Posts tagged ‘Craig Blomberg’

September 17th, 2014

Norman Geisler: A Call to Retire and Argue Amicably

by Max Andrews

On 16 SepteScreen Shot 2014-09-17 at 10.49.26 AMmber 2014 Mike Licona had to take action on his website that is so minuscule it speaks to the voluminous aggression towards him. What happened? Licona removed public calendar.

(For a brief excursus and history of The Geisler Controversy please visit the directory.)

That’s not typically a big deal. I don’t even have a public calendar (but then again, I don’t need to have one). However, what’s so remarkable is the cause for Licona to do this. I hope you’ve had your coffee for the day and you’re in a good mood because the reason it was removed may have you a bit… frustrated. On Licona’s website he posted this explanation along with his private email he sent directly to Geisler.

November 14th, 2013

Should Gay Marriages be Allowed Divorce?

by Max Andrews

It seems to be an inevitable fact that gay/homosexual marriage will become increasingly permitted amongst US states and across the world. Traditionally, marriage is supposed to be a lifelong covenant and divorce is not permitted (debatable issue I discuss below). Likewise, traditionally, marriage is supposed to be between a male and a female. So, now that traditional and sacred demarcations have been broken how far do we let them continue to break? The question I’m posing is: should we allow gay marriages to end in divorce?

Now, I’m not approaching this from a purely sociological perspective but I’m approaching this from what I believe to be a Christian and biblical perspective.

August 15th, 2012

A Round Table Discussion with Michael Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

by Max Andrews

In the most recent issue of the Southeastern Theological Review Danny Akin, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan, Michael Kruger, Michael Licona, and Charles Quarles had a published discussion on Michael Licona’s Historiographical Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus. The article surveys the real issues at hand and presents a refreshing dialogue of the scholarly issues Licona tackles in his most recent book. If you don’t have the book it’s a must for your personal library. If you don’t have it consider yourself uneducated (too harsh?).  You’ll also notice yours truly cited by Paul Copan in footnote 9 on page 79.

Here’s the appropriate citation and link to view the article:

Danny Akin, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan, Michael Kruger, Michael Licona, and Charles Quarles, “A Round Table Discussion with Michael Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.” Southeastern Theological Review 3 no. 1 (Summer 2012): 71-98.

May 10th, 2012

The Third Search for the Historical Jesus

by Max Andrews

Though there is no set date (considered to be the late 1970s to present day), the third quest for the historical Jesus began as a reaction against the second search. Theological assumptions were controlling historical investigation.  It attempts to do history apart from theological presuppositions, which yielded two results.  First, there were many divergent positions from evangelical scholars to liberal theologians. Second, the third search, in general, is much more open to the supernatural.  Miracles are not ruled out a priori.

There are a few major characteristics unique to the third search. There was an emphasis and concentration on understanding Jesus as a first century Jew–the social and religious climate becomes paramount. A rejection of strict attachment to the “criteria” of the second search, especially the criteria of double dissimilarity. There was a high view of the accuracy of the oral tradition.

March 29th, 2012

The Geisler Directory

by Max Andrews

I’ve decided to keep all my posts and responses to Norman Geisler in one location for ease of access and reference.

My Support and Endorsement of Mike Licona

It has been a long time coming but I wanted to publicly support Dr. Mike Licona amidst recent accusations of him denying inerrancy over Matthew 27.51-54 (the resurrection of the saints at the time of the crucifixion) in his most recent book The Resurrection of Jesus:  A Historiographical Approach.  Licona takes the position that this passage is apocalyptic imagery and is not literal.  To be clear from the beginning, Licona has not denied inerrancy.  He has been quite clear about that (even though he lost his job as the Apologetics Coordinator with the North American Mission Board over this… unfortunate).  Dr. Al Mohler is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has openly condemned Licona for his position…

Continue reading…

March 3rd, 2012

Jesus and Divorce

by Max Andrews

It seems that the only provision Jesus allows for divorce, or at least was recorded, was for sexual immorality. Due to the exception clause found in 19.9 the issue of concern is what Jesus means by his use of πορνείᾳ (porneia).  The Matthew passage (except for indecency, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, [epiporneia]) raises many questions, mainly what does Jesus specifically mean by πορνείᾳ, as it carries a broad range of terms.  The LXX (Septuagint) uses πορνείᾳ to translate the Hebrew זנות, zenut, which is used for immorality and also specifically for incestuous marriages and other illegitimate forms of marriage.[1]  However, many scholars concede that וחנז does not always mean an illegitimate marriage but a full range of sexual immorality.[2]  Deuteronomy 14.1 [Jesus’ reference to Moses in 19.8] contains the words ךבד צרות, “indecent matter.” צרות literally means “nakedness” and the sexual immorality involved in Jesus’ use of πορνείᾳ is physical adultery.

December 29th, 2011

Geisler’s Denial of Inerrancy–The “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”

by Max Andrews

Norman Geisler has recently released a new addition to his “Licona Letters” condemning Mike Licona.  Geisler is very emphatic that there be a differentiation between inerrancy and interpretation.  Under this Geislerian understanding of inerrancy, interpretation and inerrancy simply have a formal distinction but are essentially conflated.

[Such] a disjunction of interpretation from inerrancy as Licona makes is contrary to the nature of truth itself…. So, a formal distinction between interpretation and inerrancy does not mean there is an actual separation of the two.[1]

Additionally, Geisler argues contra Licona[2] that the grammatico-historical hermeneutic is neutral.  Geisler argues:

[The grammatico-historical] method does not approach the Bible with a historically neutral stance.  After all, it is not called the “literal” method for nothing.  It assumes there is a sensus literalis (literal sense) to Scripture.   In short, it assumes that a text should be taken literally unless there are good grounds in the text and/or in the context to take it otherwise.  As a matter of fact, we cannot even know a non-literal (e.g., allegorical or poetic) sense unless we know what is literally true.  So, when Jesus said, “I am the vine” this should not be taken literally because we know what a literal vine is, and we know that Jesus is not one.  Further, the literal [grammatico-historical] method does not reject the use of figures of speech or even symbolic language.  It only insists that the symbols have a literal referent.  For example, John speaks of literal angels as “stars” (Rev. 1:20) and a literal Satan as a “red dragon” (Rev. 12:3).  However, the literal [grammatico-historical] method does not allow one to take a literal historical persons (like Adam) or events (like a resurrection) as not literal history.

December 26th, 2011

Auctoritas–A Response to the Geisler Controversy

by Max Andrews

I have been reviewing, critiquing, and commenting on the controversy between Norman Geisler and Mike Licona for a few months now and I haven’t commented on it for a while hoping that all of this would soon pass.  With much dismay I was terribly wrong and it appears to have gotten much worse.  There are several happenings I would like to reveal and discuss some new critiques of the situation.  For my previous posts please see:

My Support and Endorsement of Mike Licona

The Disputatio–A Response to Norman Geisler in Defense of Mike Licona

In Promptu Ponere–A Response to Norm Geisler’s Petition Against Mike Licona

A Response to Tim Rogers and the Geisler Camp

Caveo Cavi Cautum–A Second Look at Geisler’s Petition Against Licona

Tekton’s Geisler Carol Cartoon

Tekton Ticker recently released a satirical version of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol depicting Licona as Bob Crachit and Geisler as Scrooge adopting a plot driven towards this controversy over inerrancy rather than Scrooge’s distain for Christmas.  I’m not going to offer much critique on this simply because this shouldn’t have warranted the response from an SES alumnus as it did. You can see Tekton’s response here.  However, I cannot ignore its absurd response completely but here are the six reasons why Tekton should/would be brought before the school for review:

November 21st, 2011

“When The Saints Go Marching In”–Mike Licona’s ETS Paper

by Max Andrews

Last week Mike Licona presented his paper, “When The Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27.52-52): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Inerrancy,” to fellow scholars of the Evangelical Theological Society, which included William Lane Craig, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan, Dan Wallace, and Darrell Bock in the audience.

You may view the paper at Licona’s website.

You may listen to the presentation MP3 at Licona’s website.

I appreciate Licona responding to Geisler in the academic arena.  I hope many scholars take this issue and carry the research to verify or falsify this interpretation of Matthew’s raised saints to the best historiography can offer. (Also, you’ll note that Licona takes the modest position of agnosticism at the moment.)  I certainly hope that Matthew 27 doesn’t become the litmus test for society membership or that it sneaks its way into some statement of faith (anymore than it already is).

My only hope is that Geisler either responds in the academic arena haven been given the chance to read Licona’s footnotes or that he drop this whole sideshow and move on.