inerrancy The Licona Controversy

[~candice~]

Just curious if anyone has followed the controversy surrounding inerrancy after the publication of Michael Licona's book "The resurrection of Jesus, a new histographical appoach"? The book is absolutely fantastic.

I do not think the chicago statement on inerrancy stretched far enough to warrant considering the resurrection of the saints in Matt 28 to be allegorical, which is where most of the criticism lies.

It did get me thinking long and hard on inerrancy. I affirm the chicago statement but I wish they had made more clear the genre of literature that scripture is. Am I wrong that it seems to shift the burden from affirming inerrancy to affirming literal-historicity as the default genre of all scripture?

I was surprised at how many other things were said that attracted no where near the attention that the comments on Matt 28 attracted, that also did not seem it affirm a historical literal genre where most evangelicals do assume this.

(Please don't flame Licona, He is a fellow minister and apologist and his writing intentionally did not assume inerrancy so that his book would appeal to non theists as well. I merely want to discuss inerrancy.)

[The_Patriot21]

While Im not sure I agre with liconas stand on this scripture (I actually like Geislers better) I don't think he was questioning the inerrency of the scripture, at least not intentionally. With that being said, I have not read the book, and the articles Im reading only sorta touch on the subject, and I will admit I have read a lot of Geislers stuff and am just a wee bit biased for him.

[~candice~]

Pat I agree he wasn't questioning inerrancy. I'd like to read geislers perspective, could you link me?

[The_Patriot21]

the best source I can find between the two is here http://sbctoday.com/2011/12/01/the-geisler-licona-controversypart-1-what-is-this-all-about/ I haven't been able to find the actual letters the two interchanged betwween each other yet, however.

[~candice~]

Thanks pat. Do you agree with the Chicago statement?

[~candice~]

That was an interesting read. So that's the issue I have with be Chicago statement... It seems to be so broad as to permit entirely contradictory interpretations, it even permits disagreeing on what is history and what is myth. I just wish they would clamp down and be a little more clear.

[The_Patriot21]

I haven't decided yet. It does seem to be a broad definition.

[~candice~]

Pat, the article you linked to has links to the letters.

[The_Patriot21]

Does it? I must have missed them. I'll read through them when I get a chance.

[The_Patriot21]

After reading the letters, I don't hold that licona was, at least, intentionally, questioning the inerrency of the Bible, from my understanding, he fully believes in the inerrency of the Bible. However, with that being said, I think his interpretation of the passage in question, is indeed wrong, and do hold to Geislers, that scripture does indeed refer to a literal event that happened at that time. I come to that from reading the scripture, and not just the 2 verses mentioned but the preceding verses and following verse.

Matthew 27:50-54 (KJV)

⁰ Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

⁵¹ And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

⁵² And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

⁵³ And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

⁵⁴ Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

theres nothing in the context, that suggests this is a future event, it ties the event to immediatly following the veil of the temple being torn, and verse 54 says that those that were with Jesus being crucified, saw all of these things happening-the earth quake, the veil being torn, the rocks being rent, and the bodys of the saints rising, they "feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God"

To suggest the rising of the saints to be a future event, doesn't fit with the context, this passage of the book is not prophetic in nature and theres nothing to suggest that any one of those events were future events. To just take one, and say this is a allegory to a end times thing, is to take it out of context in my opinion.

So my opinion is licona, is wrong, but hes not, at least, intentionally, challenging the Bibles inerrency. I think hes a real, honest, Bible believing Christian, who happens to be wrong about something-which Im sure we all are in error about some things. And this isn't even a core issue, I don't think-Hes not challenging who Christ is or what He did for us.