Mohler purges seminary

http://www.worldviewconversation.com/2020/04/breaking-al-mohler-fires-conservative.html

Mutiny at SBTS?

An OT prof. at SBTS has signed the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel:

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/04/20/despite-rumored-threats-of-career-risk-sbts-professor-signs-social-justice-statement/

That's significant because it's been reported that Al Mohler privately threatened to fire faculty who signed the statement (a report Mohler denies). So this will be a test. 

The Statement on Social Justice is a poorly-formulated manifesto, although it says mostly good things. Is there a duty to sign it?

Insofar as the evangelical ruling class has drawn a line in the sand over this document, there's something to be said for signing it, even though it's a flawed document, as a statement of protest and defiance. The hostile reaction to the document lends it a significance above and beyond the document itself. It has become a symbol. 

An analogy would be saying and doing things that Muslims find provocative or offensive just to prove that you still have the freedom to do so (e.g. satirical cartoons of Muhammad). Occasionally, if someone dares you not to do something, that's a reason to do it. Sometimes you need to put it to the test. If you're afraid to exercise your rights, for fear of reprisal, then you already lost your rights. Likewise, the only way to keep your rights or reclaim your rights is to stand up to bullies.

I've been told that Mohler can fire faculty without due cause because SBTS uses at-will employment. At-will employment should be abolished at SBC seminaries. It subverts doctrinal standards. Termination of employment should be based on violating the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message and/or ethical misconduct. In effect, at-will employment replaces the statement of faith with the seminary prez. The seminary prez. becomes the operating creed. It reminds me of something Roger Olson said about ORU. ORU had no formal creed because Oral Roberts was the creed. Whatever he taught from one day to the next was the de facto statement of faith.

Evangelical Jainism

This has been kicking around for 4 years already:

https://erlc.com/resource-library/press-releases/evangelical-coalition-releases-statement-on-responsible-care-for-animals

Signatories include Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, Richard Land, Daniel Akin, and Bill Hybels (because nothing says moral authority like Bill Hybels). Here's a sample:

We resolve to rule and treat all animals as living valued creatures, deserving of compassion, because they ultimately belong to God, because He has created them, declared them good, given them the breath of life, covenanted with them, and entrusted them to our responsible rule. So while animals have been given into our hand and for food this does not mean we can treat them as objects or act cruelly towards them.

http://www.everylivingthing.com/sign-the-statement/

i) Does that include termites, cockroaches, deer ticks, head lice, fire ants, tape worms, bot flies, Tsetse flies, and mosquitos? 

ii) What about rats? 

iii) What about venomous snakes in residential areas? Or reticulating pythons in residential areas?

iv) What about dangerous predators in residential areas, viz. wolves, cougars, crocodiles, grizzly bears? 

v) God didn't say every species is good. Gen 1 refers to the natural kinds that God created in the beginning. 

vi) What about all the animals God destroys in natural disasters and mass extinctions? 

The Every Living Thing site links to a video in which vegan open theist Gregory Boyd waxes sentimental about animal rights. 

It has a girl who pats herself on the back because she volunteers at an animal shelter. What about volunteering to visit shut-ins, nursing homes, and hospices, full of lonely or dying people? What about abandoned street kids around the world, some of them quite young. Or child trafficking? 

The video has a guy making the demonstrably false statement that "in treating animals more respectfully we will treat people more respectfully." To the contrary, lots of folks treat their pets much better than they treat strangers. Consider all the polls in which many respondents say that given a choice between saving their dog and saving a stranger, they'd save the dog. On the one hand we have laws against animal cruelty while, on the other hand, there's abortion, infanticide, and voluntary and involuntary euthanasia for the elderly, depressed, and developmentally disabled.  

What did they know and when did they know it?

Regarding the SBC abuse scandal, I wonder about major players like Al Mohler. He rose through the ranks at rocket velocity. He's held top positions in the SBC for many years now. 

Did he have no inkling what was going on? Never heard rumors? Nothing through the grapevine? No victims or friends of victims ever confided in him?

When the Cardinal McCarrick scandal broke, people asked "What did they know and when did they know it?" How could some of his associates and superiors not know what he was up to? And it turns out that they did. The SBC needs to ask itself the same hard questions.

Perhaps some people did confide in Mohler, but no one who spoke to him was prepared to go on record.

Missionary methods

Was he right or was he wrong? This is where thinking Christians need to step back for a moment and recognize that there is a distinction we have to make between motivation and method. That's not an accidental distinction. It's an important distinction.

But we also come to understand that Protestant missions during that period began to learn certain methodologies that became absolutely essential to the modern missionary movement. For one thing, even as we see the example of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Christian missionary organizations began to send out missionaries, not one by one, but at least two by two. Understanding that some kind of team effort was important.

But I would also point to a distinction in methodology. Jim Elliot and the missionaries who were with him were part of a larger effort. They were part of a culture, of a church sending culture of missionaries. There were those who would continue the effort, who would learn from what happened to Jim Elliot and would continue to try to make contact with the tribe. There was an infrastructure, there was methodology, there was not a solitary effort because if that solitary effort had been the case in Ecuador, there would not have been the following of the team that was able eventually through persistent efforts to reach the tribe with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But we also have to understand that hard lessons have been learned throughout Christian history and in particular, in the course of modern Christian missions about how best to try to reach unreached people groups.

And to put the matter bluntly, this is not the way that most modern missions organizations would seek to reach this kind of group. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't demonstrate the same kind of courage, it doesn't mean that missionaries even today are not serving under the threat of martyrdom and often facing the reality of martyrdom. It doesn't mean that there should have been no effort to reach this unreached people group, not to mention the thousands of other unreached people groups still on planet earth.

But it's also true to understand that Christian missionaries and mission sending organizations have learned something about how, over the long term, to be even more effective in reaching these unreached people groups.

https://albertmohler.com/2018/11/26/briefing-11-26-18/

The gaping lacuna in Mohler's analysis is that he never gets around to presenting a practical alternative. What's a more effective method for reaching the tribe? Mohler repeatedly poses that question, then leaves it dangling in mid-air. He never answers the question he raised. He takes refuge in abstractions and generalities. 

Take his (at least) two-by-two rule. How would that change the outcome of the encounter with the hostile tribe? If a team showed up at the island, wouldn't the whole team be massacred? 

There's a problem when Christian spokesmen feel the need to comment on issues even though they have nothing constructive to say. Why does Mohler bother to critique Chau's methodology when Mohler has no solution to offer? 

The old duffer code

Denny Burke has conveniently posted a time-stamped edition of Mohler's position regarding The Statement on Justice and the Gospel:

http://www.dennyburk.com/albert-mohler-answers-questions-about-social-justice/

I draw attention to this because Mohler is one of the grand muftis in the SBC. His position is influential, and representative of other power brokers in the SBC. 

Unlike Russell Moore, who's a weasel, I think Mohler is a good guy. I disagree with his reasons for not signing the statement.

You might call it the old duffer code: "When I was a boy…" Folks like Mohler have the provincial notion that when and where they grew up should be the frame of reference for the younger generation. Mohler and I are just about the same age (he's two months younger than me), but I don't chain the younger generation to the experiences of my generation. They have their own duties and challenges. 

Mohler on Sproul

https://albertmohler.com/2017/12/14/bright-burning-light-robert-charles-sproul-february-13-1939-december-14-2017/

Consequentialism for me but not for thee

Even though the Alabama senate race is now at thing of the past, I'll make another observation, because the same issues repeat themselves in future race. 

Do Moore’s defenders not realize the extent to which religious freedom in this nation depends on a host of progressive judges and government officials complying with lawful court orders? For example, the ability to hire and fire pastors according to the dictates of the church and not the federal government was only recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. What if some state judge, somewhere, disagrees? If you accept Moore’s behavior on the bench, you must accept that any judge can defy the Supreme Court whenever he sees fit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454542/roy-moore-election-conservative-case-against-him

it's important to recognize that the main lesson we should learn from this article is that the secular left is watching us, watching to see if we really believe what we say we believe and then will translate that into what shows up even in the voting booth. The world is watching us.

https://albertmohler.com/2017/11/13/briefing-11-13-17/

Notice what the objections of David French and Albert Mohler share in common. They object to voting for Moore because it will have bad results. In the case of Moher, he thinks that sends a bad message. It's a bad Christian witness to the secular left. In the case of French, it's because, if socially conservative judges can defy the Supreme Court, then so can progressive judges. 

Now what's ironic about this appeal is that when some Christians defend voting for Moore (or Trump) by appealing to the dire results of allowing the Democrats to win, that's branded as consequentialism. But then, why aren't Mohler and French guilty of consequentialism when they resort to the same type of reasoning? 

Creation debate: Mohler v. Collins

I recently saw a debate between Albert Mohler and Jack Collins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGETfOQgNI4

1. Having read Collins present his position in a number of books, it wasn't especially informative to me. The best part was the second part where they sat down and answered questions.

I disagree with some of his exegetical moves. But he has a very thoughtful position. 

2. There were strengths and weaknesses in Mohler's case. One weakness is his appeal to the consensus fidelium. But that's just a fancy word for tradition. And tradition tends to be self-reinforcing. You believe it because the guy before you believed it, and he believed it because the guy before him believed it. But that makes belief its own justification, which is viciously circular. We need something to ground belief, and not just regressive or circular appeals to belief itself. Take urban legends that get passed on uncritically. To believe something just because other people believe it is a sorry substitute for evidence. 

3. Another weakness was his appeal to the "plain, natural, normal, face-value" sense of the text. Problem is, that's not directly about what's in the text, but the impression it makes on the reader. Moreover, what's "plain, natural, or normal" to a modern reader may be far removed from what's "plain, nature, and normal" to the original audience. Unless we guard against it, our modern culture supplies reference frame for what we deem to be the "plain, natural, normal" meaning of the text. 

In chapter 8 of Understanding Dispensationalists, Vern Poythress has some useful things to say about the ambiguities and unreliability of appeals to the plain or literal meaning of the text:

http://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/

In addition, what seems to be the natural or face-value meaning of the text in isolation may take on a different meaning when we consider the wider context. Indeed, Mohler is aware of that.

4. Mohler's strongest objection to old-earth creationism is that proponents accept cosmology and geology, but reject (evolutionary) biology. That seems to be ad hoc. 

Likewise, it's not just about time, but what evolutionary biologists and paleontologists say happened during that time. 

5. One has to be careful about the ad hoc allegation. Even if the special creation of Adam and Eve in OEC seems ad hoc, one could say miracles in general seem ad hoc. After all, miracles are, by definition, discontinuous with the ordinary course of nature. 

6. Which is not to deny that you can have makeshift positions along the creationist/evolutionist continuum. Consider people who say Gen 2 is factual when it talks about the special creation of Adam and Eve, but everything else in Gen 1-3 (or 1-11) is false of fictitious. 

7. I'm skeptical about our ability to reconstruct the distant past. Can we seriously know what happened in the first three minutes of the Big Bang, some 14 billions years ago? 

A paradox of reconstructing the past is that we lack direct access to the past. The present is our only available frame of reference. Residual evidence from the past. But how do we know that's a representative sample? And when you talk about billions of years, imagine the vast gaps in the surviving evidence.   

8. A related problem is the assumption of linearity. But especially where creation is concerned, there's no presumption that the past resembles the present. For all we know, the universe may be like the "instant" past of a stage set about ancient Rome or the Old West. That's where the movie begins. 

And this is more than a bare possibility. Any version of creation ex nihilo requires an element of mature creature. Something comes into being which is not the result of an antecedent natural state or process. And once we make allowance for that principle, it's hard to draw a line that isn't arbitrary. The issue then becomes how much was built into creation, and how much is due to natural development. 

8. The theory of evolution isn't just theologically controversial, but scientifically controversial. It's controversial within the secular scientific community in a way that cosmology and geology are not. 

So it's not just a question of conservative Christians drawing the line with evolutionary biology. Although secular scientists generally believe in the "fact" of evolution, there are raging debates over the theoretical underpinnings. Indeed, Collins said biologists admit to him in private that they don't think naturalistic evolution can get the job done. 

9. Another issue that Mohler raised is whether OEC is unstable. Is there a firewall between OEC and theistic evolution or naturalistic evolution? 

However, it's possible to turn that objection around. Many people who start out as young-earth creationists become theistic evolutionists or naturalistic evolutionists. So in that regard, one might contend that YEC is unstable. It has no give. Apostates who used to be youth-earth creationists continue to treat YEC as the standard of comparison, but they no longer believe it. They continue to believe that's the right interpretation of Gen 1-9, but they no longer believe in Scripture because they think science falsified YEC. And they had no fallback position. For them, the alternative to YEC is naturalistic evolution. So they become atheists. 

In fairness to Mohler, he may mean OEC is unstable in the sense that it's a stopgap position, whereas YEC is a coherent position that presents a clear-cut alternative to theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution. It's an interesting question whether there's sociological data to answer the following questions:

i) How many Christians who start out as YEC remain YEC?

ii) How many Christians who start out as YEC become OEC?

iii) How many Christians who start out as YEC become theistic evolutionists?

iv) How many Christians who start out as YEC become naturalistic evolutionists?

v) How many Christians who start out as OEC remain OEC?

vi) How many Christians who start out as OEC become YEC?

vii) How many Christians who start out as OEC become theistic evolutionists?

viii) How many Christians who start out as OEC become naturalistic evolutionists?

The Significance Of George Whitefield

Thomas Kidd published a biography of George Whitefield last year. Albert Mohler recently had a good interview with Kidd. I recommend listening to it, and I recommend the book.

"Confronting the past"

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/06/23/the-heresy-of-racial-superiority-confronting-the-past-and-confronting-the-truth/

In 1995, on the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention, the denomination publicly repented of its roots in the defense of slavery. 

i) To begin with, there's a difference between condemning the past and "repenting" of the past. The notion that the living should repent for the actions of the dead is nonsense. Pious playacting. We can distance ourselves from the views and actions of our forebears. We can disassociate our views from their views. But vicarious repentance is meaningless and spiritually pretentious. 

ii) Although there's some value in making clear where the SBC currently stands on racial equality, this belated exercise easily becomes overwrought and self-important. Denouncing the morality of Antebellum slavery and Jim Crow is a dollar short and a day late. The timing is off. The time when that would have made a difference is past. That's a lost opportunity. 

There was a time when that would have been useful. But it's too late in the day for that to make a significant difference. Beyond a certain point it becomes a pointless exercise in moral grandstanding.

For instance, I can denounce the Fourth Crusade. But what difference does that make? It's too late to prevent the Fourth Crusade. It's too late to prosecute the assailants. 

We the living cannot repent on behalf of those who are dead, but we can repent for the legacy that we would otherwise perpetuate and extend by silence.

That sounds nice, but does it mean anything? If we're dealing with an ongoing policy, then we perpetuate it if we refuse to rescind the policy. But that terminated decades ago. I'm afraid Mohler is getting swept up in the momentum of his own rhetoric. 

So far as I can tell, no one ever confronted the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with the brutal reality of what they were doing, believing, and teaching in this regard. 

That's because they are all…dead. Short of holding a séance, it's hard to confront them. 

We cannot change the past, but we must learn from it. 

Which assumes the lesson hasn't been learned. Which casually defames the younger generation.

There is no way to confront the dead with their heresies, but there is no way to avoid the reckoning that we must make, and the repentance that must be our own.

What is there that we must personally repent of in this situation? Must I repent for the Fourth Crusade? 

But the ideology that was represented in Dylann Roof’s reported words as he killed and in the photographs and evidence found on his Internet postings is not limited to a small fringe.

i) If Mohler means historically, then it's true that racist ideology and theology wasn't confined to fringe groups. But if he means in modern-day evangelicalism or American society, then racist theology/ideology is confined to the lunatic fringe.

ii) At least the kind of theology/ideology that Mohler is referring to. In another sense, the "white privilege" meme that's so popular among today's power elite reflects a powerful racist ideology. A classic scapegoating ideology.  

iii) Because Mohler is so fixated on a now nonexistent past, he overlooks real problems. Take the unemployment rate amount Millennials (Roof's age bracket): 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2015/05/11/the-5-4-unemployment-rate-means-nothing-for-millennials/

When young people feel hopeless about the future, when they feel that they've been sidelined, that can make them recruits for scapegoating ideologies like kinism and neo-Nazism.  

The main “color line,” as Frederick Douglass called it in 1881, has always been black and white in America.

That's ironically ethnocentric. In fact, it's inadvertently racist. Even in the 19C, the color line included white/Chinese relations and white/Indian relations.

This obsession with the past marginalizes the voice of other ethnic groups. 

Boyce and Broadus were chaplains in the Confederate army.

Mohler fails to explain what's wrong with that. Yes, some prominent theologians like Boyce, Broadus, Dabney, and Girardeau were Confederate chaplains. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

You could say they were wrong to identify with the Confederal cause. But given the Civil War, was it wrong for them to serve as military chaplains? 

I imagine the Civil War basically emptied the Southern seminaries. Since these theologians had no students, it made sense for them to evangelize and disciple the troops. 

Knowing that you could be dead tomorrow makes the Gospel more urgent, more relevant. Moreover, the Confederate chaplains were assuming the same risks as the troops. I assume that garnered the respect of the troops. So there was a window of opportunity to evangelize the lost. 

Although the Confederate cause was morally compromised, that created a situation in which good could be done. Like Christian POWs who minister to other captives. Even though the situation is evil, you can bring good out of evil in that situation. For instance:

http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-21-number-3/great-harvest-revival-confederate-army-during-civi

Love your neighbor

Denny Burk transcribed some statements by Albert Mohler:

http://www.dennyburk.com/mohler-on-ferguson-love-your-neighbor-lead-with-empathy-dont-prejudge-wait-for-the-facts/#more-28759

We do know this much. It is an unmitigated tragedy. It’s a tragedy that an 18-year old young man is dead. 

That's one of those typical statements which people often make in situations like this. It seems like the right thing to say. But is it?

Frankly, whether or not his death was an "unmitigated tragedy" depends on what he would have done with his life. Isn't there footage of him roughing up a convenience store clerk? For all we know, his death may have saved innocent lives down the line. If, say, he was going to murder someone two years later, it would be tragic if he didn't die before he had the chance to commit murder. In that case, it would be tragic for the murder victim. 

I'm not saying that's a reason to shoot him. It isn't. Whether or not the shooting was justified depends on whether or not the officer had good reason to fear for his own safety. Lethal force is warranted in self-defense. Whether or not it was justified depends on the present (i.e. the circumstances at the time of the shooting), not a hypothetical future.

But when we attempt to evaluate someone's death, especially someone who died young, that's speculative. That makes assumptions about the future. We don't know what they would have done with the rest of their life if they had a normal lifespan. And speculation is a two-way street.

To take a dramatic example, when the explosive belt of a suicide bomber accidentally and prematurely denotes, just killing him rather than the intended victims, his death is not an unmitigated tragedy. And, of course, it's easier to say in that case because we can foresee where his course of action was headed. 

In the case of Michael Brown, we can't say one way or the other. It's best to resist the pious platitudes and withhold judgment either way. We are short-sighted. 

And after all, Eric Holder is the first African American attorney general of the United States and one who has spent his life as an activist and advocate in the civil rights movement. In this case, he is uniquely equipped and qualified to deal directly with the questions on the ground in Ferguson, Missouri. The rest of us need to hold back and allow the justice system to do its work.

What a preposterous statement. Holder's a radical, like Julian Bond. He views these issues through his jaundiced prism. 

But there is another dimension to this… “Americans need to lead with empathy.” That too is something important to the Christian worldview. We need to lead with empathy understanding that the ability to empathize is an ability to understand every single human being around us as our neighbor. Love of neighbor—one of the most important commands of Christ—…should lead us to lead with empathy… And in this case, that means we empathize with those in the African American community who are outraged at what they see as racial injustice. It means we empathize with those who look at the situation and see it as part of a larger pattern of inequity and injustice against young African American males…

No, we shouldn't pander to groundless outrage. The question is whether they are entitled to see a racial injustice. Does that have a basis in fact? Are they seeing an actual injustice, or are they projecting a racial injustice onto something that isn't? They are only entitled to see it that way if they see it as it is. 

Is there a larger pattern of inequity and injustice against young black males? To take a dramatic comparison, consider how Hamas or ISIS perceives the world. Is perception a substitute for reality? 

Mohler means well, but it's tiresome to read these morally and intellectual soft-bellied statements. Especially on issues like this, we need clearly thinking. 

A brief history of the debate over the atonement in the SBC

http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/08/12/the-wrath-of-god-was-satisfied-substitutionary-atonement-and-the-conservative-resurgence-in-the-southern-baptist-convention/

Unimaginable Opportunities: The Gospel in a Digital Age

Dr. Albert Mohler: The Christian Leader in the Digital Age:

Content is king. People come to your Web site because they are looking for information. Make sure they can find it, and make certain it is worth finding. Your Web presence advertises to the world who you are, what your organization is all about, and the seriousness of your commitment to that mission. The information on your site must be up to date, regularly updated, and worthy of attention. If your Internet presence looks stale, visitors will assume that your organization is stale as well…

You have a message to communicate, and there is absolutely no virtue in failing to communicate that message. Make it serve the mission of your organization and drive visitors into its Web pages. Offer good content, and visitors will come back again. Let it grow old, and they will go elsewhere. This means a loss for your organization and its mission. Never forget that…

The church is assigned the task of sharing the Gospel, taking the message of Christ to the world, making disciples of all the nations. Christians have been about this task for more than 2,000 years, and we are now witnessing a resurgence in Great Commission vision and vigor in a new generation of Gospel Christians.

Just as the Gutenberg Revolution granted the generation of the Reformation unprecedented new opportunities to communicate their message, the Digital Revolution presents today’s believers with tools, platforms, and opportunities that previous generations of Christians could not have imagined.

HT: George Dunn

Cults, Christianity, and democracy

Mohler is just stating the obvious. It's unfortunate that one even needs to state the obvious. This also exposes the underlying divide between Christian conservatives and many conservative pundits who lack a theological center.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/10/10/mormonism-democracy-and-the-urgent-need-for-evangelical-thinking/

Licona responds to Mohler

Because I am leaving the country today and must attend to last minute preparations, brevity is required. I am grateful to Dr. Mohler for his kind remarks pertaining to both me and my book, which has recently raised quite a bit of controversy in certain evangelical circles. Although I disagree with much of what he has asserted pertaining to my treatment of the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53, one should not doubt my respect for him and gratitude for the contributions he has made for the cause of Christ and to the Southern Baptist Convention.

An accurate interpretation of a particular biblical text is assisted by an accurate understanding of the cultural milieu in which it was written. It is unfortunate that this does not appear to be a practice of my detractors Drs. Mohler and Geisler. Their judgment that an incompatibility exists between the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and interpreting Matthew’s raised saints at Jesus’ -death as apocalyptic symbols—or even to consider this interpretation as a viable way of understanding what Matthew was communicating (which is my present position)—without engaging in a thorough and sophisticated discussion of the milieu in which Matthew wrote is quite premature.

Dr. Mohler asks, “What could one possibly find in the Greco-Roman literature that would either validate or invalidate the status of this report as historical fact?” This is the wrong question. For it presupposes that Matthew intends the report of the raised saints to be understood as a historical event. So, the first question one should ask is how Matthew intended for his readers to understand this text. If he intended for us to regard the raised saints as apocalyptic symbols, then Drs. Mohler and Geisler are mistaken when regarding them as “historical fact.” It is only IF one can determine after an exhaustive study that Matthew intended for us to regard the raised saints as an event that occurred in space-time that Dr. Mohler could legitimately claim that the Greco-Roman literature offers nothing to assist us toward a correct interpretation of the text. Instead, Drs. Mohler and Geisler have pre-determined what the text means. But it is Scripture that is inerrant. Thus, we must be careful not to canonize our interpretation of Scripture so that we come to believe that it, too, is inerrant.

Article XX of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states,

“We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else.WE FURTHER AFFIRM THAT IN SOME CASES EXTRABIBLICAL DATA HAVE VALUE FOR CLARIFYING WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES, AND FOR PROMPTING CORRECTION OF FAULTY INTERPRETATIONS [emphasis mine]. We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.”

Thus, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics asserts that extrabiblical data can assist us in clarifying what Matthew is teaching and correct faulty interpretations.

We find a similar statement in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

“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 SOVERIGN PROVIDENCE; IT IS MISINTERPRETATION TO IMAGINE OTHERWISE [emphasis mine].

“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” [emphasis mine].

Thus, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy asserts that an inattention to the culture and literary conventions in Bible times could lead to a misinterpretation of the biblical text.

Examples in the extrabiblical literature of phenomena similar to the raised saints in Matthew 27 may provide insights pertaining to how Matthew intended for us to interpret his raised saints. When we study the literary conventions in Bible times, we identify specific language in the Greco-Roman (Virgil, Dio Cassius, Plutarch), Jewish (Josephus) and biblical (Matthew 24, Acts 2) literature that may be employed to accent an event believed to have cosmic or even divine significance. Thus, when I noticed what might be similar language in Matthew 27:52-53, the interpretive possibility I proposed in my book emerged. Couldn’t the same be said 2,000 years from now pertaining to a proper interpretation of a text in which it was asserted that “the events of 9/11 were earth-shaking” while others may wrongly interpret the statement “Hell will freeze over before Ahmadinejad converts to Christianity” as a prophecy of two events rather than as a statement of enormous improbability?

The charge that I have “dehistoricized” the text is also problematic, since it likewise presupposes that Matthew intended the raised saints to be understood as historical. But what if he intended for them to be understood as apocalyptic symbols? It would then be misguided to “historicize” them. This would be little different than regarding as historical the seven-headed great red dragon in Revelation 12:3-4 whose tail sweeps up a third of the stars and casts them to earth. I regard this description as entirely symbolic and that to regard it as a real space monster would be to “historicize” the text.

The text in Matthew 27:52-53 has puzzled many New Testament scholars for years and will continue to do so. I remain puzzled but continue to seek a better understanding of what Matthew intended to communicate here. The calls of Drs. Geisler and Mohler for me to retract my opinion that it is possible Matthew intended for his readers to understand the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53 as apocalyptic symbols is not helpful. Instead, such premature calls stifle scholarship and authentic quests for truth. I will be happy to retract my opinion once I am convinced that Matthew’s authorial intent was to communicate that the raised saints are to be understood as an event that occurred in space-time. So far, I have found the arguments offered by Drs. Geisler and Mohler to be unpersuasive and misguided.

I am grateful to the Southeastern Theological Review for their invitation to participate in a roundtable discussion on the meaning of this text and whether the solution I proposed in my recent book is compatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. It is their desire to publish that discussion within the next 60 days. I will reserve my defense and further criticisms for that discussion and want to express my gratitude to the many who have sent words of support and to those who have written in my defense on the web. It is sad—and perhaps telling—that they have been ignored by Drs. Mohler and Geisler, since some of their arguments are quite good.

http://crankycontrarianchristiancommentary.com/2011/09/15/reposting-with-permission-dr-liconas-response-to-mohler-with-comments/

Father Church

The controversy over Licona’s interpretation of Mt 27:52-53 continues to widen with Mohler jumping into the fray. I don’t know if this controversy will get bigger before it gets smaller, so I’ll have another go at it.

Because infidels like cite this passage to ridicule the Bible, I’ve often defended the historicity of this passage. (So has Jason Engwer.) However, I’ve always taken the position that it’s not enough to be right. You need to be right for the right reasons. To be right for the wrong reasons leaves you with a very unstable faith.

Unfortunately, Mohler and Geisler are using bad arguments to support their position. Now, I don’t even like it when bad arguments are used to defend bad positions. That’s because bad arguments sometimes have a specious plausibility which makes a bad position seem more convincing.  We see that all the time in the political realm.

But there’s a sense in which a bad argument for a good position is even worse. A bad argument for a good position will ultimately betray a good position. Truth is ill-served by falsehood.

Bad arguments have a low melting point. For instance, the wings and fuselage of an airplane are generally made of aluminum because that’s a light, strong, weldable metal. But it wouldn’t be very smart to make the jet engine out of aluminum. That’s because aluminum has a low melting point. If you ride a jet with aluminum engines, you’re in for a real letdown (pun intended). Let’s not put Christians on a passenger plane with aluminum engines.

Moving along:

Professional airhead Peter Lumpkins entitles a new post “Al Mohler vindicates Norm Geisler.”

Well that’s inept. How does the phenomenon of two men merely agreeing with each other “vindicate” either one? It’s not as if Mohler brings any new facts to the table. He hasn’t really done anything to advance Geisler’s original argument.

If Christopher Hitchens wrote an article on which he agreed with Richard Dawkins on Christianity, would Lumpkins do a post entitled “Christopher Hitchens vindicates Richard Dawkins”? Is that the quality of reasoning we’re going to be treated to in this debate?

And what about Mohler? Take this exclamation:

What could one possibly find in the Greco-Roman literature that would either validate or invalidate the status of this report as historical fact?

I’m sorry, but that’s just obtuse. Licona explains in his book why he thinks that’s germane. For instance, Licona says:

Given the presence of phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature related to a major event such as the death of an emperor or the end of a reigning king or even a kingdom…it seems to me that an understanding of the language of Matthew 27:52-53 as “special effects” with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible (552).

For Mohler to ask how that’s relevant when, in fact, Licona does just that is intellectually lazy. I don’t agree with Licona’s interpretation. But that’s something which needs to be argued down. Licona gave an argument, which demands a counterargument. Not just acting aghast.

Moreover, Licona doesn’t limit himself to Greco-Roman literature. He also bolsters his argument by citing OT literature.

I realize Mohler is a busy guy, and he dashes off these reaction pieces in a hurry. Mohler’s a popularizer, and that’s useful. But don’t wade into the issue at all unless you’re prepared to invest the time necessary to do it right.

Mohler also accuses Licona of “dehistoricizing” the pericope, thereby violating the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. But the problem with that accusation is that it begs the question. If Matthew intended that pericope to describe a real event, then denying the historicity of the pericope simultaneously denies the inerrancy of Matthew. And I happen to agree with Mohler on the historicity of Mt 27:52-53.

Problem is: since Licona has argued that Matthew never meant this pericope to describe a real event, Licona isn’t contradicting the terms of the Chicago statement. You can only “dehistoricize” the pericope of it was meant to be historical in the first place.

So just quoting the Chicago Statement doesn’t get Mohler where he needs to go. Like Geisler, he’s taking too many intellectual shortcuts.

Let’s go back to Geisler. There are several problems with Geisler’s latest response to Licona.

1. Logical fallacies

Both Mohler and Geisler try to infer a particular interpretation from the ETS/ICBI definition of inerrancy. But an abstract definition of inerrancy doesn’t predict for a particular interpretation. The conclusion is more specific than the premise. So it’s logically invalid to draw that conclusion.

2. Argument from authority

Geisler makes statements like:

The ETS and ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Licona has clearly stepped over it.

Notice the strategic shift. Instead of debating the authority of Scripture, Geisler is debating the authority of the ETS and ICBI framers. Is that what we should be debating? Should we be exegeting the ICBI documents, or should we be exegeting Mt 27:52-53?

Geisler sounds like an old man who’s trying to secure his legacy. Like a father who wants to pass on the family business to his son. Only his son doesn’t want to relive his father’s life.

So his dad uses sentimental appeals: “Make your old man proud!” When that doesn’t work, his dad tries to guilt-trip the son: “Are you ashamed of me?” When that doesn’t work, his dad resorts to threats. “I’ll cut you out of the will!”

Why should the younger generation care where the older generation drew a line in the sand? You have to give the younger generation a reason to care.

3. ICBI

Geisler keeps appealing to the “ICBI view on inerrancy.” But, frankly, there is no monolithic ICBI “view” on inerrancy. The ICBI isn’t reducible to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The ICBI consisted of three summits, to which numerous participants contributed numerous essays. And their essays reflect a variety of viewpoints.

For instance, take:

Hermeneutics, inerrancy, and the Bible

[papers from ICBI Summit II]

edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus.

That alone is 921 pp. long.

Within that volume, take chapter 2:

Historical Grammatical Problems

Bruce K. Waltke

Response  Kenneth L. Barker

Response  Allan A. MacRae

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF%20Books/Working%20PDF/Waltke.pdf

This represents three different viewpoints on the implications of inerrancy. Read Waltke’s essay, then ask yourself if Licona has departed from Waltke’s view on inerrancy.

And that’s not all. Consider the diversity of views represented in other chapters, such as:

3. Genre Criticism-Sensus Literalis

Grant R. Osborne

Response  Ronald B. Allen

Response  David P. Scaer

4. Problems of Normativeness in Scripture: Cultural Versus Permanent

J. Robertson McQuilkin

Response  George W. Knight

Response  Alan F. Johnson

5. The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science 

Walter L. Bradley, Roger Olsen

Response  Gleason L. Archer

Response 0 Henry M. Morris

7. Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation

Elliott E. Johnson

Response Earl D. Radmacher

Response Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

Moving along:

4. The grammatico-historical method

In his response to Licona, Geisler says:

But this is clearly not the way to interpret a biblical text which should be understood by the “historical-grammatical” method (as ICBI held) of (a) looking at a text in its context and (b) by comparing other biblical texts, affirming that  “Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (as ICBI mandated). The proper meaning is certainly not found by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means.

But according to “The Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics,” which is one of the ICBI documents:

We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations (Article XX).

So Geisler invokes ICBI only to contradict ICBI.

5. Geisler denies inerrancy!

Let’s compare two different statements by Geisler:

But this is clearly not the way to interpret a biblical text which should be understood by the “historical-grammatical” method (as ICBI held) of (a) looking at a text in its context and (b) by comparing other biblical texts, affirming that  “Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (as ICBI mandated). The proper meaning is certainly not found by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means.

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

Of course, there are many Creationists who argue for an old earth. Biblically, this position that the word for day is used for more than twenty-four hours even in Genesis 2:4, the events of the sixth day surely took more than twenty-four hours, and Hebrews 4:4-5 implies that God is still in His seventh-day rest. If the seventh day can be long, then the others could too. Scientifically, this view does not require any novel theories to explain the evidence. One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Baker Books 1990), 230.

But the proper meaning of Gen 1 is certainly not found by superimposing some external scientific idea on the text in order to determine what the text means.

In fact, this is worse for Geisler. Licona justifies his interpretation based on comparative literature from the same general period (i.e. Josephus as well as Greco-Roman biographies). He also justifies his interpretation based on OT prophecy (i.e. the use of stock apocalyptic imagery). That’s standard grammatico-historical methodology. One may disagree with the conclusions he draws (I, for one, disagree), but his basic methodology is perfectly respectable.

By contrast, Geisler is allowing distinctively modern beliefs (i.e. modern astronomy) to influence his interpretation. That’s the polar opposite of grammatico-historical methodology. That’s obviously anachronistic. Using background information which wasn’t available to the original writer or his target audience.

So when we measure Geisler by his own yardstick, Geisler comes up short. The ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Geisler has clearly stepped over it.  Geisler’s interpretation reveals that he is not signing the doctrinal statement in good conscience according to intention expressed by the framers. Only a clear recantation will reverse the matter and, unfortunately, Geisler has not done this.

6. The future of evangelicalism

One of my underlying concerns with this reaction is the way it fosters an anti-intellectual climate in seminaries. Bad arguments have a way of driving out good arguments.

What if a non-tenured seminary prof. wanted to defend the historicity of this pericope, but in the course of which he also took issue with the sloppy arguments of Mohler and Geisler. Suppose he said Geisler is using the wrong method to derive the right conclusion while Licona is using the right method to derive the wrong conclusion. Can you still disagree with Mohler or Geisler without raising suspicions about your own orthodoxy?

Even if you disagreed with them in order to offer stronger, better arguments for the historicity of this pericope, the way that Mohler/Geisler are framing the debate makes that hazardous to your career.

I hope evangelicalism isn’t going to replace Mother Church with Father Church.