Geisler and the In-Laws

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Last night, I wrote about my personal involvement in the Geisler’s Christmas Carol video. I do appreciate my in-laws taking the time to comment last night and thus, one can see that they have no problem with the video. It is amazing that after all that Geisler has done to us, that he expects us to take down the video and to apologize.

However, Geisler did put up another response today. Apparently, someone has been reading my blog and wasn’t too happy that my in-laws both commented and spoke about how proud they are to have me as a son-in-law, something I take great delight in, and their hopes for the future.

Yes. Terrible things to say about family after all. Apparently, Geisler would have preferred that I be told to never do such again.

Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. Let’s remember what it is that we have all seen happen in this. We’ll use the letter from the SES president as a start to this that Geisler refers to.

“It has come to the attention of the President of SES that a student has made a video about the controversy between Dr. Licona and Dr. Geisler. We believe this video was totally unnecessary and is in extremely poor taste. At SES we demand a high standard of conduct in the way we interact with others. Whenever there is a disagreement on any issue, there is a respectful way to handle it. As Christians, as brothers in Christ, there are occasions when we may have differences, but as members of one Body, we need to resolve our differences according to Scripture. Publically embarrassing anybody is totally unacceptable….” (emphasis is added in all these quotations). — Acting President of Southern Evangelical Seminary

First off, the report wasn’t checked too well. Anyone could have spent a few minutes researching the issue and seen that I did not make the video. In fact, no one at all contacted me and asked if I made the video. No one contacted J.P. Holding, who did make the video, and asked if he made the video. Instead, what we got was just an immediate response that did not bother to examine the case.

The video was unnecessary and in extremely poor taste? So let’s see what charges are not unnecessary and not in extremely poor taste.

Making a man lose his source of income twice.
Damaging his reputation by saying he’s denying Inerrancy.
Calling other Seminaries and telling them to not support him.
Sending a petition behind the scenes to have it shown that he is denying Inerrancy.
Putting psychological stress on all families involved.
Cutting off income that could be used to support others who are also struggling in this economy.
Uninviting him and his friends from speaking at conferences.
Devoting practically one’s whole home page to attacking someone for one section in a book.
Refusing to meet someone at a scholarly conference to discuss your accusations against him.

Apparently then, none of these are unnecessary and in extremely poor taste, but to make a video about someone is.

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument it was. What should have been Geisler’s response? Ignore it. I’ve had atheists say far worse things to me on the internet and I have just laughed about it. Instead, an issue was made over it. Could it be Geisler himself put on the pressure on SES to send out this memo and then points to the memo to demonstrate his point?

Next, we are told there is a respectful way to handle disagreement.

See the above list. I suppose sending out open letters against someone is a respectful way. If there is anything that has not been respectful, it has been Geisler’s treatment of an evangelical champion that just wrote a monumental work defending the central truth of the Christian faith.

As C. Michael Patton said, Geisler and Mohler should have sent twenty letters of commendation before sending one letter of condemnation. This might sound like a shock, but we are to make people disciples of the resurrected Christ and not of Inerrancy. I’m not opposed to Inerrancy, but it seems that priorities are out of sync here.

Over and over, it seems however in this debate that Geisler can run roughshod over Mike and do whatever he wants, but as soon as something ruffles Geisler’s feathers, that is unacceptable. For all the talk of what needs to be condemned, I would love to see someone from the Geisler camp come out and be willing to even say “I agree with Geisler that Mike is violating Inerrancy and needs to change his view, but I disagree in the techniques of using open letters and petitions behind the scenes and think that Geisler has not handled this in a Christlike manner and needs to apologize publicly.”

Anybody else hear crickets chirping at that?

What do we see said in response?

Dr. Geisler has written a personal appeal to Mike Licona asking him to condemn the video and restrict the discussion to the theological issues involved, rather than approving of demeaning attacks on the character of other scholars who are seriously attempting to defend the inerrancy of Scripture. Pray that he has a change of heart.

Meanwhile, I have my own personal appeal. I believe that we should have had a scholarly debate at the start, but that option went out immediately and it certainly wasn’t because of Mike. I believe it’s wrong to cut off someone’s income for something like this, to damage their reputation, to have their orthodoxy questioned, to send petitions behind the scenes, etc.

I call for such bullying behavior to be condemned.

In fact, our requests to have the video taken down were clearly pointed out in the blog, but they have gone unnoticed.

“Pray that Mike has a change of heart.”

It’s so ironic Geisler says this when it quite exemplifies the attitude given in the video of Mike being kicked out the door and told “I’m just doing this because I love you brother.”

No. The change of heart is on the side that’s going after Mike and his reputation, family, and income. In fact, my wife and I have prayed for this regularly. What has happened to us has been a hurtful and betraying time, but it seems that those in the Geisler camp are sadly blind to the effect that Geisler is having in the evangelical world with this.

By the way, Geisler in all of this does not name me or give a reference to my blog where people can see that I put up counter-arguments or that Max Andrews has them or that J.P. Holding has them. Keep in mind this is being done while saying that Mike should be reading the critiques of his opponents. Looks like that rule doesn’t go both ways.

Rest assured, I will not be doing the same thing. I will most certainly be putting up a link to what Geisler has said.

I also call other evangelicals to this. I don’t really care at this point if you think Geisler is right or if you think Mike is right or if you just don’t know. What I ask at this point is let the bullying stop. Do we want to settle this issue? Then have another meeting where both sides can argue their position in a scholarly manner before other scholars.

The open letters should never have happened, but it was Geisler who opened Pandora’s Box. It does no good now for him to complain because he doesn’t like the results of that action.

Finally, let me say this about my family. My father-in-law in all of this has not to my memory said one remark that I would really consider insulting of Geisler at all. He has been very easygoing in all of this and has said publicly on Facebook that if Geisler just apologized to him, he would hug him and act like nothing happened. However, he does think that Geisler’s approach is harmful to the evangelical movement as do I.

If Geisler has further problems with the video, he is absolutely free as well to contact my ministry partner and complain to him about it. Why has this not been done? My ministry partner also has a debate challenge up for Geisler on whether the gospels are Greco-Roman biographies or not. That link will be included at the end.

What will it take to get all of this to end? Does Licona have to agree with Geisler even though he doesn’t see the evidence? Does everyone else have to be shut down, and does that include myself? What will it take?

It could all end with a simple act of repentance on Geisler’s part, but most of us sure aren’t expecting that to happen.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Geisler’s Website can be found here where there is a link to his statement on my father-in-law’s words.

J.P. Holding’s challenge can be found here.

About these ads

Tags: , ,

57 Responses to “Geisler and the In-Laws”

  1. Bryan Says:

    As I’ve told you before YOU need to meet with him. These response blogs are just as bad as the open letters [did you see that, someone who disagrees with Licona position actually thinks the method was not the best]. I also disagree with your method, which is just as bad, but you don’t carry the public authority [and please don't go on a tangent about the effects. We know, you repeat that in almost every blog that you write].

    I think everyone should just stop, including yourself. You actually have more information than anyone else on the internet.

    I read some great advise about what to do when someone puts something out on the internet against you–IGNORE IT!

  2. J. P. Holding Says:

    Bryan, learn to spell “advice”. It doesn’t have an S in it, and each time you make one of those bonehead errors, it makes you and your position look tremendously ignorant.

  3. Bryan Says:

    Thanks PJ. I hope you let all of this go to rest.

  4. apologianick Says:

    IT’d be easy to have it go to rest if one wasn’t being blacklisted and losing income.

    So have you read Max Andrews’s piece yet on how Mike has requested a meeting and so far, it looks like no acceptance?

  5. Bryan Says:

    Like I’ve said before, YOU are not Mike Licona. You know Norman Geisler, you invited him to your wedding, been to his house and studied under him. Obviously you think he has sinned against you and your family. I know for a fact you have not personally contacted him (Mt. 18:15).

    I bet this controversy has probably caused troubles in your ability to worship in your local church. Mainly because you’re not following Mt. 5:23-24. I also bet this has caused multiple infractions with close friends. But, if you are wiling to allow those divisions to continue.

    Again, this is YOUR responsibility. Do not give me a ranting reply about what Geisler has done. Be a man of integrity. Go talk to Geisler.

    Other people have probably contacted him, but that’s not you. Until then, I would really hope you stop these blogs. After that, whatever. Until then, you might want to realize that this public blogs are out of the biblical order for seeing discipline or rebuke performed in the body of Christ.

    You are not responsible for the way he has handled this, but for how you handle it.

  6. apologianick Says:

    whine whine whine.

    I have not cut off a single friend over this issue. If anything, people have cut me off instead over it. Oh well. It’s not good to see happen, but it has happened.

    You know for a fact no personal contact has been made. If you are so sure, then feel free to tell how you know this.

    As for Matthew 18, the situation has already gone public and thus, this is not a principle of Matthew 18. The McGrews have written on this.

    If Geisler wants a meeting, it will need to be something public. That way, anything said can be verified by witnesses.

  7. Bryan Says:

    Your reply is uncalled for. If people are cutting you off take a hint.

    I know because I’ve been told from the horses mouth. I asked him if you have contacted him and he said ‘no’.

    The issue is public, but yours is both public and person. Go meet with him privately. He would contact you privately if he had an issue.

    A meeting in public could and should only be with Geisler and Licona. Not yourself or your internet friends. I also don’t think it should be as public as you might think. Namely, find a group of elder like figures and start there. As one top leader in the SBC said, “the bloggers probably got Mike fired more than his position.” Take another hint.

    As for now, I’m done with you until you do what you know you should do.

    • LP Says:

      Bryan, I can tell you are a Geisler fan, so nothing anyone says will probably make any difference, but since Geisler has demonstrated he has no problem misrepresenting what someone says, why would Nick want to meet with him privately? So Geisler can write a nice blog about what Nick didn’t say? Since Geisler won’t meet with Licona, do you really think he would agree to meet with Nick?

      • Bryan Says:

        LP (or whomever it might be hiding behind this pseudonym),

        Once the hypothetical horse fell into the hypothetical lake and hypothetically got wet–hypothetically. You can’t base anything off of a hypothetical!

        You don’t know anything about what Geisler would or would not do. You are merely speculating.

        And I know for a fact that Geisler initiated a meeting with Licona. Both of them have the criteria in which they would like to meet. The difference is that Licona sends that out to internet bloggers. How do you know that Norm hasn’t responded or doesn’t have varying reasons? Truth is that you don’t. You are merely speculating.

        I wonder if the Licona crowd will ever stop basing things about the intentions and motives of an individual upon hypothetical speculations? Who knows? I speculate that they might. Hypothetically!

      • LP Says:

        So Bryan (or whomever it might be hiding behind this pseudonym), apparently you can speculate about me, but no one else can speculate? I speculate that you don’t want to answer my questions.

        So are you actually saying the Nick or Mike Licona should not take previous actions into account when meeting with Geisler? Generally, sane adults do that. If you don’t, you must have a difficult life.

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      Bryan sez:

      >>>If people are cutting you off take a hint.

      >>>As one top leader in the SBC said, “the bloggers probably got Mike fired more than his position.” Take another hint.

      The hint is that you have a naive overconfidence in authority. Top leader in SBC? Most of the “top leaders” I know of and have met in SBC and lower subgroups would have trouble blowing their own noses without written instructions.

  8. Bryan Says:

    And to quote you:

    Leslie. I believe I might have read you on C. Michael Patton’s blog. I don’t think you’re the only one saying that. Unfortunately, I don’t think the problem is a mental imbalance. I think the problem is sin.

    If you think it is sin go handle it appropriately. Note, you are the first person to go online calling it sin. I hope that you handle this biblically, namely, if you think your brother has sinned against you…… we’ve been there before.

  9. Derek Says:

    This is a good thing in the long run. The various levels of ‘faithies’ need to be identified so evangelical scholarship can continue to advance.

    Ecclesia semper reformanda est!

  10. apologianick Says:

    Actually, Mike said he would be happy to meet, but he says there must be witnesses there. Geisler wants to meet without witnesses.

    Until that criteria is set, there will be no meeting, and I can’t blame Mike for wanting witnesses.

    btw, he also didn’t spread the information. I didn’t even know until I read it on Max’s blog. All that happened was Max likely asked Mike if a meeting was in the works and he got told the truth.

  11. Bryan Says:

    Yes he did spread the information. By the simple fact that it is on an internet blog demonstrates that he spread the information. Private emails are to remain private, and when you take the liberty to post them on the internet or allow others to do so, you are spreading information.

    Well, again, what is the biblical model for what is supposed to be done? Witness or no witnesses? I understand why he would want witnesses, but I also think that Matt. 18 is clear about going to a brother first.

    If I were Mike I would have just called him months ago. I have found in life that usually stops this kind of stuff.

  12. apologianick Says:

    Wow. So it’s a violation of privacy to share email that you yourself send? Mike did not share Geisler’s email in response. I asked him the response. That’s when he told me. It sounded like a reasonable question to ask.

    But if we’re talking about sharing emails, how is it that the world knows how Gary Habermas voted on Gundry? Is it because Geisler put it in an open letter?

    And for all this talk on Matthew 18, did Geisler ever go and meet with Mike before putting up an open letter?

  13. Bryan Says:

    Well, he didn’t send it to those on the internet but to Norm Geisler. So, unless Norm agrees to release it, it probably shouldn’t be released. Unless you want other email interactions released. I’m sure Mike has interacted with other people and would not want those on the internet.

    There were lots of people at ETS who knew Habermas voted against Gundry. In fact, most people know or should know, that Ken Kantzer called for it before the entire faculty at Trinity, Roger Nicole brought it to the floor each year, Norm Geisler and others helped facilitate the academic dialogue, Paige Patterson seconded the motion by Roger Nicole and that eventually Habermas and Bill Craig both voted against Gundrey in ETS.

    As for Geisler, yes he sent the letter to Mike before putting it on the internet. Mike and everyone else knows this. Hence, this is why all of you complain that Mike couldn’t respond soon enough so Geisler took it to the internet. Geisler’s first letter even states that.

    So, go and do what you know is right and contact Norm Geisler.

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      Bryan sez:

      >>>There were lots of people at ETS who knew Habermas voted against Gundry.

      Well ya know, Bryan, it may not occur to someone calcified by fundamentalism, but sometimes, people GROW over periods of 20-30 years. Using Habermas’ vote in 1983 as some sort of point is like using Reagan era policy towards Afghanistan as a marker for how Obama should proceed towards that country.

      • Bryan Says:

        So are you saying that Habermas endorses Gundry now? Is this public knowledge? Or are you just merely speculating again? Wait, that’s the Holding way…….

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        Brainy Bryan says:

        >>>So are you saying that Habermas endorses Gundry now?

        Duh…no. Is that what I said? Or is the actual point so hard for you to refute that you felt the need to make up some argument that you could refute?

        Read it again and see if you can do better next time.

        >>Or are you just merely speculating again? Wait, that’s the Holding way…….

        And I guess burnt red herring the the Bryan way. :D

      • Bryan Says:

        Did Habermas and Craig vote for him to be removed or not? Answer with a yes or no.

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        >>>Did Habermas and Craig vote for him to be removed or not? Answer with a yes or no.

        Don’t know and don’t care. The point remains that 1983 is not 2011, and that people can change their minds over issues in the course of 28 years (except maybe someone like you with brain calcification), so using a 1983 vote as some sort of remonstrance for a 2011 expression is idiotic.

        However, it is also understandable, since some brand of idiocy seems to be at the heart of just about every point Geisler wants to make these days.

      • Bryan Says:

        Again, Holding fails to answer a simple question. He is nothing more than an arrogant sophist. I will now just disregard his arguments.

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        Brainy Bryan bleats:

        >>>Again, Holding fails to answer a simple question. He is nothing more than an arrogant sophist. I will now just disregard his arguments.

        Again, I disembowled and emasculated your question by showing how pathetically irrelevant it is. It doesn’t matter if in 1983 Habermas voted for Gundry’s ETS membership, voted against Gundry’s ETS memebership, or voted to have Gundry permanently enshrined in a wheel of cheese; you can’t use a decision made 28 years earlier as a remonstrance.

        Too bad. Like John Loftus, you’re in over your head with me, little man.

      • Bryan Says:

        Again, arrogant sophism…….

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        Again, a cheap label affixed by a rube in over his head. :D

        Keep going. I can do this all year.

  14. apologianick Says:

    Wow. So Mike writes an email and he’s not allowed to show that he wrote an email? However, if Geisler gets an email, well it’s okay for him to tell that information. There were a lot of people who knew? Not the point. Did Habermas give permission for such to be shared by Geisler?

    As for waiting a month, Geisler leaves out the information again. Are you aware that Mike was on vacation with his family in Europe for July? Also, Mike said he did not have the time at the moment because he was preparing for two debates in South Africa and thought those should take precedence.

    Furthermore, Mike had anticipated that Geisler would go the scholarly route and write something for a journal instead of a personal thing on the internet. Geisler did not go and meet with Mike to discuss the issue before making it something for all the world to know about and before jeopardizing Mike’s financial situation.

    It would have been nice had he followed Matthew 18.

  15. Bryan Says:

    I love how this turns into a “But Norm… conversation.” It is really is about you and your actions. I guess your diversion tactics keep you off the hot seat.

    Habermas was public information. Get over it.

    As for the scholarly route, I’m not convinced that was always necessarily appropriate. Mike voluntarily submitted himself to a church denomination that endorses a strong view of inerrancy. The one advocated by the ICBI and Dr. Geisler. And when he deviates away from that understanding of inerrancy, he should be honest with himself and those churches. The fact he is not with SES and denominational leaders in the SBC have spoken out against him is evidence to the fact he has moved away from this position. And when he does this he should be honest with those churches and those pastors. If he is not honest with them it is a form of deception. For that reason, the best way for the pastors and churches to know, is to put it out on the internet. For, as Warfield claimed, inspiration and inerrancy is the churches, not the academies doctrine. In fact, that’s exactly why Paul confronted Peter and why Paul named names in his letters.

    The SBC has shed enough blood on the inerrancy issue. These same tried and used arguments were thrown at the conservatives during the Conservative resurgence. If Mike is going to deviate from that position his integrity requires he be honest.

    In fact, I’m starting to wonder if MIke actually believes any straight forward reading of things in the Bible. If I held his view, I would throw my Bible out the window!

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      Bryan sez:

      >>>The SBC has shed enough blood on the inerrancy issue.

      Most of it their own. Thanks to their logic, we have nonsense like Lindsell’s “the cock crowed six times” absurdity, and we have hyenas like Ehrman there to lap up the blood, too.

      >>>>These same tried and used arguments were thrown at the conservatives during the Conservative resurgence. If Mike is going to deviate from that position his integrity requires he be honest.

      Deviating from a position that is remarkably and patently bankrupt sure isn’t a shortcoming.

      >>>>In fact, I’m starting to wonder if MIke actually believes any straight forward reading of things in the Bible. If I held his view, I would throw my Bible out the window!

      If I held to YOUR naive, misinformed views, I would throw MYSELF out the window!

  16. Bryan Says:

    JP. Go read John Hannah’s book “Inerrancy and the Church.” The ICBI and the SBC affirmation is the orthodox position. Again, you are advocating another tried and answered objection. Lindsell might have possibly advocated a weak solution, but it does not correspond to saying that the ICBI definition of inerrancy is outlandish.

    JP. Just for the sake of joking because of your outlandish comments in all your works. Maybe you could do us all a favor and jump out the window!

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      Please. Why would I want to read such a work when there are so many far better qualified scholars familiar with the cultural, literary, and social world of the Bible, those who would KNOW what “without error” would mean to a first century person? Keener, Rihbany, Bock, and even Licona know that far better than Hannah would — his specialty is church history. FAIL ONE. Stop taking chosen authority blindly. Better yet, stop waving around book titles like a panacea and actually ARGUE specifics and relevance.

      I never said the ICBI definition is outlandish. FAIL TWO. Don’t bear false witness. ICBI is actually just fine as is, though it seems clear that certain less capable minds don’t have any idea what cats they let into the bag with it, and now they’re trying to kick the cats out. Too bad they had to do the twist n’ shout to kick Gundry off the platform under that rubric — it doesn’t take much reading of Geisler’s 1983 defenses to see that he’s as clueless about what Gundry is saying as Inspector Gadget taking a class in molecular physics.

      Get yourself an original line and don’t steal mine. FAIL THREE. You’re such a monumental failure at this point that the window is wrenching itself from the wall running away from YOU!

      Poor fellow, what will you do now that authoritarian bullying and threats don’t work any more? Maybe you all kin hirez Fred Phelps to say I’s goin’ to HAY-ULL! :D

      • Bryan Says:

        So, wait you are talking about Bock? The same one that spoke out against Gundry? And DA Carson who did the same thing? Don’t forget this little part by Mohler:

        Scholars including D. A. Carson and Darrell Bock argued, in response, that Matthew was not writing midrash and that his first readers would never have assumed him to have done so. Scholars also noted that Gundry’s approach was doctrinally disastrous. Gundry had argued that Matthew “edited the story of Jesus’ baptism so as to emphasize the Trinity.” Thus, Matthew was not reporting truthfully what had happened in terms of historical fact, but what he wanted to report in order to serve his theological purpose. Gundry had suggested that Matthew changed Luke’s infancy narrative by changing shepherds into Magi and the manger into a house. As one evangelical scholar retorted: “For Gundry, then, the nonexistent house was where the nonpersons called Magi found Jesus on the occasion of their nonvisit to Bethlehem.”

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        Brainy Bryan said:

        >>So, wait you are talking about Bock? The same one that spoke out against Gundry? And DA Carson who did the same thing?

        Dewd, you are truly the master of the What the Hell Was THAT Comment. I don’t care at this point what Bock or Carson or Mohler (especially Mohler, a Bubbles mind in a world of Mojo Jojos) said about Gundry and it has no relevance to my point at all, which is that Bock (as an example) was far more qualified than Hannah to speak to what inerrancy would mean in the first century. Not that it matters, because what Mohler quotes says that Bock and Carson disagree with how Gundry interprets Matthew — as do I (duh) — NOT that Gundry violated inerrancy. They’re two different issues — get that confused little mind of yours wrapped around that fact:

        1) Is Gundry (Licona) interpreting Matthew’s genre correctly?

        2) Is Gundry (Licona) violating inerrancy?

        In terms of the latter, Mohler doesn’t quote Carson or Bock in what you offer; he appeals to anonymous “scholars” who clearly don’t get the point any more than Geisler did when he inserted his pointed head into the debate and made a fool of himself in JETS. Douglas Moo was a lot smarter — he pointed out that it was NOT an inerrancy problem at all. I give the made with the cow name a gold star and the man with the goose name a Lame Duck Award.

        Your window is waiting — stop changing the subject to evade your abject failures in comprehension.

      • Bryan Says:

        Geisler already handled that…

        One ICBI framer summarized the issue well: “Inspiration without inerrancy is an empty term. Inerrancy without inspiration is unthinkable. The two are inseparably related. They may be distinguished but not separated. So it is with hermeneutics. We can easily distinguish between the inspiration and interpretation of the Bible, but we cannot separate them. Anyone can confess a high view of the nature of Scripture but the ultimate test of one’s view of Scripture is found in his method of interpreting it. A person’s hermeneutic reveals his view of Scripture more clearly than does an exposition of his view” (R. C. Sproul, “Biblical Interpretation And The Analogy of Faith” in Inerrancy and Common Sense, ed. by Roger R. Nicole,134, emphasis added). Indeed, ICBI insisted that the historical-grammatical method of interpreting Scripture was part of its understanding of biblical inerrancy.

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      >>Geisler already handled that…

      No he didn’t, and your pull quote from Sproul doesn’t have anything to do with what I said. You’re so used to mindlessly quoting authority that you don’t even bother to demonstrate the application of what you’re quoting. All it does at best uis beg the question of what constitutes a “high view” of Scripture.

      Well, news flash, Sherlock: Even though I think he’s wrong, Gundry shows a far higher view of Scripture than Geisler ever did — because he is trying to respect its contexts and meaning according to its authors and readers, whereas Geisler is stuck in a backwards “fax from heaven” mode.

  17. Bryan Says:

    I’m still waiting for you to deal with an argument, not your red herring ad hominems won’t fool me. Simply respond to all the arguments, which you have not done.

  18. Derek Says:

    I wouldn’t even give Geisler the time of day if I was Nick or Dr. Licona. I’d just wait for the background noise to stop. Even if Geisler’s interpretation of the icbi was correct, he’d still be wrong!

  19. J. P. Holding Says:

    Stan’s the way he is because he already urinated on the third rail of a subway.

  20. apologianick Says:

    Bryan: I love how this turns into a “But Norm… conversation.” It is really is about you and your actions. I guess your diversion tactics keep you off the hot seat.

    Reply: No. It’s hypocrisy. I don’t go to Geisler for the reason LP stated and the reason Licona is not going. Geisler only wants to meet with others one-on-one and I’m not foolhardy enough to do that. Furthermore, I am not the issue. If Geisler wants to settle this, he needs to go to Mike and he should have done everything else possible before writing an open letter. Geisler made this public and is now complaining that it should have been private.

    Bryan: Habermas was public information. Get over it.

    Reply: If it was public, then feel free to show me where you can find the record of the vote and how it was known? If it was so public, why did Geisler know it because Habermas said it in email? Couldn’t he have just looked over the records if it was public information?

    Bryan: As for the scholarly route, I’m not convinced that was always necessarily appropriate.

    Reply: When you deal with scholars, it is. Right now, Geisler is just doing damage control, but it’s too late for that.

    Bryan: Mike voluntarily submitted himself to a church denomination that endorses a strong view of inerrancy. The one advocated by the ICBI and Dr. Geisler.

    Reply: Beg the question much? You assume the view of Geisler is the strong view of Inerrancy. I don’t. I think it’s a basic view of Inerrancy.

    Bryan: And when he deviates away from that understanding of inerrancy, he should be honest with himself and those churches.

    Reply: Sure. You just indicate when he has moved away from it. Licona believes what he does because he honestly believes that’s what the text teaches. How can he go against Inerrancy when he says he has to believe what the text teaches?

    Bryan: The fact he is not with SES and denominational leaders in the SBC have spoken out against him is evidence to the fact he has moved away from this position.

    Reply: And how many of them are trained scholarly in the works of 1st century literature? How many of them know about Greco-Roman biographies? How many of them know about second temple Judaism? The fact is that Geisler has not presented biblical scholars. Licona has and Geisler has just dismissed them.

    Bryan: And when he does this he should be honest with those churches and those pastors.

    Reply: Pastors and churches are not the authority. Being a Christian does not give one a special right in interpreting a text.

    Bryan: If he is not honest with them it is a form of deception.

    Reply: No. What is deception is misquoting your opponent as Max Andrews shows Geisler has done and not telling all the details as Andrews also says.

    Bryan: For that reason, the best way for the pastors and churches to know, is to put it out on the internet. For, as Warfield claimed, inspiration and inerrancy is the churches, not the academies doctrine. In fact, that’s exactly why Paul confronted Peter and why Paul named names in his letters.

    Reply: Odd you say that since Geisler won’t name names. Why not? All we have are a bunch of anonymous people. We don’t know who they are or why their opinion should matter. Furthermore, Geisler should have talked with Mike about why he has the position that he does instead of assuming right off, and note that again, Geisler can say he was waiting for a month, but he leaves out Mike was on vacation. Why?

    Bryan: The SBC has shed enough blood on the inerrancy issue. These same tried and used arguments were thrown at the conservatives during the Conservative resurgence. If Mike is going to deviate from that position his integrity requires he be honest.

    Reply: Sorry, but Mike has not moved away from conservatism at all. This is a common interpretation with evangelicals. Bill Craig holds this same position as well. Where are the open letters to Craig and the outcry that Craig is denying Inerrancy?

    Bryan: In fact, I’m starting to wonder if MIke actually believes any straight forward reading of things in the Bible. If I held his view, I would throw my Bible out the window!

    Reply: That’ll be a Dake’s Study Bible. Right? After all, he interpreted everything in a straight forward view. You want to know some of what he takes that way? Maybe you should read his book.

    It’d also help if Geisler read it.

    • Bryan Says:

      Well, since your stuff has been answered before I’m not going on your rabbit trails again. Think whatever you want about that. Some of us have more important thinks to do then answer your red herring issues.

      Let me ask, do you think Paige Patterson understands and affirms Geisler’s understanding of inerrancy? What does he have to say about the Geisler-Licona issue?

  21. apologianick Says:

    I have also spammed and blocked our vulgar commenter. Debate is fine, but there will be no vulgarity here.

  22. Dave Says:

    Bryan, I’m interested in your particular…style of interaction regarding the controversy; you take a particularly academic approach in your responses regarding the details (not so much in the aftermath, though). You probably know as well as I do that Geisler’s new book is out. I am sure that it is on your to-read list, and I would be interested in seeing you review it on Amazon. If Geisler is indeed right on the interpretation of Mt27, I think your unique style would be particularly suited to employ it since it is now out.

    • Bryan Says:

      Dave, thanks. I am in favor of good dialogue, not these rabbit trails. I honestly think the responses by ApologiaNick and JP Holding are merely ad hoc (sorry, but it’s the truth).

      I am aware that Geisler’s new book is out. I think the thesis of the book stands firm that “just like the American Constitution, the Chicago Statement should not be interpreted apart from the intent of the framers.” As someone who is in the know, I will say that all of the framers are united on this book and conversely that Licona has overstepped the bounds of the ICBI (regardless of what Nick and Holding claim… again, sorry but it’s the truth).

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        I’ll be reviewing select chapters of the book in detail on my blog, particularly those related to Ehrman and Bock/Webb. Most of the book is non-controversial (if much too simple) historical summary. The chapters on Ehrman and Bock/Webb though are a profound embarrassment. If the framers endorsed those chapters, then they need to be fired from any teaching or other positions of authority they hold and sent down to wash dishes for the Salvation Army for the rest of their ministry careers.

    • Bryan Says:

      yes Holding, you and your great internet authority…. You are nothing more than an arrogant sophist.

  23. apologianick Says:

    BRyan: Well, since your stuff has been answered before I’m not going on your rabbit trails again.

    Reply: Translation: I’m in over my head but I don’t have the humility to admit it and I will just assert that I am right by appeal to unknown sources.

    Kind of like someone quoting “anonymous” people to make a point.

    Bryan: Think whatever you want about that. Some of us have more important thinks to do then answer your red herring issues.

    Reply: Which explains how many replies you have to this post?

    Bryan: Let me ask, do you think Paige Patterson understands and affirms Geisler’s understanding of inerrancy? What does he have to say about the Geisler-Licona issue?

    Reply: Don’t know. Don’t care. Paige Patterson’s degrees are in philosophy and theology and unless he’s shown some understanding of the serious issues, he’s not qualified to judge Mike’s work. Once again, you’re just getting another “yes-man” to say what you want to have said.

    Meanwhile, Mike produced a list of several scholars, including ICBI signers, who said he was not in violation of Inerrancy, and that was disregarded.

    Note the rules everyone. Scholarship doesn’t matter, unless they agree with Geisler.

  24. Fulham 24 h locksmith Says:

    Significantly greater attack to efficiently express the subject
    matter. I will always follow your tips and advice. Thanks a ton for coming up with such a cool post.

  25. Valentina Says:

    When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get several e-mails with
    the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that
    service? Appreciate it!

  26. pay Says:

    It’s fantastic that you are getting ideas from this article as well as from our
    dialogue made at this place.

  27. Mariendistel die Nr. 1 für Leber entgiften Says:

    Thanks to my father who informed me concerning this webpage,
    this website is genuinely remarkable.

  28. photographer Says:

    wonderful points altogether, you just gained
    a new reader. What would you recommend about your
    submit that you made some days ago? Any sure?

  29. sewa photobooth murah jakarta Says:

    Aw, this was a really good post. Taking the time and actual effort
    to generate a good article… but what can I say… I
    hesitate a lot and don’t manage to get nearly anything done.

  30. Bryan Says:

    Seriously Stan?! This is how you are going to respond. I bet you would urinate on the side of a public building….. hopefully you get caught! That is really the level of your attitude on here!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,756 other followers

%d bloggers like this: