That was unbelievable.” As a result, “SES formulated a statement formally dismissing him from any faculty appointment or position at SES, and that we believe he denies inerrancy as we understand it” (emphasis added).įourth, ISCA (International Society of Christian Apologetics), a scholarly society to which Licona once belonged, has officially condemned his view. He even said that if someone interpreted the resurrection accounts as metaphor and therefore denied the historicity of the Gospel accounts, that would not contradict inerrancy. After the faculty examined Licona directly, one source close to the event wrote that “He definitely denies inerrancy. Third, Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), where Licona was recently listed as a professor, abolished his position after discovering his view and decided not to have him teach there any longer. The integrity of this affirmation depends upon the affirmation of inerrancy in every detailed sense” ( emphasis added). It is not enough to affirm biblical inerrancy in general terms.
That is what makes The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy so indispensable and this controversy over Licona’s book so urgent. The devil, as they say, is in the details. He asked precisely the right question, but then he gave the wrong answer….” Mohler added, “It is not enough to affirm biblical inerrancy in principle. He needs to rethink the question he asked himself in his book - ‘If some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, we may rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same?’…. Al Mohler, spoke out against Licona’s view on his web site, concluding, that in his treatment of the Matthew 27 text that “ Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon - the concession that some of the material reported by Matthew in the very chapter in which he reports the resurrection of Christ simply did not happen and should be understood as merely ‘poetic device’ and ‘special effects’…. When this failed, a source close to the situation revealed that once Licona realized that his view would not be widely accepted by the SBC pastors and churches, he decided that he had better resign his SBC position at NAMB (North America Mission Board). Here are some of the more important ones:įirst, Licona made a private attempt to convince one key Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leader that his view was orthodox. Licona’s denial of the historicity and inerrancy of the Matthew 27 text led to a strong reaction among many evangelicals. And, as evidence that it was a denial of the historic ICBI (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) view on inerrancy, we provided “Six Reasons” (Thus, both the historicity and inerrancy of the text which are firmly established are tragically denied by Licona. Against Licona’s view, we set forth “Ten Reasons” for the historicity of this text. He called this “poetical,” a “legend,” an “embellishment,” and literary “special effects” (see 306, 548, 552, 553). Our original focus was on his denial of the historicity and inerrancy of the resurrection account of the saints in Matthew 27. Any future approaches to dealing with this 'prize puzzle' of New Testament study will need to be routed through The Resurrection of Jesus.Mike Licona on Inerrancy: It’s Worse than We Originally ThoughtĪ closer look at Mike Licona’s book on The Resurrection of Jesus reveals even more problems than at first thought. His own argument is a challenging and closely argued case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. In addition to determining and working from the most reliable sources and bedrock historical evidence, Licona critically weighs other prominent hypotheses. But then Licona carefully applies his principles and methods to the question of Jesus' resurrection. So he opens this study with an extensive consideration of historiography and the particular problem of investigating claims of miracles. And he convincingly points us to a significant deficiency in approaching this question: our historiographical orientation and practice. Could there be any new and promising approach to this problem? Yes, answers Michael Licona.
Perhaps some now regard this issue as the burned-over district of New Testament scholarship. The question of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection has been repeatedly probed, investigated and debated.
0 kommentar(er)
