March 29th, 2013
For a list of all my posts regarding the Geisler controversy please see The Geisler Directory located on the right side of the screen under “Most Popular Posts.” To view Dr. Geisler’s most recent attacks directed towards Robert Sloan over Mike Licona please see his post: “Houston Baptist University Defends Mike Licona’s Denial of Inerrancy.” I have discovered that Dr. Geisler’s arguments have recently the fate of unjustified assertions and contradictions. Unless Dr. Geisler ever clarifies his own denial of inerrancy, according to his standards (by affirming abortion in one book only to argue against abortion using the very same passages of Scripture), I can no longer take his arguments and integrity seriously. I doubt he’ll ever respond. He’s been caught throwing rocks in his glass house.
For documentation and arguments concerning Geisler’s utter inconsistency please see my post: “Geisler’s Denial of Inerrancy: The Shot Heard ‘Round the World.”
Reblogged from Nick Peters’ Deeper Waters.
I’d like to begin this post by asking everyone to open their Bibles and please turn to the book of ICBI.
“There is no such book as ICBI.”
Now I find this surprising because lately, I’m finding it quoted so much by “true defenders of Inerrancy” that I would think it’s right up there with Scripture. The club of ICBI has lately found a new target and that’s in Robert Sloan, president of Houston Baptist University (HBU) that hired Dr. Mike Licona as a professor there. HBU has been putting together a crack apologetics team and I suspect will soon be an apologetics hub in the world.
Yet for some people, it doesn’t matter as long as you don’t play their song and dance.
So what is being said in the latest rant?
“Despite the fact that Mike Licona lost his positions at the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and at Liberty University subsequent to the public criticism of his views on inerrancy by Southern Baptist leaders like Al Mohler and Page Patterson and others, Houston Baptist hired Licona and placed its blessing on his views.”
read more »
May 12th, 2012
I. Introduction 1-3
A. Author identified as Jude, brother of James 1a
B. Recipients identified as the called and beloved 1b
C. Blessings on the beloved 2
D. The occasion for the letter 3
1. Jude wanted to write about their common salvation 3a
2. Jude felt the letter was a necessity 3b
3. Jude appeals to the beloved to contend for the faith 3c
II. Identification of the ungodly and the judgments they will incur 4-16
A. Ungodly persons entering into the Church 4
1. These persons have been marked for condemnation 4a
2. Deniers and abusers of grace 4b
read more »
May 1st, 2012
The grounding objection asks the question: By what means or grounds does God know what he knows (particularly middle knowledge)?
Suppose I have an argument similar to the grounding argument from the grounding objection claiming that contingent truths are not self-explanatory but must simply exist, from all eternity, as an ungrounded, metaphysical surd. How would I, as a Molinist, respond?
This objection is merely the result of misunderstanding the means by which God knows what he does. God’s knowledge is wholly intuitive and relies on no existent entity and is completely compatible with divine aseity. According to Luis de Molina,
God does not get his knowledge from things, but knows all things in himself and from himself; therefore, the existence of things, whether in time or eternity, contributes nothing to God’s knowing with certainty what is going to be or not to be… For prior to any existence on the part of the objects, God has within himself the means whereby he knows all things fully and perfectly; and this is why the existence of created things contributes no perfection to the cognition he has of them and does not cause any change in that cognition… [And] God does not need the existence of those things in his eternity in order to know them with certainty.
read more »
April 25th, 2012
The task of a Molinist perspective of middle knowledge is to remove the perceived dilemma between human freedom and divine foreknowledge. There are a minority of philosophers and theologians who hold to this Molinist doctrine. On a promising note, middle knowledge is in modern philosophical debate and works advocated by some of the most prominent philosophers such as Thomas Flint, William Lane Craig, Ken Keathley, Kirk MacGregor, and perhaps one of America’s greatest philosophers, Alvin Plantinga. These leading Molinists serve in prominent societies such as the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Philosophical Association, and the American Academy of Religion, who serve as witnesses to middle knowledge amongst leading Calvinists, Openness Theologians, atheists, and philosophers of other schools of thought. Middle knowledge, when implemented into modern discussion, serves as a defense to the many forms of the problems of evil (most notably the soteriological problem of evil), a plausible solution with explanatory scope and power for issues such as predestination, the doctrine of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, and is compatible with every other orthodox doctrine.
read more »
April 4th, 2012
I recently shared a previous post of mine in which I discuss my response to the atheist objection that God is a moral monster on Facebook. Referring to my comment that understanding the Levitical law requires an advanced knowledge of hermeneutics an agnostic/atheist responded:
Are you saying that a person can’t judge morality without some fancy education?
No, this is not what I’m saying at all. My point is that you don’t learn the hermeneutical approach to understanding the laws and commands in the Old Testament in a first year hermeneutics class. However, if one wants to have a deep knowledge of the material one does need an education on it. This doesn’t mean you have to get a degree in it but you do need to be well read on hermeneutics. Somehow Christians and non-Christians have a stigma suggesting that it’s offensive if a certain degree of knowledge is required to understand something. How is this offensive? Surely, the Bible can be understood without a degree in theology or biblical studies but to understand it with depth you will have to read and learn. We do we demand such simplicity? If a cosmologist says that I need an advanced knowledge of relativity theory and quantum theory to understand the early models of our universe should I be offended? No. There are certain antecedent conditions that must be met in order to really understand something with meaningful depth. It’s the process of learning and getting an education.
March 29th, 2012
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…
read more »
March 2nd, 2012
Tattoos, beards, and consuming blood is mentioned in the Bible in Leviticus 19.26-28. These verses prohibit tattoos, trimming the edges of one’s beard, and consuming blood. Christians often find themselves puzzled as to what we should do with these types of verses. Are we allowed to have tattoos today? Well, that’s important for me since I’m covered in tattoos. Are we allowed to trim the edges of our beards? Should we let them grow out? Have you ever had a medium-rare steak with just a little bit of blood in it? I’ve provided an exegesis of this passage of Scripture in hopes to help others understand how we should understand this passage and provide insight as to how the Old Testament Law applies to us today.
Leviticus is the sequel to Exodus. At the heart of Exodus is the Sinai Covenant, though it is rarely mentioned in Leviticus. Leviticus explains how covenant worship should be conducted (chs. 1-17), how the covenant people should behave (18-25), and then closes with a section of blessings and curses, entirely appropriate to a covenant document (26). The book enshrines the laws by which the religious and civil organization of the primitive theocracy in Canaan was to be regulated.  Leviticus is given in a treaty format consisting of naming the suzerain, giving a historical prologue explaining the background of the treaty, stipulations, a document clause (covenant context), blessings and curses, and the divine witness[es].
read more »