geisler has caused Licona and his family tremendous personal hardship with this crusade of his and between that an the factual errors Geisler spreads, I am in a unique position to defend in the matter. Yes, I am also looking out for those I care for, and if you find that questionable, so be it -- it speaks for itself.

[peter]

JP.

A) Provide evidence? Sure. When you provide evidence Mohler wouldn't know a Greco-Roman biography from an antelope's rump or thinks the Agricola of Tacitus was some kind of Roman-era soft drink.

B) Well, I think your words are quite plain, JP. You clearly indicated as reasons for continuing your pursuit of this matter: a) you owed Licona; and b) his s-i-l is your partner. We'll allow the readers to judge whether or not such are adequate reasons to continue harping on about Geisler or qualify as "pacifying"

C) I'm also perfectly comfortable allowing readers to judge whether or not I've adequately described as 'frivolous' your chosen pursuits about this particular issue.

Have a great day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[J. P. Holding]

A) The burden is on you to prove that he does have such knowledge. His educational background and his writings give no indication of such knowledge. Nor, most importantly, does his response on behalf of Geisler, where it would have been most relevant.

B, C) Yes, it's quite plain indeed. I have both personal knowledge AND concern, which makes me uniquely qualified to stay on top of the issue. And that is what I will do.

By the way, if you're going to argue that one person's view ("when challenged by a supporter to give Geisler a break") is meaningful, you should also now note the later comment (by Dan Young) with the opposite view.

[peter]

Look, JP. Try as you wish to suggest the burden of proof is on me to negate your pathetic assertion that Mohler wouldn't know a Greco-Roman biography from an antelope's rump or thinks the Agricola of Tacitus was some kind of Roman-era soft drink. Not impressive,

Second, you are the one who wrote what you did. I only quoted the reasons you yourself suggested.

And, frankly, I feel no obligation to continue monitoring your thread to balance out comments I judge "meaningful", JP. Please. Are we being frivolous again?

With that, I am...
Peter

[J. P. Holding]

Yes, it does seem you have no sense of being responsible for meeting your burdens at all. Therefore we may also assume that Farrell Till, Bozo the Clown, and Mary Tyler Moore are familiar with G-R bios, absent proof otherwise, even if we check their writings and their resumes and find no indication that they have ever addressed that or any other related topic; for of course they may have done so in some personal conversation at McDonald's, proving that they do indeed know more than a reputable NT scholar with a detailed, scholarly, and heavily documented work that relates the same subject matter.

I suppose it is indeed frivolous to hold you to your own standards of evidence. How silly of me.

With that...you are...indeed. :D

[Peter]

Oh my. Live and learn. Have a nice day, JP

With that, I am...
Peter

[Rick Patrick]

While I do not have an antelope in this fight, and I also have been fairly critical of Al Mohler's influence in the Southern Baptist Convention, it seems to me that a Greco-Roman biography is a type of literature recounting the words and deeds of an individual, while an antelope's rump would be the hind quarters of a very fast, even-toed ungulate creature in Africa and Eurasia.

Let me say, definitively, that if you place these two items in front of Al Mohler, he most definitely will accurately identify each. Should you decide to conduct this experiment, please invite me. I would even be willing to pay a small sum of money simply to watch it.

[peter]

I think you've summed it up well, Rick. From my perspective, JP's unwillingness to admit his frivolous nonsense concerning Mohler and instead rationalize his pathetic claim speaks a sorry message for Christian apologetics generally.

Have a great Saturday.
With that, I am...
Peter

[selahV]

This? this is what debates on our faith has boiled down to by learned men?

a Greco-Roman bio and an antelope's butt?

even a rather ignorant nobody like me is finding it hard to believe this conversation is what our Lord had in mind when He said, "Go ye into all the world...teaching..."

Lord, have mercy on us all... selahV

[Fredericka]

J.P., one problem that leaps out: the reader of "Greco-Roman" (pagan) literature often has the impression that the fact-checking department was on extended vacation during the entire period of classical antiquity. Pliny the Elder, for example, says in Book 7 Chapter 2 of his Natural History that there is a race of men "who have only one leg, but are able to leap with surprising agility." Given the indisputably fact-challenged character of ancient pagan literature, why would anyone try to conform the New Testament to that model?