Geisler on the warpath

The battle over inerrancy is heating up within evangelicalism (broadly defined). 

On one side are Norman Geisler, Robert Thomas, David Farnell, Joseph Holden, Thomas Howe, William Roach, William Nix, Paige Patterson, Albert Mohler, Richard Land, John MacArthur, &c. 

On the other side, their targets and/or opponents include Robert Gundry, Craig Blomberg, Moisés Silva, Grant Osborne, Darrell Bock, Robert Yarbrough, Michael Licona, Dan Wallace, William Lane Craig, Craig Keener, Craig A. Evans, Donald Hagner, Rob Bowman, Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, Kevin Vanhoozer, Stanley Grenz, Brian McLaren, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Michael Bird, Gary Habermas, Murray J. Harris, D. A. Carson, &c. 

However, that bifurcation makes it pretty impossible to take sides. Although the Geisler faction represents a fairly unified position, their targets and/or opponents reflect such a diversity of views that you can't meaningfully generalize about the opposing side. 

Put another way, although the Geisler faction may lump them together, there isn't one opposing side. Their targets and/or opponents don't reflect a consistent trend. They range along a wide spectrum. They have differing views on Biblical authority, Biblical inerrancy, and Biblical historicity. 

It isn't hard to have a general position on the inerrancy of Scripture. Taking sides on the inerrancy of Scripture is pretty straightforward–although that calls for careful definitions and distinctions.  Likewise, you can assess the positions of various individuals on a case-by-case basis. But that takes a lot of sorting and sifting. 

You can discriminate between individual positions. In addition, you can discriminate within individual positions. The same scholar may be very strong in some respects, but weaker in other respects. Some scholars are consistently good. Some scholars are usually good. Some scholars have nothing to offer.

If the Geisler faction thinks Darrell Bock is too liberal, that's a reductio ad absurdum of their position. Bock is one of our ablest defenders of high Christology, the historical Jesus, the historicity of the Synoptics Gospels, and the inerrancy of Scripture. He's done far more in that regard than the Geisler faction.

Off-hand, I don't recall that Keener has ever impugned the inerrancy of Scripture. His defense of the historical Jesus and Christian supernaturalism is far more impressive than anything the Geisler faction has produced. 

Craig A. Evans rejects inerrancy. That's a grave mistake. At the same time, Evans has done more to defend the historical Jesus than the Geisler faction.

Murray J. Harris has penned a standard monograph defending the deity of Christ, as well as the standard commentary on the Greek text of 2 Corinthians. 

I think Blomberg's most recent book (Can We Still Believe the Bible?) is a mixed bag. That said, he's produced an excellent conservative NT introduction. A fine monograph defending the historicity of John's Gospel. And an outstanding monograph on Gospel harmonization.  And he's defended the miracles of Christ throughout his career. In general, the Geisler faction has produced nothing that comes close in quality scholarship or sophistication. 

Ironically, Blomberg has accused Geisler of flouting ICBI criteria when it collides with his agenda.  

I don't object to Geisler criticizing Licona's treatment of Mt 27:51-54. However, you'd scarcely know from Geisler's obsession with this lapse that Licona had written a philosophically astute defense of the Resurrection, which challenged secular historiography, and refuted many liberal critics along the way. 

Unfortunately, the current infighting is generating a vicious cycle in which reactionaries (e.g. Geisler, Thomas) provoke an overreaction (e.g. Blomberg, Patton). Both sides create new fodder for the other side.