This is glaringly suspect when one is in fact arguing for the literal historicity of a passage in the midst of which appears the text that is taken in a non-literal sense. One can indeed believe a particular biblical text actually is intended to convey meaning beyond the actual normal and plain meaning of the words and grammar used (such as they would be taken in normal every-day conversation between two people with no theological backdrop), but one must have a valid reason for taking the text in a non-literal sense. It has everything to do with how one actually handles the text. This really has nothing to do with what one "believes" the text teaches. I don't know if it's politics, a zeal, taking crazy pills, or what, but the message has been sent: don't believe what I say, and you'll pay. Since that is the case, and since Licona would qualify as affirming inerrancy under those conditions, I feel safe in saying Licona in an inerrantist. In any case, none of my proposed axioms concerning various parts of inerrancy have been challenged. At worst, Licona can be accused of being inconsistent and holding a faulty hermeneutic, which you seem to critique (and I don't necessarily disagree with that critique).įinally, Geisler and Mohler want, as far as their articles state, for Licona to "recant" and stop "denying inerrancy." I don't doubt their motives are pure, but the effects are so damaging, not to mention anti-intellectual. Why would it follow that the myriad other evidence compiled in the other 700 pages of the book be false? Only in the case that Licona relies on the same method, or discounts every other reference, or discounts every extra-biblical philosophical approach would this apply (which they do not). Why is that the real question? In light of Geisler's and Mohler's accusations of inerrancy-denying, it seems what constitutes a denial of inerrancy is the major question (without it, how can the accusation be made?).Īlso, the argument that if one part of Matthew's account is not intended as historial, then Licona's whole argument is undermined is a non-sequitur. Just for informative purposes, I do not normally allow anonymous comments, and so I cannot allow another one after this. Geisler's objection is not a criticism of Licona, but rather a plea to Licona to acknowledge the hole and take immediate action to plug it. Where does the apocalyptic end the and the historical begin? If there is no definitive way to discern the boundary, then there is no way to refute the idea that the entire narrative INCLUDING the ressurection of Christ himself may be apoclyptic (non-historical) as well.Īnd if this is the case, then Licona has succeeded in building a seaworthy case and then subsequently sinking it with a troublesome hole of his very own making. By failing to do this decisively, he has unwittingly opened the door to a potent rebuttal to the very work he has labored admirably to produce. He needs to outline exactly how, in his thinking, he (or anyone else) should be able to discern apocalyptic biblical passages from historical ones. Licona's reasoning for excising a portion of scripture in the midst of what he is defending as an otherwise historical narrative of the resurrection of Christ and events which accompanied it is suspect. The real question is: what motivates one to select a portion of scripture and consider it to be a non-factual statement of what did or did not actually happen. Should it follow in that case we charge the individuals with violating "sola fide"? Should we suppose they deny the Bible?īefore I jump on boad with any of this, I should be shown that we should reject him in a non-arbitrary way. The vast majority of dispensationalists will deny this charge. Suppose a logical entailment of all dispensationalim was differing ways of salvation.
They all have logical entailments, some of which may be undesirable.
To me, the more analogous situation is that of a Calvinist or a dichotomist/trichotomist, or a dispensationalist vs. Analogously, then, we would need Licona to be saying things like, "I believe the Bible is nearly-error free," or "the Bible is inerrant except for the things that it got wrong" or something similar. These are all explicit statements, not mere entailments. If allowed, they will often explain about other deities, how Jesus is a type of sub-God and not equal with the Father in the same sense. The major problem with such reasoning is, at the least, that's it's not true Mormons affirm the same statements on the Trinity. Since we reject them on these grounds, we can reject Licona on the same. They sincerely believe their doctrine of the Trinity is true and orthodox, but it logically entails that which is not orthodox.
Some have also criticized this line of thinking by posing as analogous the Mormons.
0 kommentar(er)
