IS MIKE LICONA THE NEXT BART EHRMAN?

___________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Norman Geisler

Veritas Evangelical Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

TH530 Prolegomena and Bibliology

___________________

by

Shawn Nelson

December 2012

2

IS MIKE LICONA THE NEXT BART EHRMAN?

Abstract

This is a paper on why making compromises with biblical inerrancy is extremely

dangerous, and why the evangelical community should not embrace, but quickly distance itself

from any such positions. It will prove that inerrancy is the foundation for Christianity. Take

away inerrancy, and we cannot be certain of anything about Jesus Christ, salvation, whether

there is a heaven, hell, or any prophetic future events. In short, everything falls apart and we

cannot be certain of anything except impending judgment from an unknown God. My approach

for proving this will be to look at what inerrancy is, cover who Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman

are and why they are relevant to this discussion, present my logical argument on why the path to

compromise ultimately leads to agnosticism, and give examples of how it has always caused

damage within the church.

Next, what this paper is not. The point of this paper is not to prove that the Bible is

the Word of God. Many excellent books have been written on this topic, which, quite frankly

would do a much better job handling this subject than I could do in a brief paper.1 Instead, this

paper is meant to be a warning to evangelical leaders that breakdown in inerrancy inevitably

leads to further breakdown in nearly every other area of evangelical thought.

1 Some recommended books with excellent arguments proving the Bible is the Word of God includethe systematic theologies of Norman Geisler (Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: Introduction, Bible 2002),Charles Ryrie (Ryrie 1999), and Wayne Grudem (Grudem 2004).

3

History of Attack

To those of us in the twenty first century, it’s no surprise that the doctrine of

inerrancy is under attack. It seems as though we’ve always been engaged in this war. What is

alarming, however, is how quickly our leaders have jumped ship this time—and what little fight

they put up! The very generals who were supposed to protect us from attack have willingly

handed the war over to the enemy before the battle had even begun!

This most recent battle I’m referring to began with a seminary professor from

Southern Evangelical Seminary named Dr. Mike Licona. In 2010, Licona wrote a book entitled

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. In this book, he suggested that

the account of the resurrected saints walking through the city might be apocalyptic imagery

(Matt. 27:51-53). In other words, he suggested that the events did not actually happen, but that it

was lore or legend.

As to be expected, some notable evangelical theologians began to cry foul, in

particular Dr. Norman Geisler, who addressed an open letter to Licona, charging him with

violating the inerrancy of Scripture.2 Licona was rightly forced to resign from his position at

Southern Evangelical Seminary. Yet what followed is rather alarming.

Incredibly, many notable evangelical scholars began to express their support for

Licona. Craig Bloomberg at Denver Seminary, William Lane Craig at Talbot School of

Theology, Gary Habermas at Liberty University, Daniel B. Wallace at Dallas Theological

Seminary, J. P. Moreland at Talbot School of Theology, W. David Beck at Liberty University,

James Chancellor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Jeremy A. Evans at Southeastern

Baptist Theological Seminary, Craig S. Keener at Asbury Theological Seminary, Douglas J. Moo

at Wheaton College, Heath A. Thomas at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, William

2 (Mohler 2011)

4

Warren at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and evangelical historian Edwin M.

Yamauchi all voiced their support for Licona by signing an open letter in response to Geisler.3

These clearly state that they are aware of Licona’s position concerning the resurrected

saints: “He proposes that the report may refer to a literal/historical event, a real event partially

described in apocalyptic terms, or an apocalyptic symbol” and furthermore, “we are in firm

agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy, despite objections to the contrary.”4 In

other words, they are perfectly comfortable with the possibility that the account might not be

factual history but could be an “apocalyptic symbol”.

What’s alarming is that these are the professors of some of the finest evangelical

schools in the nation, who are responsible for training the pastors of today and future

generations, and they are saying that they are comfortable with this one verse not being factual.

Some say, “So what! Why is this such a big deal?” Here’s why.

The Three “in’s”

It’s been said that a table must have at least three legs to be able to stand. Take away

any of the three legs and it will surely topple. In much the same way, the Christian faith stands

on three legs. These three legs are the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture. These

three “in’s” complement each other, yet each expresses a slightly different distinction in our

understanding of Scripture. Each concept in and of itself is important, yet they all depend on the

other. Take away one, and like the table, the Christian faith will surely topple.

The first “in” is inspiration, and deals with the origin of the Bible. Evangelicals

believe that “God breathed out” the words of the Bible, using human writers as the vehicle. The

3 (Credo House Ministries 2011)

4 Ibid.

5

human writers were not inspired, like we might say today of a rock star, “he was inspired when

he wrote that song”. No, inspiration speaks to the writings themselves—that the writings, not the

people, were inspired, or “breathed out by God”. That is how they originated. This concept

comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 where it says that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the

man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”5

The next “in”, infallibility, speaks to the authority and enduring nature of the Word.

To be infallible means that something is incapable of failing, and therefore is binding and cannot

be broken. This is a fitting description. 1 Peter 2:23-25 says we have “been born again not of

corruptible seed, but incorruptible, through the Word of God which lives and abides forever,

because ‘All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass

withers, and its flower falls away, but the Word of the Lord endures forever.’” Here, it says that

it endures without end, and as we have seen from the 2 Timothy 3:16-17 passage, has all

authority. This authority of Scripture cannot be broken. Jesus told us so in John 10:34-35. In

addressing a difficult passage He said “the Scripture cannot be broken”. In fact, He said, “one

jot or one tittle will be no means pass away from the law till all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18).

What is important to understand is that there is a distinction between inspiration being the origin

of the Bible—that it was “God breathed”—and infallibility being that it cannot be broken and

thus has all authority. Yet, they are closely related and each depends on the other.

5 The phrase “given by inspiration of God” is the single Greek word θεόπνευστος (theo-pneustos) andmeans quite literally “God breathed”. That is a great description of Scripture—that it is breathed out by God. Theword θεόπνευστος is also translated “by inspiration” and forms the basis of the evangelical concept of inspiration.Because it is God-breathed, it is authoritative, and profitable for reproof and instruction. The basis for its authorityis that it is breathed out or inspired by God who cannot error, and therefore all of it is authoritative.

6

The same is true for the last “in”, inerrancy. Inerrancy simply means that the Bible is

without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words”6 . This isn’t

just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific

statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is

accurate and without error regarding any statement, period. It rejects any notion that the Biblical

writers “meant well” but ultimately misrepresented the truth.

At first glance, it would make sense that if the Bible originated from God and

contains all authority and cannot be broken then it must be without error. So why is there a

debate over inerrancy today? When did this debate begin? Why do some Christians believe that

the Bible can contain errors? And ultimately, what does this do to our ability to understand

anything about God?

What Starts Well Doesn’t Always End Well

It feels as though the inerrancy debate has been around forever, but it hasn’t. It might

come as a surprise to some that it’s a relatively new issue. Author and scholar Harold Lindsell

stated, “Apart from a few exceptions, the church through the ages has consistently believed that

the entire Bible is the inerrant or infallible Word of God”.7 It’s clear that the early church

received the New Testament writings as inspired writings, and that they ascribed the same

authority to them as they did to the Old Testament Scriptures. This recognition of authority

continued throughout church history, up until five-hundred years ago, until inerrancy gave way

to new “scientific” thought, at which time the possibility of error was entertained, and the entire

Biblical foundation unraveled into the mess we have today. Let’s briefly survey what some of

6 (Grudem 2004, 90)

7 (Lindsell 1978, 42-43)

7

the church fathers had to say on this important subject up through the Middle Ages beginning

with the Apostolic Fathers.

The Apostolic Fathers are the generation of believers who had personal contact with

Jesus’ twelve apostles (c. A.D. 70-c. 150). We have many of their writings which can help to

shed light on what the early church believed. In these writings, many references can be found

which speak to the fact that these early church fathers believed in the inspiration, infallibility and

inerrancy of Scripture. While they did not specifically use these terms (they would be developed

much later), it is clear that they believed what they teach. Let’s survey a few.

Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) said to his readers: “You have looked into the holy

scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing

unrighteous or falsified is written in them.” (1 Clement 45:2-3)8 In speaking about Paul’s

writings, Clement said that “By truth he wrote to you in the Spirit” (1 Clement 47:3)9. Polycarp,

a disciple of the apostle John, also affirmed Paul’s writings when he said that Paul “taught the

word of truth accurately and reliably” and since they had this teaching (his letters) they were to

“examine them” (Poly. 3:2-3)10.

There are many other writings, including those of Pseudo-Barnabas11, Papias, Ignatius

of Antioch, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and The Epistle to Diognetus which clearly

show the early church held to inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy. “Taken together, this

important early material demonstrates that by about A.D. 150 the early church, both East and

West, accepted the New Testament claim for divine inspiration. The Fathers looked upon those

8 (R. Brannan 2012)

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Pseudo-Barnabas is so named because it was initially believed to be written by the wrong person.

8

books with the same high regard as the New Testament writers did the Old Testament Scriptures,

namely, as the inspired, authoritative, and absolutely true Word of God.”12

This belief continued throughout the Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers periods (c.

A.D. 150 – c. 350). Justin Martyr said of the Scriptures that “when you hear the utterances of the

prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired

themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them.”13 Irenaeus interestingly enough had

personal contact with Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He made a profound

statement about the reliability of Scripture when he wrote how “the only true and life-giving

faith” was “received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His

apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the

doctrine of the Son of God”.14 He further said these writings were above all falsehood:

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and ispermanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles whodid also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointingout that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him… The apostles,likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood; for a lie has no fellowshipwith the truth…15

Another father, Clement of Alexandria, said he had successfully “demonstrated that

the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority”, and therefore should

be used to combat all heresies. He then goes on to name those Scriptures as that which is

“preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.”16

12 (Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: Introduction, Bible 2002, 284)

13 (A. Roberts 1885, First Apology 36)

14 Ibid. Against Heresies 3, preface to chap. 1

15 Ibid Against Heresies 3.5.1

16 (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed. 1885, Clem. Al., Str. 4.1)

9

Nearly all of the other Fathers held to the inspiration of Scripture, including Tatian,

Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and

Cyril of Jerusalem.17 Not surprisingly, this view continued through the great medieval church

teachers (c. 350-c. 1350). Jerome believed Paul was a chosen vessel “Assuredly because he is a

repertory of the Law and of the holy scriptures.”18 Augustine, considered by many to be one of

the greatest theologians of all time stated the following:

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour onlyto the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that theauthors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed byanything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either themanuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or Imyself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, howevergreat the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept theirteaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only becausethey have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of thesecanonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, mybrother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do notsuppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles,concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error.19

It was during this same period that the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), the Council

of Hippo (A.D. 393), and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) affirmed the books of the Bible as

being authoritative in nature, consistent with the admonition from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the

Bible, since it is “God-breathed”, is the absolute authority for conduct, binding, infallible, and

able to lead into all truth.

This view prevailed throughout the medieval period, and can be seen in teachings of

another prominent theologian, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) who stated, “It is unlawful to

17 (Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: Introduction, Bible 2002, 284-288)

18 (P. Schaff & H. Wace, Ed. 1893)

19 (Schaff 1886, 350)

10

hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or

that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which

is based on the authority of Holy Writ.”20 Additionally he said, “A true prophet is always

inspired by the Spirit of truth, in Whom there is no falsehood, wherefore He never says what is

not true”21 And, “it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.”22

He also affirms that he agreed with Augustine when he said, “Only those books of Scripture

which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have

not erred in any way in writing them.”23

What are we to make of all of this? If the Apostolic Fathers who had personal contact

with the New Testament apostles, the early church fathers, and the medieval church teachers all

held to an inerrant view of Scripture, when and how did the idea that the Bible contains errors

creep into the church? And why are some evangelical theologians tempted to depart from this

historical view?

Influences Leading to the Erosion of Inerrancy

The philosophical influences of the Enlightenment are to blame. The first influence

that led to modern criticism of the Bible was inductivism, led by Francis Bacon (1561-1626).

Bacon began his life as a devout Anglican. During the ascension of King James to power Bacon

began to question the extent of learning and our ability to understand. He proposed a new

approach for truth based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.24 This marked the

20 (Aquinas 2009, STh., II-II q.110 a.3 resp.)

21 Ibid. STh., II-II q.172 a.6 ad.2

22 Ibid. STh., I q.1 a.10 ad.3–2

23 Ibid. STh., I q.1 a.8 ad.2

24 (Galli and Olsen 2000, 354)

11

beginning of the movement that ultimately would seek to remove the Bible from the pursuit of

science and understanding. While Bacon himself remained a devote Christian until his death, his

inductive approach would ultimately be the spark of the beginning of the Enlightenment.25

What followed was materialism (Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679). Materialism held that

everything is finite, there is no infinite. In other words, what we see in this universe is all there

is; there can be no spiritual world beyond our physical universe.

This was quickly followed by antisupernaturalism (Benedict Spinoza 1632-1677). If

materialism is true, then there is no God, no heaven, and no hell—nothing supernatural. The

Bible needed to be rethought of in light of this new “truth”. The demon possessed of Scripture

became madmen. Jesus couldn’t have really risen from the dead, but His disciples merely

believed that He rose from the dead, and so on. This rethinking of Scripture was the beginning

of higher criticism of the Bible.

Antisupernaturalism led to skepticism (David Hume 1711-1776). Hume became

famous for his argument against the possibility of miracles. The gist of his argument was that

miracles are a violation of the fixed laws of nature, that there is far greater evidence for the

continuity of natural law, and as such, a wise man should base belief on that which has greater

evidence. Hume’s argument was and has since been the intellectual argument against miracles,

and while the argument is surprisingly weak, it has yielded disastrous results for the Christian

faith, as we shall see.

Next came agnosticism (Immanuel Kant 1724-1804). With miracles proven to be

impossible and the Bible downgraded to a fairytale, what was left is agnosticism—that there

25 It is worthy of noting that Francis Bacon actually believed strongly that the use of rationality and hisinductive approach would lead one to conclude that God exists. His high regard for both science and the Bible canbe seen in his statement: "There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, thevolume of Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."(Morris 1990, 13-15)

12

probably is a God, but we cannot really know anything about Him. Kant’s concept was the

logical conclusion to the line of philosophical ideas preceding him. His conclusion was that

science is possible because it deals with the observable world, but we simply do not and cannot

know what lies beyond that.

Finally, we arrived at evolutionism (Charles Darwin 1809-1882). Darwin attempted

to remove the last remaining weapon in Christendom’s war chest—the argument that complex

life requires a creator. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was a solution that did not require a

supernatural origin. Life could have arisen spontaneously, and through natural processes over

time, it could have evolved into higher, more organized and better adapted life forms—a theory

which was accepted with open arms.

Thus, in just a few hundred years, the biblical worldview had been completely

overturned. The book which was once thought to be without error, unable to be broken, and the

final absolute authority for the church, was now “proven” riddled with mistakes, legend and

superstition. Yet, Christianity continued—with a serious problem. With all of this “new truth”

from the Enlightenment, what did real Christians who wanted to follow Jesus Christ do with the

Bible? As we will see, many compromised.

A Smorgasbord of Biblical Views

There are four major views of Scripture that came from the wake of these destructive

philosophies26, and these are the views that we still see today. We have the evangelical, liberal,

neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical views of Scripture. The first is the early historical position,

and the last three are concessions based on the “new truth” of so-called scientific advancement.

26 To be clear, I do not believe inductivism led by Francis Bacon was destructive, but the conceptslisted in this paper which followed certainly were.

13

The evangelical view of Scripture is that the Bible is the Word of God. This would

include belief in the three “in”s discussed earlier—belief in the inspiration, infallibility, and

inerrancy of the Bible. Evangelicals also hold to Sola Scriptura, that famous reformation

doctrine which states that Bible alone is authoritative (as opposed to the pope, or apostolic

tradition), and the concept of the preservation of the Bible.

Liberalism believes that the Bible contains the Word of God. On one hand liberals

believe that the Bible contains errors, that the human authors often made mistakes and

misrepresentations about the truth, that the written record is corrupt, that commonly believed

authors of various books did not actually author those books, and so forth. Yet, on the other

hand, liberals believe that there is still some truth to be discovered in the pages of Scripture.

They embrace higher criticism to help identify truth from error.

The neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical positions are closely related and believe that

the Bible becomes the Word of God. Even though the Bible is considered to be errant, the voice

of God can be heard through a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. It becomes necessary to try

to distinguish between the voice of God and the voice of man. Like the liberal view, this view

also embraces higher criticism of the Bible to determine what’s true and what’s not.

In these ways, some Christians have attempted to find ways to cope with the “new

truth” gained through the Enlightenment. They believe that a fallible Bible is perfectly

compatible with Christianity. However, this is wrong, and the evangelical community, in

particular Mike Licona and those evangelicals who support him, would do well to avoid making

similar concessions. Here’s why.

Inerrancy Was The First Leg To Fall

Earlier, we looked at how the Christian faith can be likened to a table that stands on

the three legs on inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy. What is clear in our review of the

14

Enlightenment is that inerrancy was the first leg to fall. Beginning with Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume

and the like, we see this line of reasoning develop: (1) Miracles are not possible, (2) there is no

supernatural (everything is natural), (3) the Bible is wrong when it talks about these things (not

inerrant), (4) it cannot have originated from a perfect being (not inspired), and (5) it therefore is

not absolutely authoritative and binding (not infallible).

Where Does it End?

Dr. Mike Licona is walking down the same slippery slope. When a passage is

determined to be not possible, and is stripped of its supernatural strength, the only conclusion is

that the biblical authors made a mistake, inerrancy falls, followed by inspiration and infallibility.

Once allowance is made in one passage on the basis of “it sounds like lore, legend, or it seems

like too much of a miracle”, what prevents us from erasing other passages? Once the floodgate

opens, where does it end?

Indeed, with Licona’s concession that the Matthew 27 passage might be lore, he has

opened up Pandora’s Box of doubt on the entire gospel record. His concession forces him to

reevaluate significant passages as well. In addition to denying the physical resurrection of the

saints, Licona goes on to further deny the following: (1) The denial of the historicity of the mob

falling backward at Jesus claim “I am he” in John 18:4-6.27 (2) A denial of the historicity of the

angels at the tomb recorded in all four Gospels (Mt. 28:2-7; Mk. 16:5-7; Lk. 24:4-7; Jn. 20:11-

14.28 (3) The claim that the Gospel genre is Greco-Roman biography which he says is a “flexible

genre” in which “it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins”.29 (4)

Additionally, in a debate with Bart Erhman at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the spring of

27 (Licona 2010, 306, note 114)

28 Ibid. pp.185-186.

29 Ibid. p.34.

15

2009, Licona asserted concerning the day Jesus was crucified: “I think that John probably altered

the day in order for a theological—to make a theological point there.”30

Is Mike Licona the Next Bart Ehrman?

It appears that Licona might well be on his way to becoming the next Bart Ehrman,

with an impressive list of evangelical scholarship following closely behind. Who is Bart Ehrman

and why is he important to this discussion? Bart Ehrman serves as a warning sign of what can

happen to evangelicals who are tempted to give in and explain away difficult passages in the

Biblical text. In Ehrman’s story we see that when it is carried to its logical conclusion, it

ultimately ends in a complete denial of the Christian faith, leaving the former believer in a

miserable stake of agnosticism.

Ehrman began as a typical evangelical Christian. He encountered the gospel while in

high school at a Campus Life Youth for Christ club. He made a decision to become born-again.

As a new Christian, Ehrman displayed passion and zeal for the Lord, and held a fundamental,

evangelical view of Scripture. He believed that the Bible was authoritative, without error, and

was committed to studying it as such by enrolling at Moody Bible Institute to study Biblical

theology, eventually transferring, and then graduating from Wheaton College. He then enrolled

at Princeton Theological Seminary for higher education.

It was at Princeton that Ehrman’s perspective on the Bible changed. It all came down

to a term paper surrounding a challenging passage in Mark 2. In the passage where Jesus says

David went in and ate the showbread, Mark says Abiathar was high priest (Mark 2:26) while the

verse Mark was quoting from (1 Samuel 21:1-6) seems to suggest that Ahimelech was high

30 (Geisler, Licona’s Denial of Inerrancy: The List Grows 2011)

16

priest—how can this be if the Bible is without error?31 Ehrman filled up his term paper with “a

long and complicated argument” on how to resolve this difficulty. And he assumed that his

professor would appreciate his hard work in resolving it. But in his Ehrman’s own words:

…at the end of my paper he made a simple one-lined comment that for some reasonwent straight through me. He wrote: “Maybe Mark just made a mistake." I startedthinking about it, considering all the work I had put into the paper, realizing that I hadhad to do some pretty fancy exegetical footwork to get around the problem, and that mysolution was in fact a bit of a stretch. I finally concluded, “Hmm … maybe Mark didmake a mistake.”32

Watch what happened next:

Once I made that admission, the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little,picayune mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well.Maybe, when Jesus says later in Mark 4 that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seedson the earth,” maybe I don’t need to come up with a fancy explanation for how themustard seed is the smallest of all seeds when I know full well it isn’t. And maybe these“mistakes” apply to bigger issues. Maybe when Mark says that Jesus was crucified theday after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15:25) and John says he died the daybefore it was eaten (John 19:14)—maybe that is a genuine difference. Or when Lukeindicates in his account of Jesus’s birth that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth justover a month after they had come to Bethlehem (and performed the rites of purification;Luke 2:39), whereas Matthew indicates they instead fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:19-22)—maybe that is a difference. Or when Paul says that after he converted on the way toDamascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal.1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that that was the first thing he did after leavingDamascus (Acts 9:26)—maybe that is a difference.33

The concession that there might be one little error in Mark 2 turned Ehrman into a

full-fledged liberal. He eventually became an agnostic. And this is my point—if we allow even

one little error in the Biblical text, nothing can be certain in the Biblical text, and the very

foundation of Christianity crumbles. But why must it end this way?

31 There are many satisfactory resolutions to this passage. One can be found under Appendix 1.

32 (Ehrman 2007, 9)

33 (Ehrman 2007, 9-10)

17

The Bible Is The Only Special Revelation We Have

An attack on Biblical inerrancy is an attack on special revelation. There are only two

avenues whereby we can know truth. The first is general revelation and the second is special

revelation. Through general revelation we can know some things about God. Using rationality

and reason, we understand that there must be a creator and designer of this vastly complex

universe. We can also clearly understand that there is an absolute moral law. We know right

from wrong by our own reaction when wrong is done to us, and we intuitively know we should

not treat people this way.34 However, there is a limit to what we can know about God through

logic, rational senses and reason.

This is why special revelation is important. While we’re limited with general

revelation, we can know everything God has chosen to reveal to us through special revelation.

Through special revelation, we learn of the truths of (1) the tri-unity of God, (2) the virgin birth

of Christ, (3) the deity of Christ, (4) the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin, (5)

the physical and miraculous resurrection of Christ, (6) the necessity of salvation by faith alone

through God’s grace alone based on the work of Christ alone, (7) the physical bodily return of

Christ to earth, (8) the eternal conscious bliss of the saved and (9) the eternal conscious

punishment of the unsaved.35

The Bible is the only record of special revelation we have. If we remove special

revelation all we are left with is general revelation. All we would know is that there is some kind

of God who gave us moral law, and we individually have failed to keep it. We would be

34 The Bible validates general revelation. Paul says mankind clearly perceives God but doesn’t receiveHim (Romans 1:18-22) and later says that mankind has the work on the moral law on their hearts, so they arewithout excuse (Romans 2:14-16).

35 These along with inspiration are the beliefs that define an evangelical Christian. (Geisler, SystematicTheology, Vol. 1: Introduction, Bible 2002, 15)

18

incapable of knowing this God, reminded constantly of our own failure to please Him, uncertain

of our past or our future, living out or days in a wretched state of miserable ignorance, until we

cross the void into the unknown. What a horrible state of existence!

And it all begins with making a simple concession that the Bible contains one little

error, just like Ehrman did, and just like Licona and others are now doing. If history repeats

itself, with further reasoning, they may very well end up agnostics. Of course, it doesn’t always

end this way, but it certainly is the logical conclusion. Consider the following hypothetical

argument.

Basic Logical Argument

If we accept that the Bible contains any errors what we are saying is this: (1) 0.0̄1% to

100% is error. The amount is unknown. It could be slightly in error or 100% of it could be in

error. (2) Because of error, 0 to 99.9̄% is authoritative. The amount is unknown. It could be

90% authoritative, 80%, or 0%. (3) Jesus is in error for He believed 100% was authoritative. (4)

Jesus is not God because God cannot err. (5) Jesus is not an acceptable sin sacrifice because He

would be a sinner with blemish (He lied and/or misrepresented the truth), and we are still in our

sins. (6) We cannot be certain about anything revealed through special revelation: the nature and

character of God, salvation, or future events, whether there is even a judgment to come, heaven,

or hell. (7) We could only be certain of that which comes through general revelation—that there

is a God, and we have failed to keep His moral law. (8) We are left in a miserable state where we

are condemned and cannot know God (agnosticism).

This is precisely where the philosophers of the Enlightenment have led us as a

society, precisely where Bart Ehrman has ended up personally, and where Mike Licona and

others who adopt his methodology may very well end up over time.

19

Preventing Truth Decay

What can be done to prevent “truth decay”? Thankfully, steps have already been

taken within our generation to ensure that the evangelical view of Scripture is upheld for

generations to come. Thanks to the efforts of Normal Geisler, R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer, we

have the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI). The ICBI was founded in 1977

specifically over concerns of the erosion of Biblical inerrancy. Christian leaders, theologians

and pastors assembled together three times over the course of a decade to address the issue. At

the first meeting a doctrinal statement was jointly created entitled “The Chicago Statement on

Biblical Inerrancy” which clearly defined Biblical inerrancy. This document has been described

as “a landmark church document” created

by the then largest, broadest, group of evangelical protestant scholars that ever cametogether to create a common, theological document in the 20th century. It is probably thefirst systematically comprehensive, broadly based, scholarly, creed-like statement on theinspiration and authority of Scripture in the history of the church.36

Because the document is described in this way, it is included in its entirety under

Appendix 2. All who hold a high, inerrant view of Scripture would do well to read, understand,

affirm and promote the points touched upon in this document.

Calling A Spade A Spade

However, it would appear that simply having a document such as The Chicago

Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is not enough. It must be enforced, so to speak. Anybody who

has children knows that it is not enough to simply have rules around the house. These rules must

be enforced. Otherwise, the children behave as if there are no rules at all, and there is further

breakdown.

36 (Dallas Theological Seminary n.d.)

20

In conclusion, the concern is that we are now seeing within certain academic

evangelical circles a departure from the traditional view of inerrancy, yet once again. And the

rules must be enforced. If Dr. Mike Licona (who is now at Houston Baptist University) and

those who support him want to believe that there is legend and lore in the gospel records, and

that the records are not one-hundred percent factual, fine. But they should not be allowed to

present this as if it’s inerrancy. Call it what it is, but don’t call it evangelical. It’s time for

seminary leaders and the evangelical community to take a stand lest we see further erosion. In

the words of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapsesfrom the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of thisdoctrine in the world at large… We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, butof humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialoguearising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny theinerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of theirbelief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny itin life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into truesubjection to the divine Word.37

May God help us to this end, for inerrancy is the foundation of everything.

37 (ICBI 1978)

21

Appendix 1: A Satisfactory Answer To The Mark 2:26 Passage

The following comes from When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties38 andprovides a satisfactory answer to the passage that caused Dr. Bart Ehrman to depart frominerrancy. It is one of several satisfactory answers to the supposed challenge, which can befreely found through a simple search online.

MARK 2:26—Was Jesus wrong when He mentioned Abiathar as high priest instead ofAhimelech?

PROBLEM: Jesus says that at the time David ate the consecrated bread, Abiathar was highpriest. Yet 1 Samuel 21:1–6 mentions that the high priest at that time was Ahimelech.

SOLUTION: First Samuel is correct in stating that the high priest was Ahimelech. On the otherhand neither was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at Christ’s words we notice that Heused the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26) which does not necessarily imply that Abiatharwas high priest at the time David ate the bread. After David met Ahimelech and ate the bread,King Saul had Ahimelech killed (1 Sam. 22:17–19). Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20)and later took the place of the high priest. So even though Abiathar was made high priest afterDavid ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this manner. After all, Abiathar was alive whenDavid did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s death. Thus, it wasduring the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in office.

38 (Geisler, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties 1992)

22

Appendix 2: Full Text of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ONBIBLICAL INERRANCY

(TOPIC NO. 1)

Copyright 1978, ICBI. All rights reserved. From theDallas Theological Seminary Archives, Repository of ICBI Archives39

PREFACEThe authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Thosewho profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of theirdiscipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture infaith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness ofHoly Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear ourunderstanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to setaside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to theclaims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty tomake this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among ourfellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation andDenial, and an accompanying Exposition, which is not included here. It has been prepared inthe course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who signed the Summary Statementand the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and toencourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation andunderstanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in abrief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yetwe rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and wepray that the Statement we signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a newreformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which wepurpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said.We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display theconsequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that

39 (ICBI 1978); An exposition of the statement (not reproduced here) can also be found athttp://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf

23

we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds,our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this Statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmationsabout Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand aswe speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help whichenables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

A SHORT STATEMENT1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in orderthereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord,Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by HisSpirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed,as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires;embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inwardwitness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching,no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, andabout its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individuallives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in anyway limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own;and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

ARTICLE IWe affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any otherhuman source.

ARTICLE IIWe affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds theconscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal tothe authority of the Bible.

24

ARTICLE IIIWe affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation inencounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

ARTICLE IVWe affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means ofrevelation.We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is renderedinadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of humanculture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

ARTICLE VWe affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects orcontradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since thecompletion of the New Testament writings.

ARTICLE VIWe affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of theoriginal, were given by divine inspiration.We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without theparts, or of some parts but not the whole.

ARTICLE VIIWe affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers,gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remainslargely a mystery to us.We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states ofconsciousness of any kind.

ARTICLE VIIIWe affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities andliterary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrodetheir personalities.

ARTICLE IXWe affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true andtrustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak andwrite.We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduceddistortion or falsehood into God's Word.

25

ARTICLE XWe affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text ofScripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts withgreat accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of Godto the extent that they faithfully represent the original.We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of theautographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancyinvalid or irrelevant.

ARTICLE XIWe affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, farfrom misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in itsassertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

ARTICLE XIIWe affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from falsehood, fraud, ordeceit.We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, orredemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We furtherdeny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn theteaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

ARTICLE XIIIWe affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to thecomplete truthfulness of Scripture.We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error thatare alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblicalphenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling,observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole andround numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallelaccounts, or the use of free citations.

ARTICLE XIVWe affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate thetruth claims of the Bible.

ARTICLE XVWe affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible aboutinspiration.We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals toaccommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

26

ARTICLE XVIWe affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout itshistory.We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionaryposition postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

ARTICLE XVIIWe affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of thetruthfulness of God's written Word.We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

ARTICLE XVIIIWe affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis,taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it thatleads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims toauthorship.

ARTICLE XIXWe affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture isvital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that suchconfession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny thatinerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to theChurch.

27

Bibliography

A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic

Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company,

1885.

—. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II: Fathers of the Second Century. Buffalo, NY: Christian

Literature Company, 1885.

AllAboutPhilosophy.org. Agnosticism. n.d. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnosticism-

faq.htm (accessed 12 13, 2012).

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa theologica (Complete English ed.). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research

Systems, Inc., 2009.

Credo House Ministries. Press Release: Michael Licona Response to Norm Geisler. September

8, 2011. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/09/press-release-michael-licona-

response-to-norm-geisler/.

Dallas Theological Seminary. Records of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. n.d.

http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

HarperOne, 2007.

Galli, M., and T. Olsen. 131 Christians everyone should know. Nashville, TN: Broadman &

Holman Publishers, 2000.

Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy. Matthews, NC: Bastion Books, 2012.

—. Licona’s Denial of Inerrancy: The List Grows. December 22, 2011.

http://www.veritasseminary.com/LiconaListGrows.pdf.

—. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: Introduction, Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House

Publishers, 2002.

28

—. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books,

1992.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England:

Inter-Varsity Press, 2004.

ICBI. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. 1978.

http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerran

cy_A&D.pdf.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. IVP

Academic, 2010.

Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978.

Mohler, R. Albert. The Devil is in the Details: Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy.

September 14, 2011. http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-

details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona-controversy/.

Morris, Henry M. Sir Francis Bacon. El Cajon, CA: Masters Books, 1990.

P. Schaff & H. Wace, Ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the

Christian Church, Second Series, Volume VI. New York: Christian Literature Company,

1893.

R. Brannan. The Apostolic Fathers in English. Logos Bible Software, 2012.

Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth.

Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

Schaff, Philip Ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian

Church, First Series, Volume I: The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin With a

Sketch of His Life and Work. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.