Doctrine: Biblical Inerrancy: Lincona brings refreshing breeze to Inerrantists

I've digitally reproduced this article by Dr Michael Licona because of its painstaking regard for the niceties of the Chicago Statement of Biblical inerrantists.  I don't know his work more largely, but he is the author The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (InterVarsity Press, 2010). He holds a PhD in New Testament Studies from the University of Pretoria, South Africa.  Dr. Licona is mentioned as Research Professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina USA, a Pentecostal institution connected to the Cerullo ministries; but I coudn't find him listed or his apparent status confirmed on the website of that seminary (which has two Cerullos on its faculty).

I have responded to 2 commenters on the article.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s_dEzpIT_Ks" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I responded to commenter Wolf Nelson thus:

Wolf Nelson ·  Top Commenter

These two gents look like they are arguing on the colour of the ribbons on the coat of the naked emperor.

Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · September 17 at 4:30pm

• 

  Albert Gedraitis · Toronto, Ontario

  This is anti-intellectual drivel (the curse part of fundamentalism, not the good part), sorry to say, Mr. Nelson . God gave us minds and the God-given cultural task to use them, even in Bible study. Many potential readers of Licona and Mohler on the Chicago Statement, woud never even know the fine points of the Statement regarding inerrantist interpretation had not Licona appealed to its actual wording here. I think Licona has the better empirical argument in this case, altho I don't know what his overall results on the bodily resurrection may be (on this I am in accord with fundamentalism). Still, Licona is 50 years too late for me in appealing to the (now) evangelical Chicago Statement and thereby surpassing the fundamentalism of today. That document, the Five Solas document, the Just War Theory, and the Consistent Ethic of Life — all seem to me inadequate to Christian intellectual needs of our times, faced with the broad problems of faith and life that we face now. May God's Kingdom come also in our faith-community's interpretive skills.

  Reply · Like · 2 seconds ago

More broadly, in another place I responded to a commentator in this way:

A very important point about so-called "Biblical inerrancy" which has become another "hobgoblin of little minds." For me, of course, the Bible is divinely inspired; but "inerrancy" is often a cloak for private doctrinal agendas, and too often a denial of the radical Fall. The divinely-inspired Bible is not such to the exclusion of sin. The Bible perhaps even in the original autographa is often raised to supernatural status, while "thistles and thorns" are targetted as evidence of radical falleness in the very laws of physics and biotics. Rather, let's acknowledge that sin is present in the writing of the Bible, the authors are humans divinely inspired (according to the canon and and tradition) but not free of sin necessarily in their human writing of what was later decided by humans as the best human key to the knowledge of God. I strongly recommend Licona's article, and avoid the fundamentalist heresy to be found in Mohler and Geisler. They're propositionalists, one of the most vitiating strands of bliblicism. It's cultic, not Christian.

The Christian Post > Opinion > Opinions|Sat, Sep. 17 2011 01:20 PM EDT

Licona: A Brief Response 

to Al Mohler on Biblical Inerrancy

The devil is indeed in the details and we do well not to ignore them

By Michael Licona | Christian Post Guest Contributor

Because I am leaving the country and must attend to last minute preparations, brevity is required. I am grateful to Dr. Mohler for his kind remarks pertaining to both me and my book, which has recently raised quite a bit of controversy in certain evangelical circles.

I don 't have such respect for Mohler,

despite his vaunted "Calvinism," altho I do respect his easing up on his anathematizing of all homos.  But even that move still seems very grudging to me.  — Owlb

Although I disagree with much of what he has asserted pertaining to my treatment of the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53, one should not doubt my respect for him and gratitude for the contributions he has made for the cause of Christ and to the Southern Baptist Convention.

An accurate interpretation of a particular biblical text is assisted by an accurate understanding of the cultural milieu in which it was written. It is unfortunate that this does not appear to be a practice of my detractors Drs. Mohler and Geisler. Their judgment that an incompatibility exists between the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and interpreting Matthew’s raised saints at Jesus’ death as apocalyptic symbols – or even to consider this interpretation as a viable way of understanding what Matthew was communicating (which is my present position) – without engaging in a thorough and sophisticated discussion of the milieu in which Matthew wrote is quite premature.

Dr. Mohler asks, “What could one possibly find in the Greco-Roman literature that would either validate or invalidate the status of this report as historical fact?” This is the wrong question. For it presupposes that Matthew intends the report of the raised saints to be understood as a historical event. So, the first question one should ask is how Matthew intended for his readers to understand this text.

If he intended for us to regard the raised saints as apocalyptic symbols, then Drs. Mohler and Geisler are mistaken when regarding them as “historical fact.” It is only IF one can determine after an exhaustive study that Matthew intended for us to regard the raised saints as an event that occurred in space-time that Dr. Mohler could legitimately claim that the Greco-Roman literature offers nothing to assist us toward a correct interpretation of the text. Instead, Drs. Mohler and Geisler have pre-determined what the text means. But it is Scripture that is inerrant. Thus, we must be careful not to canonize our interpretation of Scripture so that we come to believe that it, too, is inerrant.

Read more »