Tags : :
Houston Baptist hires denier of Bible Inerrancy Houston Baptist University Defends Licona’s Denial of Inerrancy
IMO, given time, there will be only a few Church members that question a new pastor's beliefs unless something is done now to cause them to be aware of what is happening even in our Semanaries and Church leadership.
Maybe this trend has caught us unaware. I know there will be areas where we disagree with a teaching in almost any Church. Unless it is one of the Essentials of the Faith it can be watched to see if that is beginning to happen. Then it is time to leave IMMEDIATELY. Finding a place to go is the problem! We can't stick our heads in the sand though it is hard to talk to a long time member that your Church may be leading you astray.
The article was too long to post all of it so you see I have partial quotes and the URL below has the entire article.
Despite the fact that Mike Licona lost his positions at the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and at Liberty University subsequent to the public criticism of his views on inerrancy by Southern Baptist leaders like Al Mohler and Page Patterson and others, Houston Baptist hired Licona and placed its blessing on his views. (reported in the Baptist Press [BP] 2/6/2013)."
In a debate with Bart Ehrman at Southern Evangelical Seminary (Spring, 2009) Licona declared, “I think that John probably altered the day [of Jesus’ crucifixion] in order for a theological—to make a theological point there.
R. C. Sproul said flatly, “As the former and only president of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Mr. Michael Licona’s views are not even remotely compatible with the united Statements of ICBI” (Letter May 22, 2012, emphasis added).
Licona still embraces the view that it is compatible with inerrancy to accept the Greco-Roman view that there are legends in the Gospels. Licona claims this Greco-Roman view is a “flexible genre,” and “it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins” Indeed, he adds, “Bios offered the ancient biographer great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches…and they often included legends”.
http://youtu.be/TJ8rZukh_Bc , Licona affirmed the following: “So um this didn’t really bother me in terms of if there were contradictions in the Gospels…. So um it didn’t really bother me a whole lot even if some contradictions existed. So, “as I started to note some of these liberties that he took I immediately started to recognize that these are the same liberties that I noticed the Evangelists did, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”. So, “these most commonly cited differences in the Gospels that skeptics like Ehrman like to refer to as contractions aren't contradictions after all. They are just the standard biographical liberties that ancient biographers of that day took.”
Licona’s claim that he is not “dehistoricizing” is bogus since it is based on the false assumption that the Gospels are not making a claim to be historical. Licona denied the historicity of the resurrected saints in Matthew 27. He wrote in his book on The Resurrection of Jesus that the resurrection of the saints narrative was “a weird residual fragment”
He called it “poetical,” a “legend,” an “embellishment,” and literary “special effects”. He adds, “It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend,
He declared: “We may also be reading poetic language of legend at certain points, such as …the angels at the tomb. He also suggested that the mob falling backward at Jesus claim in John 18:4-6 may not be historical but could be a legendary embellishment.
Licona affirms that the Gospels sometimes embellished Jesus’ words. He wrote, “For this reason, we get a sense that the canonical Gospels are reading authentic reports of Jesus’ arrest and death…even if some embellishments are present” (RJ, 306). This is contrary to Luke 1:1-4 which affirms that the Gospels are based on the accounts of “eyewitness.”
Even Licona admits that "... You may lose some form of biblical inerrancy if there are contradictions in the Gospels, but you still have the truth of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead, and I think that's the most important point we can make"
As Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwest Baptist theological Seminary, aptly put it: “Let’s be clear. A story, an affirmation, is either true or false, but not both true and false in the same way at the same time. That is a long accepted law of logic, and no amount of fudging can make it change.
While I have no reason to question the sincerity of the author and while only God can judge his heart, Southern Baptists paid far too great a price to insist on the truthfulness of God’s Word to now be lured by a fresh emergence of the priesthood of the philosopher, especially when a philosopher raises a question about the truthfulness of Scripture” (1/9/2012).END OF QUOTES