Breaking My Internet Silence on Mike Licona and Inerrancy

Until now, I have deliberately not directly weighed in anywhere on the internet regarding the row over Mike Licona’s views and the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The continued barrage of views in various blog posts and on FB (some by people I know and others not) has compelled me to give my 1.5 cents worth. I do not flatter myself to think that anyone would care what my views are in this matter; at least, not as far as being relevant in settling things. There might be some, however, who know me (and perhaps have studied under me) who might be interested in what I think about this debate, if only in as much as it departs from their own thinking.

Here I am only interested in offering some observations and conclusions and will save most of my arguments for perhaps another post or venue. My views are in no way motivated by any animosity for Mike. I consider him a friend and I have not heard from him that he has changed his mind towards me—this after we discussed our respective views over lunch.

First, two related but distinct issues are confused by some of those who have weighed in. On the one hand, there is the issue as to whether a given passage (for example, the Mt. 27 passage that started this public discussion) should be interpreted as A or B (or any number of other options). On the other hand, there is the issue as to whether interpretation B is consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy. Of these two, the latter seems to me to be the most crucial.

Second, it is clear to me that if it is possible that the New Testament has legends or embellishments or that a New Testament writer has changed the facts of a story for a theological agenda (all of which Mike says are possible), then necessarily inerrancy is not true. The mere possibility of the former precludes the possibility of the latter.

Third, one has the prerogative to hold whatever view of inerrancy one choses. I regret that some so hurriedly dismiss the work of the ad hoc consortium of pan-denominational Christian theologians and philosophers whose ten-year work yielded eight volumes dealing with (among other things) the philosophical, theological, and historical dimensions of inerrancy; the seventh volume of which was a nearly 1,000 page treatment of inerrancy and hermeneutics. I am not directing this criticism at those who think that we on this side of the issue have misunderstood the doctrine of inerrancy and ICBI (the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy). (For example, Mike and perhaps many on his side of this debate affirm inerrancy and charge our side of either not understanding it or not applying it properly or consistently.) Rather, I am directing this criticism to those who sound the refrain “Why should ICBI be the standard of orthodoxy?” The argument is not whether ICBI is the standard of orthodoxy but whether ICBI is the standard for the doctrine of inerrancy. Anyone who thinks he can do a better job than ICBI is welcome to try. I am not suggesting that nothing in the work of ICBI needs correcting. I am suggesting that such matters require (and deserve) a very careful, thoughtful, and thorough treatment. A one-liner that emotionally appeals to the theological individualism characteristic of many (Protestant) Evangelicals is not enough.

I have been collecting material from both on and off the internet expressing various views on this important discussion. The numerous misunderstandings I have seen of the debate itself have prompted me to offer these observations. It is my hope that soon there can be a public format where sincere participants can come together for a concentrated airing of viewpoints.

God Can Exist Even If Atheism Is True

It is becoming increasingly more common for atheists to define atheism, not as the denial of the existence of God, but as a lack of belief in the existence of God. As such, these atheists maintain that atheism is merely the lack of any affirmation of the existence of God.

Atheist B. C. Johnson says, “Theists believe in God, while atheists do not have such a belief.  Many theists insist that it is the responsibility of the atheist to offer evidence justifying his lack of belief in God.  But is the theist’s demand rational?  Must the atheist justify his lack of belief in God?   Or does the burden rest with the theist? [B. C. Johnson, The Atheist Debater's Handbook (Buffalo:  Prometheus Books, 1983):  11] Atheist Doug Krueger writes, “The term ‘atheism’ is from the Greek atheos. The prefix ‘a’ means ‘without,’ and the Greek theos means ‘god,’ so atheism means simply ‘being without god.’ Theism asserts that there is a god, so atheism is the view which does not assert that there is a god.” [Douglas E. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introduction  (Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books, 1998):  17] (Notice, by the way, the fallacious move in Krueger’s reasoning. He goes from the ‘not’ (from the Greek alpha) modifying ‘God’ (which is what the Greek has) to the ‘not’ modifying ‘assert.’ This allows him the semblance of grounding his position in the etymology of the Greek while illicitly concluding that atheism is the absence of the assertion of God instead of the negation of God as the Greek actually says.) Atheist George H. Smith claims, “Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief; it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.” [George H. Smith Atheism:  The Case Against God (Buffalo:  Prometheus Books, 1989), 7, emphasis in original] In his debate with Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen Smith says, “There is no atheistic worldview. Let’s be clear about that. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in God.”

Aside from the issue of whether this is a legitimate definition of atheism and aside from the issue of the rhetorical legitimacy of this move (since, as I would argue, it is an attempt to illicitly shift the burden of proof entirely to the theist and to mitigate the rational responsibility of defending one’s own worldview) there is another interesting aspect to this re-definition matter. This definition of atheism entails the quirky conclusion that atheism is logically compatible with theism. This is so because if atheism is the lack of a belief in god, then it could be the case both that atheism is true (i.e., it could be the case that George Smith, for example, lacks the belief in God) while at the same time that God actually exists. The only thing that theism is logically incompatible with is that God does not exist. I will be willing to grant this eccentric definition of atheism if the atheist will acknowledge that, even if his atheism is true, it could still be the case that God exists. Strange indeed.

My Name is Richard Howe, and I’m NOT a Mormon

No doubt the flood of commercials of everyday people telling us that they’re Mormons is an attempt (understandably enough) to massage the public mindset and attitude about Mormonism in anticipation of Mitt Romney’s nomination for the Republican candidate for President. I’m not suggesting that he will undoubtedly be the nominee. I would say, however, that, all other things being equal, his being a Mormon is less relevant to his qualifications to be the President than many other factors. I would take a Mormon Mitt Romney over a Baptist Jimmy Carter any day of the week.

What bothers me, especially in light of the row over Continue reading →

It’s Worse Than I Thought

Over the past year or so, a colleague of mine has been telling me of his concerns about how Presuppositionalism (or some watered-down version thereof) infuses the thinking of certain popular Young-Earth Creationists if not Young-Earth Creationism in general. Though he himself is an Old-Earth creationist, he came to me with his concerns because, being a Classical Apologist, he knows that I am both a classical apologist and a Young-Earth Creationist. Apparently we are a small group.
Tonight I had the opportunity to visit a local Continue reading →

The Ant and the Grasshopper: American Liberal Style

I saw an earlier version of this during the Clinton administration. Here’s the updated version.

The story of the ant and the grasshopper. But this one is a little different …… Two Different Versions ….. Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well-fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat and Continue reading →

Some Thoughts About Some Thoughts

A friend of mind recently posted on the internet a few thoughts.

Tim Wildmon, (Don’s son and as a function of “divine right of kings theology” crown prince of the American Family Association) was recently raving about President Obama suggesting that some people had made enough money. This enraged Wildmon, he was incensed that someone should suggest the he could ever make enough money. Tim Wildom and Gordon Gecko agree, in contrast to the Bible: Continue reading →

Forty-Five Years Ago

I suppose that as long as there are March 3rds, I’ll do at least one blog a year. It seems I’ll never forget the date of March 3, 1966. Because of this, I feel compelled to re-post these musings.

(re-posted from last year and the year before and the year before, mutatis mutandis) I remember being in the our front yard one afternoon after school on Marwood Dr. in Jackson, MS. One of my older brothers had had his telescope out looking at the cloud formations. It began to rain so my brother scooped up his telescope and he and I ran into the house. I sat down to watch television. It was about 4:30. We had a window over the kitchen sink that looked out into our carport. Suddenly, the rain and wind became so intense that the view from the window became obscured even though it was protected by the carport ceiling. Then the power went off. That was always frightening to a child, even in the afternoon. Then another brother came running into the den area where we were with our mom. (My youngest brother had been asleep on the couch.) Dad was away on one of his out-of-state business trips. My brother was yelling, “It’s a tornado! It’s a tornado!” None of us knew exactly what to do. The kids wanted to just jump in the car and flee but none of us knew exactly where to flee to. Before we had time to really gain our composure (being only 10 years old, perhaps I was the only one who was actually panicked) the storm had passed. There was an errie calm that set in as we began to hear the scream of sirens. The tornado had passed at least a statue mile from our house and we sustained no damage. It was not so for the Candlestick Park Shopping Center. Some sources say 13; others say 19 were killed in the shopping center. More were killed as the tornado tracked eastward across other parts of Mississippi and Alabama. Over 300 were injured. After the twister devastated Candlestick Park, it hit a power sub-station (which is what made our power go off). It then followed along Cooper Road for several hundred yards and lifted up, skipping over downtown Jackson. Another brother of mine (I have four) watched the storm from his office window in a downtown sky-scraper (or what would pass as one in those days). The duration of the afternoon and into the night was filled with the sounds of cars rushing to take the injured to the hospital. Someone came to our door and asked if we had a thermos he could borrow to render aid to the rescue teams. We sat around our kitchen table listening to a transistor radio. I was a Beatle fan. I heard for the first time their new hit “Nowhere Man.” Needless to say, every time I heard that song for many years after, it always took me back to those eerie and frightening feelings of that day. Finally, in what seemed like forever, our power came back on at about 10:00 that evening. We all hugged. It was Thursday, March 3, 1966.

Is God Great or Isn’t He?

I recently heard a recording of a debate that Christopher Hitchens had with Jay Richards. During the exchange Hitchens made a comment to the effect that he regarded a particular person as arrogant because he claimed to speak in the name of God. His comment made me wonder why, if God is not great (as Hitchens’ book claims), it would be arrogant to claim to speak in his name. Why is it arrogant to speak in the name of someone who is not great? I suspect Hitchens’ reaction betrays an unconscious or dispositional knowledge that indeed not only does God exist, but He is great.