Norman Geisler: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

For those of you who don't know, a "controversy" has erupted in 'Evangelical circles' in the United States. I use inverted commas when I say "controversy" because the subject being discussed is so non-controversial that it is truly mind-boggling how anyone could be so infantile as to make an issue out of this. Michael Licona, a Christian apologist and New Testament scholar who has done admirable work for God's Kingdom, has recently published a new book that came out last year entitled The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which is perhaps the most solid defence of the resurrection of Jesus to date. The source of the "controversy" in Dr. Licona's interpretation of Matthew 27, which describes an event where dead saints are resurrected on the eve of Jesus' crucifixion, an event only described in Matthew. Dr. Licona believes that it is best interpreted as apocalyptic imagery rather than as a historical event. Where is the controversy you may be asking? Indeed, when I first heard about this I asked the very same question. It seems as if Norman Geisler, whom I had never even so much as heard of prior to this 'debacle,' has taken issue with his interpretation, not because it is wrong but because it is "against inerrancy." I kid you not.

Now, I do not hold to Biblical Inerrancy, nor do I hold to Divine Inspiration or even Sola Scriptura. These are all infantile doctrines that have no place in a serious-minded Christian's theology, as they serve to undermine Christ's authority as God's sole revelation to humanity. They are not affirmed by scripture, nor are they necessary. Yet, I fundamentally disagree with Geisler. How does one's interpretation of scripture determine whether the Bible is inerrant? If Dr. Licona is correct, and the resurrection of saints was intended as apocalyptic rather than historical, how does this count as an error in any way? The issue is whether or not Dr. Licona is correct or not and, since I am personally friends with Licona's son-in-law Nick Peters and thus am in a position to know, I can tell you that Dr. Licona is the kind of man to accept correction with humility. Geisler would need to show that Licona's interpretation is erroneous.

However, this is not what Geisler has done. Instead, he has thrown a temper tantrum and resorted to the worst kinds of childish tactics. Not only has he consistently attacked Dr. Licona, repeatedly, but has now tried to poison the well against Dr. Licona by taking snippets of Licona's book where the word 'myth' (amongst others) is used and then presented them as if there were all from Licona's pen when in actual fact Licona is merely considering the hypotheses of others. Indeed, one such example comes from a footnote quoting somebody else! This is truly deplorable, and demonstrably un-Christian. Now, not being beleaguered by insufferably sub-Biblical doctrines derived from the still-born Reformation, I personally have no problem with accepting either interpretation. The interesting thing, however, is that a number of Licona's fellow Inerrantists have come out in support of him, even if they disagree with his interpretation. For example, William Lane Craig entertained this interpretation in a podcast back in 2008, and continues to defend Dr. Licona, as does Paul Copan, Daniel Wallace, JP Holding, et al.

One issue that I would also like to raise is that how one interprets this passage does not affect whether the Bible is inerrant or not and to suggest otherwise is perhaps the most prolific example of overweening stupidity and ignorance possible for any human being to articulate whilst simultaneously knowing how to function in human society. In order to deny inerrancy, then one has to suggest that the Bible could feasibly contain errors. Yet Licona is not suggesting this at all, he is suggesting that we have interpreted Matthew's intentions incorrectly. Geisler, it seems, is putting his personal interpretation of scripture on par with scripture itself. Something that I find deliciously ironic considering Geisler, as a fundamentalist 'evangelical' protestant, presumably holds to sola scriptura and all that other rubbish.

Now, Biblical Inerrancy and Divine Inspiration are inherently problematic for me. The general explanation is that God's Holy Spirit indwelt within the Apostles and miraculously caused them to write down exactly what God wanted. This raises a good number of major problems:
1. The Holy Spirit indwells in all Christians; those whom accept Jesus and follow His commands. As such, why were the Apostles inerrant in what they pontificated upon and regular Christians not?
2. Such overriding of the Apostles' free wills fits Calvinism, but not the Biblical description of Divine Providence.
3. Even if we accept Calvinism (as jarringly un-Biblical as it is), then we are still at a loss to explain why God allows some to be Inerrant, but not others (in the same way we are at a loss to explain why God chooses some to be saved and other to be damned under a Calvinist framework.)
4. The Apostles disagreed with each other. For example, the disagreement between Peter and Paul, which is recorded in scripture itself. If the Apostle's Gospel accounts were inerrant, then why aren't their other pontifications inerrant also?

It is much easier to believe what the Bible actually teaches: namely that God's Word (God the Son) became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and that God, being omniscient, chose the right time and place to become incarnate so that His message of salvation could be written down as accurately as humanly possible and that if there are any errors, they are tiny ones that do not affect His message whatsoever. I personally think no such errors have ever actually come to light, since I don't think any actually exist. I just don't hold to the incredibly naive belief that it is completely without error just because it is the Bible. Now, a stupid person might ask what basis we have for this if we deny inerrancy. Simple, the evidence. I believe what I believe based on evidence and experience. There is mountains of evidence for the general reliability of the Gospels, and I have experienced God. There is mountains of evidence that the resurrection occurred as a historical event. I do not do what Geisler does and blindly accept these things a priori just because I was bought up believing those things.

Geisler, in creating this controversy where no controversy existed, has handed the enemies of Christianity a powerful weapon. His conduct is uncharitable, and more seriously un-Christian. Dr. Licona is universally recognised as a foremost Christian Apologist and New Testament scholar whose work is both valued and well-received. Norman Geisler's legacy is denouncing such a well-renowned scholar as "denying inerrancy" simply for disagreeing with his personal interpretation of scripture. Matthew 7:15-16 says: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" I recognise Geisler's fruits as being thoroughly rotten to the core.