« A grassroots Southern Baptist "gets it" on the undeniable Calvinist agenda within the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins | Main | The GBC Insider is now defunct by Peter Lumpkins »



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

Wes Widner

I hate to tell you Pete but Mike's career is alive and well. If anything I would argue that NAMB was holding Mike back by shackling him to the expectations of people like yourself. Now he is more free to engage what should be our real enemy using the best arguments at his disposal and not merely the best arguments ignorant oafs like you will allow him to use without stabbing him in the back.

peter lumpkins


So, I offer a sincere lament about Dr. Licona, thinking this a tragedy for all involved, including all Southern Baptists. And this is your honest response?

I trust your afternoon well.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


I find it interesting that our NAMB certifies “apologists” like Wes Widner above, apologists with hardly the temperament we would expect from Cooperative Program dollars training.  Also, check out this enlightening tidbit our brother Wes left on a blog I wrote some time back. Our NAMB training dollars at work!

Lord help us all...

With that, I am…



Henri Blocher has never read Mike’s book and the BP article states this. All of his comments are based on the assumption that what Mike is doing is exactly what Robert Gundry was doing, which is untrue. Henri Blocher believes in the Framework Theory of Genesis 1:1-2:4. He doesn’t believe Eve was actually made from Adam’s rib but that this is symbolic (p.98) He does not believe the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil were literal trees (pp. 124-125). They are symbolic as is the snake and the eating of the fruit (pp. 150-156). He believes in the historicity of the fall but is uncertain how that fall actually occurred. He states that nothing in creation excludes evolutionary procedure (p. 226).

This is all in his book In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis”

You can see my response to Geisler here: http://sententias.org/2011/11/12/the-disputatio-a-response-to-norman-geisler-in-defense-of-mike-licona/

peter lumpkins

Like I said, Max, Roach's response from Blocher delivers no kudos to Licona regardless. A accomplished scholar, Bolcher was hardly shooting from the hip.

Nor is your criticism of Geisler at all relevant to this post.

Thanks for dropping by anyway.

With that, I am...

Phil Miller

To be fair, I think it should be noted that Licona holds a masters degree from Liberty and is (or at least was) supported by two of Liberty's best know scholars; Drs Habermas and Beck. These two, along with an impressive number of other well known scholars, such as Daniel Wallace of DTS, signed an open response to Geisler stating that they do NOT believe Licona's view in incompatible with biblical inerrancy.

peter lumpkins


I'm not sure how what you're suggesting makes my thoughts any more fair.My point in this post was to clear up any wrong implications toward which I may have contributed, including encouraging Dr. Geisler to footnote his statement.

Even so, I alluded to Licona's friends at Liberty supporting him and out of fairness to them I didn't mention their names. Word has it, they're taking some heat for their support. No use making it worse.

With that, I am...

The comments to this entry are closed.