There are moments when I am proud to be an Evangelical. This is not one of them.
I was listening to a discussion between two gentleman at the Credo House this afternoon. The conversation started as one man introduced another man to a guest scholar we have invited to the Credo House for our “Coffee and Scholars” in two weeks: Mike Licona. He will be here speaking about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. His recent work The Resurrection of Jesus hit the stands last year and I was glad to get this resource in my hands and glad to have Licona get it into the public stream of scholarship. Proud. Maybe that is not a good word for someone like me to use of someone like Mike Licona. But ever since I was introduced to Mike a few years back, he has made me proud. Proud to be an evangelical. Proud to be a Christian. But most of all, today, proud to have such a resource that defends the resurrection of my savior with such persuasiveness.
My ears perked up to the conversation between the two gentlemen at the Credo House. Hoping against hope that I would not hear what I thought I might hear, longing for the conversation to dignify truth, justice, and the evangelical way, I tuned in to see how this invite to hear Mike tell his testimony might play out. From behind the bar, this peaceful coffee barista’s countenance turned red-nosed in anger as I heard how Licona was introduced. “You know Mike Licona,” the one man told the other, “the guy who Norman Geisler called on to repent because of his view of the dead saints that rose in Matthew. He believes . . .” I told the guy to stop. I took over and told about the Mike Licona who just produced what might be the best historic defense of the resurrection that an evangelical has ever had his thumb print on. I told about the Mike Licona who is traveling all over the world in the power of the Spirit persuading people that the Christ is alive right now. I told about the Mike Licona who is out on the front lines debating atheists with grace, kindness, and resolve. I told about the Mike Licona who reaches out to those who are doubting their faith with mercy, gently giving hope back to them one gentle spoonful at a time. The Mike Licona that Norman Geisler has created should be nothing more than a parenthetical afterthought.
(Warning: Anger laden satire forthcoming with multiple mixed metaphors. Cover your ears and allow me to vent.)
Unfortunately, the Mike Licona that Norm Geisler has created is in the spotlight. With gloves on and mouthpiece in, Mike’s image and priorities have been changed. He is on the defense as his own blood relatives with Jesus DNA and tiger’s blood are tag-teaming with one purpose: to bring Mike to repentance. “In this corner,” the announcer screams, “‘Team Inerrancy’: Norman Geisler and Alber Mohler.” The stands behind them, filled with life-long followers, scream and cheer. “In the other corner, ‘Team Resurrection’: Mike Licona.” The stands behind him have just a few brave souls. The empty seats have personal letters to Mike expressing their support and sorrow that they could not attend to give public support. Mike came to this ring expecting discussion, dialogue, or maybe (God forbid) a pat on the back and invitation to join the team. But as he arrived he found only a tribunal. His new book was laid on the table. The men point to the book and say, “Did you write this?” Mike says, “That’s my name on the cov . . .” They responded before he was finished, “Are you ready to recant!” Taken aback, Mike said “Of what am I to recant? My belief in resurrection of Jesus?” “No,” they responded, “Of your denial of inerrancy.” “But I don’t deny inerrancy,” Mike said. “Yes, you do,” Geisler’s voice become distinct, “I wrote the book on inerrancy. I say who denies it and who does not. And you, sir, deny inerrancy due to your faulty interpretation of Matthew 27:52-53.” “No, I don’t. I just said that it might be apocalyptic, the same as many others evangelicals have said.” “Well, I don’t accept your interpretation as being a valid option. If you will turn to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, page 4, you will see . . .”
“Let’s just hold him until he recants.”
“Wait, wait . . . the prisoner wishes to say a word . . .”
“Freeeeeeeedooooooooommmmm”
(Satire over…I hope)
For those of you who don’t know, Christian apologist and New Testament scholar, Mike Licona, has been publicly called to repentance by theologian and author Norman Geisler and the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. The accusation is that he has denied inerrancy (the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors, historic or scientific) because he suggested in his book The Resurrection of Jesus that the account of the dead saints rising in Matthew 27:52-53 might be apocalyptic. One statement in this 718 page book that Craig Keener says is “the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date [building] a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus’ historical resurrection” has caused Geisler to issue a personal call to repentance followed by three open letters and five public reprimands for Licona’s interpretation. So prominent is this issue that Norman Geisler’s website has a section on the front page devoted to this issue called the “Licona Letters” (source). Albert Mohler followed Geisler’s call to repentance with one of his own making a shocking statement that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon” (source).
First, let me say this: I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Geisler and Mohler. Geisler’s A General Introduction to the Bible was instrumental for me early in my studies. I have just about everything he has ever written and have loved and benefited greatly from most of it. Mohler deserves no less a commendation as he has contributed greatly to the cause of Christ. Both will forever be heroes of mine. However, I can’t think of anything else in the last ten years that has disturbed me as much as this controversy. A few months ago, I avoided interaction at all costs. While Licona’s first response to Norm Geisler was placed on our blog, I did so reluctantly for two reasons: 1) I did not and do not want Credo House Ministries to be involved in controversial issues involving specific personalities if at all possible. 2) I did not like to give “air time” to an issue creating dirty laundry where none really exists. After all, I thought (hoped), Norm Geisler’s open letters are not very accessible as his website gets very little traffic. And he is only one person involved and most “insiders” already call him “Stormin’ Norman” due to his slight theological temper. I just thought (hoped) that it would die.
However, I think I have stood by and watched my friend Mike Licona take enough shots. Not that there is anything personally I can do or that my voice is that loud or deep. And it is not as if I am the only one coming to his defense. But when Albert Mohler joined the tribunal, I knew that this controversy would go viral and have terrible effects on many levels. Now that this controversy makes up the first point of contact on Mike’s Wikipedia legacy (sigh . . . can someone please edit that out?) and Google’s search engine produces the suggested query “Mike Licona Norm Geisler” when “Mike Licona” is all I am searching for, it is time to realize that the cat is out of the bag and making a spectacle of evangelical theology. But most importantly, as I reluctantly caught up on all that has been written about last Saturday, I came to morn greatly when I found out that Mike’s recent job transitions out of the North American Mission Board and Southern Evangelical Seminary were not coincidental. This great apologist’s life and family is being deeply affected by the unrelenting crusade of very few, but powerful, evangelical brothers. It is a spectacle and a travesty.
Three points of concern:
1. I don’t agree with Mike Licona about the possibility that Matthew 27:52-53 is apocalyptic imagery rather than describing historical events. Let me make that clear. I have read his defense and dug into it just enough to say that I think that the raising of the dead saints, while odd, is meant to be understood as historical. However, this is an issue of interpretation, not inerrancy. I believe in inerrancy, but I also believe that we have to separate inerrancy from particular interpretations. Just about anything could be tied to inerrancy when disagreement about interpretation is at issue. I have seen people say that those who deny that Revelation 20 is speaking of a literal thousand year future millennium are denying inerrancy. While I believe it is a literal thousand years, I don’t say that inerrancy says you can’t interpret it any other way than literal. There is symbolism in the Scripture, even in historic narrative. However, even if one completely thinks someone else has lost their interpretive marbles when they spiritualize some passage through appeals to apocalyptic, symbolic, or, even, allegorical interpretation, the issue is one of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. In other words, you cannot tie inerrancy to a particular interpretation.
As well, Geisler believes in an old earth. In other words, he does not take the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Even though it is embedded in a historical genre, he gives himself liberty to see symbolism in the creation account (probably due to the testimony of modern science). Why does his view of inerrancy allow him this freedom, but when Licona suggests something similar, he is called to public reprimand and repentance? When someone professes inerrancy, our interpretation and hermeneutic cannot be the judge as to whether they really believe in it or not. There has to be academic freedom, even in tighter circles of Protestant theology such as evangelicalism, especially when the discovery of truth is the issue.
2. Norm Geisler and Albert Mohler both call on Mike to reaffirm biblical inerrancy by changing his interpretive position. Their banner flag is inerrancy and they fly it high. But it is not just inerrancy that is written on their banner, it is inerrancy as defined by the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy codified in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) of 1978. In fact, as I read through both of their critiques of Licona, I believe they quote from the CSBI more than any other source, even Scripture. The issue, for them, seems to be not whether Mike’s interpretation was valid or even the need to counter his interpretation with their own, but whether or not Licona had violated this 1978 creedal statement. How did the CSBI become the premier standard to orthodoxy? Don’t get me wrong, the last time I read it, I agreed with it all (except for one statement). But as much as I respect the history and personalities behind the CSBI, it is neither infallible nor the norma normans sed non normata norm (Lat. “norm which norms which is not normed”—a statement of faith about the supreme authority of Scripture, not about “Norm” Geisler!). In the end, Geisler and Mohler are not calling on Licona to repent and return to the orthodoxy of this historic Christian faith, but to repent and return to their interpretation of the CSBI.
Now, last time I checked, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is much more a distinctive of Protestant orthodoxy than is inerrancy. Sola Scriptura is one of the two primary battle cries of the Great Reformation (the other is sola fide “justification by faith alone”). As a matter of fact, a few years ago, after the Francis Beckwith issue I suggested an amendment to change the defining characteristic of Evangelical Theological Society from inerrancy to sola Scriptura. The doctrine of sola Scriptura says that the Scripture is our final and only infallible source of revelation. The Scripture, not any council (much less a 1978 Evangelical council), is the norm that norms which is not normed. I think that Geisler (and possibly Mohler) are in more danger of violating the more central doctrine of sola Scriptura than Licona is of violating inerrancy.
3. But there is something that looms much larger than both of these concerns in my opinion. It is the blatant violation of evangelical theological propriety that this issue has raised. Grace is absent. Mike Licona has just written what both men recognize is a (if not the) premiere defense of the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Licona is not only an evangelical in every sense of the word, he is a rising apologetic leader whose central focus of his life is the risen Jesus. His work on the subject is surpassed by none, even the great N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. It is fine that these two men had concerns with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27. It might even be fine that they felt that these concerns could have some significant “slippery slope” repercussions. But their concerns should have been drowned out by the commendation that they gave Licona for his monumental work. Geisler, an apologist of the “old school,” should have written twenty open letters of commendation and praise before he ever even thought of writing his first open letter of criticism which eventually left Mike out of a job. Though I have talked to Mike briefly about this over the phone and he did not seem too discouraged, what a deflation of purpose, drive, and ambition this must be for him. To contribute so significantly to the defense of the core of Christianity only to find his greatest battle coming not from unbelievers, but from his very own kin whose commendations serve only as a prelude to calls to repentance, recantation, and reform must be more than difficult.
Geisler and Mohler should have thrown Mike Licona a parade but instead they have paraded a spectacle of shame and dishonor, elevating a non-essential issue of interpretation to the very test of orthodoxy. Mohler said that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon.” I am beginning to think that just the opposite is true. Mohler and Geisler (and anyone else who has defined Licona accordingly) are presently giving the enemies of Christ a powerful weapon. Illegitimate weapon, yes. But powerful nonetheless. (Not to mention embarrassing.)
“We have met the enemy and it is us.” This comic strip phrase captures the essence of how evangelicals often eat their young. I have met the enemy and it is not Mike Licona.
Mike, for what it is worth, I stand behind you even understanding that my ministry could suffer indirectly due to my support. I commend you as I did on your Facebook page right after I got your book on the resurrection. I commend you as I did after I handed out your Evidences for God book on the airplane to a grateful gentleman. I commend you as you, four years ago, patiently came on our “Converse with Scholars” program and settled people’s fears about the Talpiot tomb. I commend you as you are open and brave to express your understanding, doubts, and struggles yet glorify God in defending the faith. I pray that the stands are full in your corner during this battle. There are so many of us who appreciate what you are doing and are praying for you.
I think that Max Andrews said it best when he brought Wormwood into the mix:
“My Dearest Wormwood,
Whenever you find an expert defense of the enemy’s resurrection marshall the forces of the fundamentalists to marginalize it by ceaseless debates over ‘inerrancy’ in minor, inconsequential details.”
There are moments when I am proud to be an Evangelical. This is not one of them.
Mike’s site: http://risenjesus.com/, Support him.
181 replies to "Mike Licona, Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler, and the Evangelical Circus"
CMP,
This particular blog post is precisely why I continue to read your work. Thanks for the contribution!
A great example of why I continue to read this blog. I differ with some of your perspectives, but we do not differ on how to engage people with whom we differ. Thank you! You model and represent Christ well. I’m glad to be a reader.
Sgned, sealed, delivered.
Didn’t Geisler write that book on reason? You would think he would know a fallacious argument when he used it. I commend Mike for his hard work and CMP for not being afraid to say that the self-professed emperor has no clothes. It is important to stand for the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
I’ve not read the book yet but am quite familiar with the debate. I think Mike Licona is an amazing example of how to handle a situation like this. Strange as it may sound, i’ve been encouraged by the events that unfolded although they are dreadful on the surface. His dedication to truth while maintaining humility has given me a clearer picture of what it means to pursue Bible study with integrity. Thank you for supporting him publicly.
I’m wondering, after reading over the comments, how many people who think that Mike should give up this possible interpretation have actually read a defense of it and the problems it is said to solve. I’m not fully convinced of them, but after exploring it in an irenic and fair matter, I have to recognize the possibility of it. And, to my understanding, all Mike has done is to say that it is a possibility. Saying that there are other ways to interpret something is a fact, and to suggest that he back away from that fact and say something else is nothing more than to ask a scholar to spin or distort reality so they don’t rock a weaker brother’s boat.
I read this blog through twice. Posted a link to my FB too. I read Licona’s book a while back and never would have thought there was an issue. It along, with N. T. Wright’s Resurrection, are absolute must reads!
I am shocked by the thought police of Geisler and Mohler though. These kinds of power plays are what make “creedal” Christianity so distasteful to so many. Actual loyalty to the Bible is not what is required. What is demanded is that a person sign away to so humanly formulated and humanly written document and demanding homage to IT!!
Even if Licona is mistaken about the interpretation of this passage in Mt 27 does that mean that he denies either the inspiration or the authority of the Scriptures? Paul never once, nor did any other apostle … ever … demand loyalty or a signature to the Chicago Statement on biblical inerrancy. What thinks Geisler/Mohler believe they have that kind of authority?
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Signed – don’t let fundamentalism get you down. We have the freedom in Christ to ask questions: questions of genre, questions of interpretation.
I’m going to order Dr. Licona’s book as my show of support. I can’t believe how much venom and ink has been spilled for this. He wrote a book that defends the essential of essentials, and the hue and cry is over an interpretation of a tangential verse? Yikes.
God bless you, Dr. Licona.
I feel like the Licona supporters are missing the point: whether or not he is a good apologist or has done lots for the kingdom is besude the point, the issue is whether or not he is being faithful to the Scripture. If he is not being faithful to the scripture what he has or hasn’t done should not excuse him. I respectfully disagree with Norman Geisler on this issue but I’m upset that his concerns are not being taken seriously.
.
Both sides need to meet and hash this out, so that at the very least they can agree to disagree and perhaps restore some unity and order. This is truly a watershed moment in the greater evangelical community and everyone should take note.
Is it me or have we simply aided the enemy in allowing a civil war among evangelicals, when what we need are more allies in the evangelical cause? Why do we shoot our own people?
Good blog and I commend you for taking the risk to your own ministry in defending Dr. Licona. May the Lord grant us grace to fight the good fight, and mercy to help us stop fighting one another.
I posted the same comment on Facebook, but I figured I suppor Mike by posting here as well…
Obviously, I don’t get what they’re so mad about. So, Licona affirms that Jesus rose, but has doubts about a bunch of other dead people rising up out of the tombs as well? I though Zombies weren’t real?
Are y’all saying that Zombies ARE real? How does this work? What does THAT look like? Sure I’m being a little facecious, but I’m wondering what that scene looks like to you guys. Can anyone give us a minds eye report of that scene if indeed it’s not “apocalyptic”?
For the record, I believe that they did rise as the bible says, but not because I believe in “innerrancy”, but I can certainly understand someone NOT believing a scene that is really incredible…
This situation grieves me but doesn’t surprise me. Norm has shown this same spirit of making his interpretation the norm. We went through it in the 80’s with his attacks on Murry Harris.
Wow, excellent post that really puts the issue in its proper perspective. I have just purchased two of Mike’s books for my Kindle. He is an excellent author and worthy of support from the whole Christian community.
C Michael,
I’m confused.
Is it wrong to question someone and critique their views? Is it divisive to call someone out when they are wrong?
The Bible says bodies were raisED (past tense). Licona questions whether this actually happened. But because the rest of his book is good, or he’s coming to speak at an event, we should not call him to repent?
Categorical error: This is not comparable to Revelation 20, which is yet to occur and can be open to interpretation. And it is not comparable to different Genesis 1 & 2 interpretations which differ on the “how”, not the “what”. From what I understand, Licona is not questioning “how” bodies were raised (which would be an interpretation), but the fact it even happened! Matt. 27 is all historical, not apocalyptic. Did the veil not rip on its own either? That seems kind of supernatural to me, like dead bodies rising. Maybe we should question that as well!
Regarding point 2, you certainly gave your opinion of CBSI, but I’m still not clear whether you think that Licona holds to it or not?
In regards to #3, so Licona says something didn’t happen in the Bible, even though the Bible says it did, and Mohler/Giesler should throw him a parade?
@Michael
Is it wrong to question someone and critique their views? Is it divisive to call someone out when they are wrong?
The Bible says bodies were raisED (past tense). Licona questions whether this actually happened. But because the rest of his book is good, or he’s coming to speak at an event, we should not call him to repent?
Reply: Have you read Licona’s reason for what he says? He finds similar events happening in pagan literature. Do you want to say they happened? You know what is said about Mithras and Horus by Christ-mythers?
Michael: Categorical error: This is not comparable to Revelation 20, which is yet to occur and can be open to interpretation.
Reply: Another begged question. Some of us think Revelation 20 is going on now.
Michael: And it is not comparable to different Genesis 1 & 2 interpretations which differ on the “how”, not the “what”.
Reply: Upon what basis does Geisler say he interprets Genesis 1 and 2 the way he does?
MichaeLFrom what I understand, Licona is not questioning “how” bodies were raised (which would be an interpretation), but the fact it even happened! Matt. 27 is all historical, not apocalyptic. Did the veil not rip on its own either? That seems kind of supernatural to me, like dead bodies rising. Maybe we should question that as well!
Reply: Why not? It’s been done. It was perfectly valid to slip in apocalyptic meaning in the middle of a historical narrative. Tell me this Michael. Do you think God literally changes his mind? The OT says he does. Do you think Moses saw God’s back in Exodus 34 meaning God has a body? The text said he did.
Michael: Regarding point 2, you certainly gave your opinion of CBSI, but I’m still not clear whether you think that Licona holds to it or not?
Reply: He does.
Michael In regards to #3, so Licona says something didn’t happen in the Bible, even though the Bible says it did, and Mohler/Giesler should throw him a parade?
Reply: Again, you’re begging the question. You cannot dehistoricize a text that was not meant to be historical in the first place.
Wow, there are still people that just don’t get this whole affair, amazing! Talk about “categorical” error! And talk about confusing! No wonder some of the evangelical church leaders, as their followers, are having such a hard time, and appear to be stuck like the Judaizers! They just cannot seem to see the whole theological preview, of the historical Church Catholic!
Nick: “He finds similar events happening in pagan literature. Do you want to say they happened? You know what is said about Mithras and Horus by Christ-mythers?”
And? This has no bearing on whether bodies were raised from the tombs in Matt. 27. The Scriptures are not comparable to mythological accounts when it comes to inerrancy. The same ANE type argument made against bodies being raised could be made against Christ being raised.
Nick: “It was perfectly valid to slip in apocalyptic meaning in the middle of a historical narrative.”
How do you decide what is apocalyptic in the middle of the a historical account of the resurrection? Why not make it all apocalyptic? Who get’s to draw the lines? (Don’t jump to Obidiah or somewhere else to make . Stay in Matt. to make you case first.)
@Michael: So lets “stay” in Matthew, as I have noted, these two texts (52-53) are found alone in Matthew! And the problem of the “timing” of resurrection, etc. here? Again, this strongly appears to favor the “apocalyptic”, and not a literal happening! This again is theological, spiritual truth, the death of Christ conquers death itself, and from here we have the power and reality of the resurrection. The whole essence “here” is the power and impact of Jesus death! Again, note the OT Apocalyptic, (Ezek. 37:12 / Joel 2:10 / Isa. 26:19 / Nahum 1: 5-6) just to give a few.
@Michael.
Sigh. More begged questions. Here’s what can happen. You will meet someone who says Christ is a copycat of other pagan myths. After all, Mithras was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, observed a last supper, was known as the good shepherd, died, and rose again. Now why do you not accept that as literal?
“Because it’s not the Bible!”
At this point, the skeptic realizes that it’s no good to discuss the issue. Instead, my reply would be to look at the history of each claim and call it into question. You’re just saying “The Bible is inerrant and therefore all these events are automatically historical, but when I see them happening in pagan literature, they’re not historical because it’s not inerrant.”
It’s begging the question.
Now I believe I had also asked you about Exodus 33-34 where Moses saw God. It would have been nice if you had actually addressed that rather than ignored it. It would also be nice for you to tell me how an omniscient being literally changes his mind? What new information does he gain?
I will say that you also say the same argument could be used against Christ being raised.
Except for the fact that Mike Licona has written a 700+ page book explaining why it is historical and not apocalyptic so no, the same arguments cannot be used. One would have to eliminate all the arguments Licona gives for this being historical.
How do we know when apocalyptic is used? We study the text. Mike Licona gives his reasons so I will ask some questions relevant to that.
Have you read any of Mike’s book?
Have you heard the talk that he gave at EPS or read the transcript?
We have met the enemy and it was us.
-Pogo
Eric: The guy especially missing the point here is Giesler! Licona is simply presenting another, but well known interpretation in the theological academic from the Apocalyptic! Btw, I am myself the odd man out here as a Brit, and Anglican, but a conservative one. But now in the USA for the last few years. I can remember Giesler’s whole sad affair with Murray Harris, so again Giesler is the one that should be on the carpet here!
Yes, this just might be a major affair in the American conservative Evangelical community, but I am not sure, the history here is to close ranks around the general conservative idea. And, as not much happened to Giesler back in the late 80’s over Harris, I don’t think much will happen now. Btw, Harris was a scholar, well beyond Giesler, but that of course is my opinion.
I can tell ya one thing, NT Wright would not fair well in the American Evangelical community, but of course he could care less with his success in selling books here. And I like Wright personally, but don’t follow much of his theology or books myself, save some stuff on the history of the Gospels.
Btw, it appears I sent a post toward the one “Michael” on the questions of Matt. 27: 52-53, that did not get moderated? I know I have written my share here!
No my friend. It did not get moderated. It just got caught in the spam filter. I don’t know why but I restored it for you.
Thanks C. Michael! This is such an important subject, and one that should cause us all to be humbled! Thanks again to take your stand! The cost is always toward the truth, amazing that God in Christ lets us be (in some way) part of HIS Word & Testimony! (Kerygma!)
Thank you for posting this. I first came across this issue when I read Licona’s letter a few months ago. My initial reaction was that Mohler and Geisler were right to call him to repent. And maybe they were, but it seems the fashion in which it was done is not coming across as gospel-centered or Christ-exalting.
Thanks for providing some clarification.
Thanks for wonderful discussion on number of issues.
The readers need some interpretation here. What Licona offered is one of the interpretations. I believe it is a valid one. On the other hand, Geisler et al. did not offer any interpretation.
What actually happened according to their reading of the text in Jerusalem 2000 years ago? Who were the saints? To whom did they appear? That they appears in public? What does it mean at all? Any book has to be read in its own literary framework with the context and the author’s kerygmatic intention.
Taking those claiming to be inerrants, let’s say the verse in G-Mt is inerrant. (I know it’s inerrant). So then? What was Matthew trying to tell us? What was going on?
To show my support for Mike Licona, I am going to buy his book though the topic is not a urgent one I need at this time.
RE: 31. Ha. I didn’t know that. Glad to hear it. That really is all he should need to do, seems to me.
I don’t think this issue can be separated from Geisler’s protection and defense of Ergun Caner. If you haven’t kept up on this, you should really look into the facts. Geisler went out of his way to protect Caner and vilify those who pointed to evidence that the president of Liberty Seminary was demonstrably, caught on video and on paper, habitually lying about his background and resume.
Unrepentant Caner he protects, but Licona has to go down for a hermeneutical “maybe” that is no worse than can be seen in a study bible note?
Everything he says about Licona’s paragraph, could be said about Chosen but Free far more accurately.
Personally I think Geisler was backing Ergun Caner more for the protection of Liberty. As Caner’s discripancies are most evident. Btw, Ergin has a younger brother, Emir who is president of Truett-McConnell Baptist College.
And indeed the literal interpretation of Matt. 27:52-53 is frought with many questions about the “timing”, visibility and meaning in the Text. And note, I have yet to see a full historical exegetical interpretation, here. I even looked at EW Bullinger, who really says little, and asks the question: ‘Is this the resurrection referred in Rom. 1:3?’ And then adds this is a fulfillment of John 5: 25. Interesting, but of course this does not exegetically connect, but in a general sense.
It’s amazing how we can become enraged when our ox is being gored but we take great satisfaction when it is someone else’s ox that is getting the business.
CMP, this is a prophetic (-like) post, and it is exhibit A in the case for Parchment and Pen being such a fantastic blog. God bless you and Mike L! Thank you.
Geisler is the one who needs to repent. Don’t even dignify his pronouncement with a response.
I have not read Licona’s book yet, but I have read what’s at stake and what Licona exegetes in re. to the passage under scrutiny. Unfortunately Geisler and Mohler have influential voice, and thus must be responded to. But other than their “appeal to the people,” they have nothing of material import to say or appeal to; so why not simply ignore them (other than writing posts like this one, that put them in their place in this instance).
Anyway, I think this is a good post.
[…] Credo House: For those of you who don’t know, Christian apologist and New Testament scholar, Mike Licona, has been publicly called to repentance by theologian and author Norman Geisler and the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. The accusation is that he has denied inerrancy (the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors, historic or scientific) because he suggested in his book The Resurrection of Jesus that the account of the dead saints rising in Matthew 27:52-53might be apocalyptic. One statement in this 718 page book that Craig Keener says is “the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date [building] a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus’ historical resurrection” has caused Geisler to issue a personal call to repentance followed by three open letters and five public reprimands for Licona’s interpretation. So prominent is this issue that Norman Geisler’s website has a section on the front page devoted to this issue called the “Licona Letters” (source). Albert Mohler followed Geisler’s call to repentance with one of his own making a shocking statement that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon” (source). […]
Being from a very post-Christian part of the world, I have always felt a little weird when joining in on a group of US evangelicals who want to pronounce anathemas on other evangelicals for disagreements that seem to be within the realm of possible interpretations, whether I agree or not. Let’s face it, there are much larger theological fish to fry than floating a possible misapplication of the apocalyptic genre.
That said, in liberal circles this is precisely the form of argument used to discount other clear teachings of scripture (including the resurrection itself). That said, I think Mohler and Geisler need to argue why the apocalyptic genre shouldn’t be applied here, and thus model to the rest of us how proper interpretation should be done.
I’ve read every post and appreciated the thoughtfulness. Good men with great minds sometimes do change with age. Before the resurrection of the body comes the death of the body (including the brain) and the dying process happens over years rather than just hours. Sometimes the new wheels don’t fit in the old ruts. A theological grid is a man-made construct, however well intentioned, one step (or more) removed from divine revelation–and sometimes such devices are reduced to something akin to rutted roads. A train on a wider gauge rail is no less a train than the old narrow gauge trains–it still cannot stray from the tracks without derailing and crashing. Innerancy yes. One faith, one baptism, one hope, one Lord–indeed. One hermeneutic with no room for questions and mysteries? No.
“Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Matthew 5:11-12
No truly effective work can be done without the Doctrine Police hurling accusations against it. If I were Mike Licona, I would count myself blessed to be on the receiving end of the attack by Geisler and Mohler; it’s the surest evidence that he’s making a positive difference.
We should all take warning, because any one of us can become momentary servants of the evil one if we do not walk humbly. I don’t know Albert Mohler by reputation, but I know that Dr. Geisler, himself, has done significant work for the Kingdom of God. One can only hope that he will later repent of his own role in this ugly incident. But I think it’s clear who’s serving whom, and I know that Mike Licona deserves the support and encouragement of every servant of the living God.
Let us all be fearless in our defense of our Lord, who is able to rescue us from the mouths of lions — even human lions with impressive theological degrees.
I just got to #1 and Mr. Patton finally adds the qualifier “imagery” to the word apocalyptic thereby slightly clarifying the argument. He should have added that qualifier to the first use of apocalyptic and he should have explained what “apocalyptic imagery” is at that point.
I’ll continue reading and see if he explains that and why the dead walking as apocalyptic imagery makes the Bible errant.
I’m guessing that a Dispensational bias by Licona and Mohler will be at the root of the disagreement. We’ll see.
#1 is just full of goodies. Geisler is an Old Earther because of Modern Science. Just saw something that implied that William Lane Craig is also an Old Earther (not confirmed yet, saw it in the description of “Already Compromised”).
I’m just beginning to develop my position on why Logic dictates a Young Earth. But basically if Genesis 1:1 isn’t true (OK, I am an Answers in Genesis fan, but I’m basing my argument on Logic) then what else have the writers (note I use the word writers, not the inspiring Holy Spirit) lied about? (a harsh word but accurate since the intent of the writers would be to deceive)
Science is based on Logic; therefore, Logic comes first and if Logic dictates something is true then it is Science that is in error.
Since we believe God exists, God created and God inspired; therefore, the account of Genesis is true. If Science says it is not, then it is Science that is in error because if Science is right then the Bible is errant. Which of course Geisler says it isn’t, so it is Geisler that is wrong about the age of the Earth.
Ah, what a way to end an argument in support of a heretic, to use the words of another heretic, C.S. Lewis.
Darn, no devil horned Smiley faces to highlight my sarcasm. I just read an article comparing Lewis to that Bell heretic. Oops. Forgot, no Smiley faces to note my sarcasm.
It has been clear for some time that conservative evangelical leadership elevates the CSBI above Scripture and are most concerned with building fences around it and determining who is in and who is out. The question is are the faithful in the pews going to continue to be so publicly afraid of being defined as outside that they can only parrot soundbites and catch phrases or make a stand about a completely useless word: Of course God is without error but do we understand His meaning?
There’s a scene in A Wrinkle in Time when the children are on Uriel. Mrs Whatsit is flying the children up to the mountains when they fly over winged creatures singing and dancing below. “They were making music, music that came not only from their throats but from the movement of their great wings as well.” Meg wanted to know what they were singing. Mrs. Whatsit said “It won’t go into your words. I can’t possible transfer it to your words.” Meg is adamant, demanding: “I want to know what they’re saying! I want to know what it means.”
So, Mrs Whatsit tells Meg’s younger brother Charles, who has special gifts, if he is “getting any of it.” Charles says “A little. Just a very little. But I think I can get more in time.” Mrs Whatsit asks him to try and translate. Charles cries in anguish: “But I can’t! I don’t know enough! Not yet!”
Mrs. Whatsit tells Charles “Then try to work with me and I’ll see if I can’t verbalize it a little for them. After time and the expenditure of great energy (and that is what Scripture takes: time and energy and help from teachers and other believers) Mrs Whatsit begins her translation. “The resonant voice rose and the words seemed to be all around them so that Meg felt that she could almost reach out and touch them.” This is what the song of “angels” translated to:
“Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise from the end of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that fills it, the coastlands and their inhabitants. Let the desert and its cities lift up their voice; let the habitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory to the Lord.”
The language of Scripture is a vessel of perfect (in both senses found in Scripture: without blemish, and made complete) revelation, but both the vessel (language) and the destination of that vessel (our hearts and minds) are limited and bounded. Scripture is like in The Wrinkle in Time when Mrs. Which accidentally lands the children on a two-dimensional planet and almost kills them. It is more like an infallible, but two-dimensional, map of the infinite Logos, one we can not adequately read without the help of the Spirit.
Like Charles I cry “I don’t know enough,” but I affirm with Charles that “I can get more more in time.” I want to be like Meg, hungry, famished, to know the meaning, but I can’t without the Spirit, and without my Charles and Mrs. Whatsit, who symbolize the whole congregation of the faithful, the royal priesthood.
I’m going to have to check out this Chicago thing. Haven’t read it but have a vague recollection of it from my college days.
Since discovering the Preterist view I’ve come to see the bias and influence of Dispensationalists in many places. It is interesting how Dispensationalists claim the high ground when they are the newcomers.
Maybe the Dispensationalists are starting to feel pressure from the revival of Reformed thinking that seems to be sweeping through churches.
Or maybe they are attacking other Christians because the New Atheists’ 15 minutes of fame are over and attacking them doesn’t get the headlines anymore.
Who knows? But if I were them I’d go easy on calling people heretics. If you want to debate the issue then debate it. If you want to call names then become a Democrat. (Ooops, is that OK to say here?) (And if my humor is falling flat here please tell me. I can also be boring and do a pretty good curmudgeon.)
Thanks Michael. I don’t know what Geisler and Mohler were thinking. The only thing worse was when old-time hero John MacArthur was calling on Mark Dricoll to step down as UNFIT TO SERVE as a pastor! Hmm, up and coming Calvinistic pastor being dissed by the used-to-be number 1 Calvinistic pastor-author. Too sad for its transparency.
This issue is even worse in ways. Geisler and Mohler attach for the lack of an interpretation that suits them. Since when did the eldest brother’s among us become the most volatile and least grace-filled? Sad for us all. Something we should learn from, however. Thanks.
What Carrie said in post 46 is my take on this as well. Why is it so easy to show grace to a new believer, yet tear each other up often without mercy. What part of the church being the Bride of Christ don’t we get? Is it all that important to disagree to the point of such controversy, disregarding grace to each other? Come on, what’s up with that?
I’m not familiar with Mike Licona, but I thought the defense offered to him in this blog is excellent. In addition, I believe that for someone who believes in an “old earth” (i.e., Norman Geisler) – which obviously rejects a literal interpretation of the “days” in Genesis 1 – to reject Licona’s interpretation of Math. 27:52 & 53 as being “inerrant” is the height of hypocrisy. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
I would suggest that Jesus Christ is best served when, as suggested by Dr. Gordon Fee, one can claim, “I understand” before we say “I agree” or “I disagree.”
I cannot comment on Dr. Geisler’s argument but note that Dr. Mohler posted his concerns here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona-controversy/
I would suggest the interested reader look at Dr. Mohler’s concerns and tone and draw your own conclusions. As I read Dr. Mohler’s critique, I see general admiration for Dr. Licona’s work and a concern about the implications of one section in particular.
In Dr. Mohler’s own words
“His treatment of Matthew 27:51-54 is glaringly inconsistent with his masterful defense of the resurrection as history and of Matthew as a faithful reporter of this central historical fact.”
and Dr. Mohler’s conclusion (in his own words):
“Michael Licona is a gifted and courageous defender of the Christian faith and a bold apologist of Christian truth. Our shared hope must be that he will offer a full correction on this crucial question of the Bible’s full truthfulness and trustworthiness. I will be praying for him with the full knowledge that I have been one who has been gifted and assisted by needed correction.”
This strikes me as a humble admonishment about an issue Dr Mohler believes has far-reaching consequences to the flock of Christ.
When two guys in a coffee shop (apparently) take words out of context, I don’t think it is fair to pillory something that was written in the tone of the posting by Dr. Mohler.
[…] language rather than intending to portray a historical event. I’m very pleased to see that Michael Patton has been defending Licona and calling for a great deal more generosity concerning this […]
I remember reading Mohler’s letter: ‘The Devil is in the Detials’, etc. off his blog, and this was about the whole of Licona’s work and book. And Mohler’s title here itself shows that this piece is not without judgment. And Mohler’s use of what Robert Gundry had to say about the Text/texts in Matt. 27 using the Jewish midrash, was certainly not related fairly. In fact, Mohler just doesn’t ever historically exegete the text here, and he just keeps suggesting that the history of the Resurrection and the inerrancy of the Scripture are somehow at stake. And this is just quite simply erroneous! One really wonders how such a simple theological blunder can be made by Al Mohler? Save to say, he is simply not thinking without bias here, and is not looking at the various theological aspects of the text, nor the Apocalyptic. Again, not good work, nor a place to impugn a real scholar. Sorry, but both Giseler and Mohler have missed the scholastic mark here, in ignorance and certain personal bias, and attack on Like Licona. Again I say shame!
*Mike
Dear Mr. Patton,
You state that “has been publicly called to repentance by theologian and author Norman Geisler”. Please provide a source for this. I do not find this in any of Geisler’s responses on his website. Certainly Geisler is calling Licona “wrong” but that of course is quite different than calling him to repent.
This is not a debate about interpretation – it is absolutely about inerrancy. For those who think that Licona can dehistoricizing Matt. 27 while not denying inerrancy – how about this? Licona states that “A possible candidate for embellishment is Jn 18:4-6″ [p. 306, note 114). This is a philosophical statement that does not presuppose inerrancy – it is not a statement of interpretation.
As for those who have characterized Dr. Geisler’s reaction as “over the top”, a “hyper-reaction”, “ridiculous” – let me simply say that this is not some insignificant topic. For if Scripture is errant (contains embellishments), then Scripture is not Divinely inspired, for the Divine cannot error.
-Randall