Geisler's selective prooftexting

Geisler has posted yet another response to Licona:

http://www.normangeisler.net/public_html/responseMLFinal.html

Unfortunately, it suffers from selective prooftexing. Here's an idea. Let's go to the ETS website, specifically, Membership Requirements:

http://www.etsjets.org/about/membership_requirements

Here we read:

"For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) [link to: http://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf]. The case for biblical inerrancy rests on the absolute trustworthiness of God and Scripture's testimony to itself. A proper understanding of inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of Scripture. We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality."

So, "A proper understanding of inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of Scripture."

What does the Chicago Statement say? In the link to the Statement provided above, we read:

"This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition*... * The Exposition is not printed here but can be obtained by contacting: ICBI/ P.O. Box 13261 / Oakland, CA 94661 / (415)-339-1064."

No need for that. The Exposition is found here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

And what does that say?:

"We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers."

So, in the documents to which ETS itself sends us to understand its membership requirements, we are told that "in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production." And how do we do that? We remind ourselves that:

-- "God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu"

-- "history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor"

-- "Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed"

And, of course, you cannot "pay the most careful attention" to these things unless you are familiar with these things. What was the 'culture and conventions' of biblical times? What were the 'literary conventions in Bible times'? Don't you have to know something of the surrounding culture? The Exposition is directing inerrantists to pay attention to this stuff, not ignore it.

How convenient for Geisler to cite documents ("Explaining Inerrancy" and "Explaining Hermeneutics") that are nowhere used in the ETS definition of Membership Requirements. However, he should be more careful in referencing the former (written by Sproul, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1980). On p. 27, Sproul says:

"Questions of the extent of the flood or the literary genre of the earlier chapters of Genesis are not answered by this Statement. Questions of biblical interpretation that touch on the field of hermeneutics remain for further investigation and discussion.  What the Scriptures actually teach about creation and the flood is not spelled out by this article; but it does spell out that whatever the Bible teaches about creation and the flood cannot be negated by secular theories."

We can paraphrase, on behalf of Licona:

"Questions of the extent of Matthew's use of apocalyptic imagery or the literary genre of Mt 27:51-53 are not answered by this Statement. Questions of biblical interpretation that touch on the field of hermeneutics remain for further investigation and discussion.  What the Scriptures actually teach about a resurrection of OT saints on the day of Christ's resurrection is not spelled out by this article; but it does spell out that whatever the Bible teaches about Christ's resurrection, and the events surrounding Christ's resurrection, cannot be negated by secular theories."

Geisler's latest reply quotes repeatedly from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, and from its Exposition. Here's a link to the published version:

http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_2.pdf

Notice how he ignores this part:

"The literal sense of each passage should be sought by the grammatical-historical method, that is, by asking what is the linguistically natural way to understand the text in its historical setting. Textual; historical, literary and theological study, aided by linguistic skills - philological, semantic, logical - is the way forward here. Passages should be exegeted in the context of the book of which they are part, and the quest for the writer's own meaning, as distinct from that of his known or supposed sources, must be constantly pursued. The legitimate use of the various critical disciplines is not to call into question the integrity or truth of the writer's meaning but simply to help us determine it."

So the G-H method is not the method by which we simply 'compare Scripture with Scripture'. Both Geisler and Mohler are wrong here.

Then there's this:

"Valuable as an aid in determining the literal meaning of biblical passages is the discipline of genre criticism, which seeks to identify in terms of style, form and content, the various literary categories to which the biblical books and particular. passages within. Them belong. The literary genre in which each writer creates his text belongs in part at least to his own culture and will be clarified through knowledge of that culture. Since mistakes about genre lead to large-scale misunderstandings of biblical material, it is important that this particular discipline not be neglected."

This is, of course, a description of what Licona was attempting to do. Matthew's literary genre belongs "to his own culture and will be clarified through knowledge of that culture." And it is 'important' not to neglect this.

And, in conformity with the end of the first quote above, Licona uses these sources "not to call into question the integrity or truth of the writer's meaning but simply to help us determine it."

And that, in a nutshell, is Geisler's confusion. Licona thinks the pericope means something different than what Geisler thinks. But he's not calling into question the integrity or truth of Matthew's meaning.

BTW, check out this section on science:

"In fact, interrogating biblical statements concerning nature in the light of scientific knowledge about their subject matter may help toward attaining a more precise exegesis of them. For though exegesis must be controlled by the text itself, not shaped by extraneous considerations, the exegetical process is constantly stimulated by questioning the text as to whether it means this or that."

This entire Exposition appears to be written by J. I. Packer, as his name appears at the very end.

Ah, look, J. P. Moreland and Edwin Yamauchi are Chicago signatories as well. I thought they were some of Licona's foxes guarding the henhouse, since they also signed Licona's initial response to Geisler. Are we to believe these 300 scholars are not unified in all of their views on matters not addressed by the Chicago Statement? Perish the thought!

http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1_typed.pdf