by Steve Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, McFarland Chair of Theology, and Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

A debate has been swirling in Apologetics circles (particularly the Evangelical Philosophical Society) between two well-known and effective Christian apologists, Norman Geisler and Michael Licona. We at SBC Today have been aware of the debate for some time, but withheld comments on it in hope that a resolution amenable to all parties would take place. After the EPS meeting in San Francisco earlier this month, it has become apparent that no such reconciliation is likely. Therefore, we want to describe our understanding of what has happened (in Part 1), particularly for those of you who were not previously aware of this controversy. In a future post (Part 2), we would like to attempt to provide some perspective on the debate.

The subject of this controversy is Mike Licona, a Christian apologist who (until recently) served as Apologetics Coordinator for the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as a research professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary in North Carolina. He has spoken and debated on behalf of positions held by evangelical Christians in numerous venues – regional Baptist meetings, evangelism conferences, scholarly meetings, and college campuses. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, which requires an affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture as a prerequisite for membership. So, to summarize, Licona is a conservative evangelical and inerrantist who has served the SBC effectively in addressing Apologetics issues in conferences, churches, and college campuses.

The focus of the controversy is several pages in Licona’s new book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2010). The overwhelming majority of this book is very positive, presenting a careful and well-researched scholarly defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. However, it is just a few pages (pp. 185-186, 548-553) out of this 718 page book around which the controversy has swirled. On these pages Licona addresses “that strange little text” (p. 548) in Matt. 27:52-53, which describes six events after the crucifixion – darkness, an earthquake, the tearing of the temple veil, rocks splitting, the opening of tombs, and some saints coming to life from the tombs. Licona mentions this scriptural account while addressing John Dominic Crossan’s hypothesis that these events were associated with the “harrowing of hell” (1 Pet. 3:19-20, 4:6). Licona suggests that apocalyptic events such as these were claimed in Greco-Roman literature at the death of kings (Romulus, Julius Caeser, Cladius, etc.) and similar significant events. Indeed, Licona notes, the Roman historian Lucian openly admitted that he embellished his stores “for the sake of ‘dullards’” (p. 549).

Licona also notes the similarity of these words and events with the apocalyptic language utilized in Old Testament texts (Judg. 5:4; 1 Kings 19:11-12; Ps. 77:18; Isa. 2:19, 5:25, 24:18; Jer. 4:23-24, 15:9; Ezek. 37:12-13; Dan. 12:2; Joel 2:2, 10, 28-32; Amos 8:8-9; Nah. 1:5-6; Zeph. 1:15-18; and Zech. 14:4). Since Matthew would have been familiar with this Old Testament apocalyptic language and the practice of “phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature relating to major events,” Licona proposes that it is “most plausible” that Matt. 27:53-54 be understood as “special effects” drawn from “eschatological Jewish texts” (p. 552). Licona also “forthrightly” acknowledges that not only these events but also including the post-resurrection appearances of angels (Matt. 28:2-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-7, and John 20:11-13) were possibly “mixed with legend” (p. 185). Licona holds this interpretation despite acknowledging that (a) the darkness was reported in all three Synoptic gospels, as well as by the secular historian Thallus, and (b) that earthquakes were common in that region, which would have accounted for the earthquake, the tearing of the temple veil, the rocks splitting, and the tombs opening.

Enter Norman Geisler. Norman Geisler is one of the best known conservative Christian apologists over the last few decades, the former President of Southern Evangelical Seminary and of the Evangelical Theological Society. He was a framer and original signer of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and wrote the commentary for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Geisler expressed concern that Licona’s interpretation of Matt. 27:52-53 did not pass muster with inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement. After a personal note received no response from Licona for a month, Geisler published his first open letter to Licona. After Licona continued not to respond, Geisler published a second open letter (August 21, 2011). Licona did respond with his own open letter (August 31), which included Licona’s reaffirmation of inerrancy, an acknowledgment that in any such book “there will always be portions in which one could have articulated a matter more appropriately,” and a statement that the furor had led him to “reexamine” his position, resulting in at least this concession: “…at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.” Geisler responded with a third open letter (September 8), in which he did not find Licona’s concessions sufficient. At the ETS meeting in San Francisco, Licona presented a paper that defended the ahistorical reading of Matthew 27, but also characterized himself as “undecided” in interpreting that text. Geisler responded to Licona’s paper as well.

By this time, a number of others were weighing in on the debate. Al Mohler published a post largely critical of Licona, to which Licona responded. Baptist Press had two articles, one citing the concerns with Licona’s views, and another offering a response from Licona. Geisler then posted his response to the Baptist Press articles. Among others, Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, James White, and Nick Norelli (here and here) essentially agreed with Geisler and Mohler that Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27 (and inerrancy) was problematic. Christianity Today also published an article on the controversy, (basically pro-Licona) to which Geisler also responded.

On the other side, a number of Christian apologists and New Testament scholars rose to Licona’s defense (while not necessarily agreeing with his interpretation of Matthew 27), asserting that Licona’s view was not inconsistent with inerrancy. Some such defenders included (among many others) Licona’s son-in-law Nick Peters (here and here), Steve Hays (here and here), Jason Engwer, Max Andrews, Jacob Allee (here and here),  Randy Everist, Brian LePort, Marc Cortez, Michael Bird, Randal Rauser, J. P. Holding, and Dave Jones. In addition, after Licona’s first response to Geisler, a number of well-known evangelical scholars affirmed that despite most of them disagreeing with Licona’s specific interpretation of Matthew 27, “we are in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy.” This group included David Beck, Craig Blomberg, James Chancellor, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Keener, Douglas Moo, J. P. Moreland, Daniel B. Wallace, and Edwin Yamauchi. Paul Copan, President of EPS, while also disagreeing with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27, has also affirmed that Licona’s view is consistent with inerrancy.

Meanwhile, secular humanists and skeptics have gleefully enjoyed the intramural evangelical fight, though clearly siding with the Licona perspective (here, here, and here). This has led some evangelicals such as Stephen Bedard to plea for peace from both sides.

So, what do you think about all this? I’ll be providing my perspective in Part 2.

Among Christians it is common knowledge that humans are made in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:26-27). In recent days, however, there have been an increasing number of Christians who are embracing an evolutionary origin of man. One of the leading proponents of this view is Dr. Francis Collins, who is famous for his groundbreaking work mapping the human genome. Collins published his belief in Theism in his 2006 book titled, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In 2009 Collins started an organization titled BioLogos which explores the relationship between science, faith and the Bible. Collins fully embraces Darwinian evolution as the mechanism for the creation of humans. He now serves as the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda Maryland and remains very influential to many Christians and their belief about human origins.

I don’t question at all Dr. Collin’s faith nor do I wish to impugn a fellow Christian brother’s character. However, I do wish to fully and openly disagree with his view on human origins through Theistic evolution. Theistic evolution not only entails a low view of human nature but also does not take into account solid evidence that humans are and have remained unique throughout earth’s history. Our uniqueness stems from the fact that at the very beginning humans were made in God’s image and likeness, with all that it entails. Of course God is a spirit (John 4:23) and His image in humans is a spiritual image. As such, mankind is valuable and greatly loved by God (John 3:16-21). When David served as a shepherd he looked up into the Milky-Way galaxy at night and pondered one of the deepest philosophical questions humans have ever asked, “What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For you have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:4-5).Last year, in 2010 the news feeds were all abuzz about a new discovery which would shed light on human origins. The name of the fossil was “Ardi” which was short for Ardipithecus Ramidus.  Ardi is a fossil skeleton of a primate that scientists claim lived 4.4 million years ago. In the journal Science a special issue examining Ardi was published which featured 11 articles written by researchers touting the importance of the fossil for understanding human evolution.

Ardi was discovered in the early 90’s (92-93) – but nothing was published or said “officially” about it until now. One of the reasons is because it took years to clean the bones, analyze them, reconstruct them, and restore the skeleton to its original dimensions. Apparently after Ardi died her remains were trampled into the mud by large animals such as hippos and other large animals. Eons later, after much erosion the remains (which were badly crushed) came to the surface.

One point to keep in mind is that, whenever a scientist offers a reconstructed skeleton – the reconstruction of that fossil is far less perfect than the “experts” let on. It is based partly on artistic speculation.

A team of researchers lead by Dr. Tim White (of U.C. Berkley) discovered the fossil. It is supposedly a very important “step” toward human evolution. According to White:

“Instead of thinking of something between a chimp and a human – don’t think of it as a series of links in a chain as much as branches in a tree”

So he stops short of saying that it is a missing-link – It’s not a chimp and it’s not a human – it has features that show it as distinct from both apes AND humans.

What’s really interesting is that the researchers themselves are not confident enough to say that Ardi is a human ancestor as opposed to simply an extinct ape.

When they were asked (In a BBC report) whether A. ramidus was our direct ancestor or not, the team stated that more fossils from different places and time periods were needed to answer the question.

There is even a growing criticism from other fellow evolutionary anthropologists about the significance of Ardi. Harvard paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam told ScienceNOW “I find it hard to believe that numerous similarities of chimps and gorillas evolved convergently”

Convergence is the idea that evolution can occur horizontally and simultaneously rather than just in a linear fashion (or by a step by step advancement from simple to complex).

Is Ardi “physical evidence” that humans evolved from ape-like creatures? In short; the answer is no.

The assumption today is that evolution is true [it is accepted uncritically as dogma not science]. According to the majority of scientists Darwinian evolution is unfalsifiable – but again – this can’t be science – it must be dogma or belief.

Marvin Lubenow writes, “To the evolutionist there is but one primary fact in the universe: evolution. Everything else is just data. The value of this data does not depend upon its intrinsic quality but upon whether or not it supports evolution and its time scale. Good data is that which supports evolution. Bad data is that which does not fit evolution, and is to be discarded. It is time to ask the paleontological community, ‘At what point does philosophical bias in the interpretation of the human fossil material become intellectual dishonesty?’ ”[1]

“Ardi” is seen by many evolutionist to be “good” data in support of the claim of human evolution. If, in the long run, Ardi proves to go counter to evolution and its claims then it will be discarded.

What are some problems with it?

First off – Ardi is NOT a human fossil – nor is it a complete fossil. It was composed of many individuals (36 to be exact!) scattered around and then reassembled by researchers

There are many unproven and rather unscientific assumptions when it comes to fossil interpretation in general – it is still (with all of our modern scientific tools) a very new science. Not to mention the fact that human fossils are very, very rare as compared with the total number of fossils we know of – 95% of all known fossils are marine invertebrates; .7% are algae and plants; 0.2% are insects and other invertebrates; 0.1% are vertebrates. Finally only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates (humans, monkeys, apes and lemurs)

Young Earth anthropologist Marvin Lubenow writes: “In the New Scientist ‘The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table’ – One anthropologist has compared the task [of reconstructing humans descending from apes] to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.” [2]

Even more amazing is that many researchers on human origins have never seen an original fossil – only models and casts of original specimens

Perhaps what is most damaging to Ardi as well as theories put forth by Collins and other theistic evolutionists is that if we use their own time scale of millions of years, human fossils and hominids (which are primates in the line leading to modern humans); there are anatomically modern humans living side by side (contemporaries) with most of the so-called missing links (such as “Lucy” et. al.). We are told that humans evolved from these primate lines yet the evidence proves otherwise. Modern humans were living side by side with our “so-called” primate cousins. How could this be? The reason is because humans were created as special and unique from the very beginning just as the Scripture says (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7). After considering this evidence Southerners might have to stop using the phrase, “Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!”

As a human you are made in His image and in His likeness. This is why God thought it worthwhile to send His Only Begotten Son to die a violent death on a Roman Cross two-thousand years ago. After all, Christ came to save men who are made in His image and to redeem fallen creation from the curse (Romans 5:6-10; Isaiah 65:17), and theistic evolution greatly undermines this foundational truth of the Christian faith.

Ted W. Wright

Maybe you haven’t seen this video of a young man making this poetic “speech” about being sorry for being a Christian.  He even uses the F word a couple of times in his “poem.”  It makes you wonder why he felt the need to use the F word in a poem, where he was going after Christians and others for all the ills of Christendom that he sees.  You can see his “poem” on this site  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EieFdXy_HwM on youtube.  I warn you now that he has a potty mouth, and he uses the F word.  But, he recites this “poem” to the jeers of the crowd.  They’re especially happy, and you can hear the laughter, when he apologizes right off the bat for being a Christian.

Well, I’m not sorry for being a Christian.  I’m not sorry for calling sin what it is…sin.  I’m not sorry for saying that sin will be judged by God.  Why am I not sorry?  Because a lost man’s sins will be judged by God.  And, the lost crowd needs to hear that.  How can a lost man be saved, until he sees his need of a Savior?  He cant.  So, why would I apologize for calling sin what it is, and for telling people that God is not happy with our sins?  I know that some lost people will call that intolerance, and they’ll think it’s mean and narrow; but it’s the truth.  The truth shall set you free.

Also, I’m sad about the loss of life at the hands of the Crusaders and the Catholic Church.  But, why should I apologize for the Crusades that happened hundreds of years ago.  I wasnt there.  I didn’t do it.  So, why should I apologize for something that happened hundreds of years ago.  Why, it wasn’t even my Church that did this thing.  It wasn’t a Southern Baptist Church.  It wasn’t any Churches that came out of the Reformation.  So, why should I, a 48 year old Believer, apologize  for something that some misguided people did a long time ago?  Why would any Christian feel the need to bring this up and apologize for it?  Why would this make anyone be sorry that they’re a Christian.  I’m not sorry that I’m a Christ Follower, just because of what some knights did back in the dark ages.

BTW, while we should love gay people, I’m certainly not sorry for calling homosexuality what it is.  It is sin.  It is sin that God will judge.  Now,  I know that God will also judge the adulterers and the liars and the thieves and all other sinners.  But, this young man seems to be saying that he’s sorry for calling homosexuality a sin.  Well, young man, it is a sin.  And, those people, who die in this sin, will go to Hell.  They need to be saved, and I do pray that they’ll be saved and go to Heaven.  I love gay people.  I do not hate gay people.  I wish that everyone of them would get saved today.  I certainly hope that I get to spend eternity with all the gay people in this world, because they repented and put their faith in Jesus.  I really do.  But, should I apologize for calling homosexual sex what it is?  A sin.  Never.

Also, I hate that there are homeless people, and I really hate that some men beat their wives.  I wish every homeless person had a home, and I wish that every wife beater would have to spend 30 minutes with CB Scott in a locked room by themselves.  But, you know what?  There will always be homeless people. Jesus said that the poor will always be here. And, some people are homeless because of the bad choices they’ve made in life, and people will continue to make bad choices, and do things like drink alcohol, use drugs, gamble, etc.  And, these choices will cause them and their family to suffer financially, and in many other ways.  Why should I, as a Christ Follower, apologize for the homeless?  I didn’t make them that way, nor can we give them all a home.  Some of them dont even want a home!  Also, why should I apologize and be sorry that I’m a Christian, because of what some drunken, mean man did to his wife?  Christians didn’t make this man into a wife beater.  Christians cant stop men from being wife beaters.  There will always be mean, ornery men out there, who will beat women and children.  That’s just a sad fact of life, and a result of the fall of man.  So, why would this make me be sorry for being a Christian?  I don’t get it.

Also, what Indian tribe was wiped out in the name of the Church?  I thought it was done, because white men wanted the land.  Some of it was done, because white men thought that gold was on the land that the Indians claimed belonged to them.  Why bring the Church into this?  Was General Custer a Christian attacking Indian tribes for some Church?  I mean, really; is some school out there teaching young people that the Church wiped out Indian tribes in America?

As I listened to this video, I was also left wondering if all Christendom should be blamed for the child abuse that has happened in  some Churches?  I was left wondering if preaching the Gospel was something that a Christian should apologize for?  And, did Christians bring in the plague?  Really?  And, maybe he doesn’t know about all the 15 year old girls and others that have been helped by all of the Christian pregnancy centers and Christian counselors that have helped women deal with the awful affects of abortion? Another thing, did Christians start wars between the nations?  Did Christians start WW I; WW II; or the Gulf War?  I don’t recall Dr. R. G. Lee declaring war on Germany.  I don’t recall Dr. A. T. Robertson declaring war on Japan.  Do yall?  What’s this guy talking about in this poem?  Why would anyone say that this poem is something that needed to be heard by all Christ Followers?  What’s the point of this young man’s poem?

This poem reminds me of my college days, where we had some flaky people floating around, who were anti-Church.  You know the types.  They don’t belong to a Church.  They don’t like to commit to anything.  They’d rather show up at a college, Bible study group every now and then; but they don’t get into commitment.  They’re unsound in their doctrine, and they really don’t like for anyone to help them understand the Bible better.  They’d rather complain and whine about all the bad things that they see in their minds about the Church.  Every thing is looked at thru negative glasses concerning the Church and sound doctrine.  I saw many young people on my college campus, back in my college days, who were just flaky and out there, in deep center field, on the fringe, who just saw everything negatively.  Everything was bad, and they were the ones, who could fix it, of course.

Well, I’m glad to be a Christian.  When I look at how most of the hospitals and orphanages in our world were started by Christians, I rejoice.  When I look at all the institutions of higher learning that Christians started, I rejoice.  When I look at all the people who’ve been helped by Churches and Pastors and Christian counselors, then I rejoice.  When I look at all the millions of people, who’ve been saved thru the years, by the witness of Christians and missionaries, I rejoice.  When I look at all the people, who have been ministered to by the prayers of faithful Christian people, I rejoice.  When I look at all the marriages that have been not only helped, but saved, due to the grace of God coming thru a Pastor’s sermons and counsel and prayers and encouragement, then I rejoice that I’m a Christian.  When I look at the people, who were at the brink of suicide, but some Christian helped them find hope in the Lord Jesus, then I rejoice.  When I think of the disaster relief teams that go out in the name of Jesus from SB Churches, and they help people in incredible, heartbreaking disasters, then I rejoice.  When I think about all the people that have been fed, their electric bills paid, their water bills paid, clothes bought, etc. ; paid  by Churches all over the USA and the world, then I rejoice.  And, I’m talking about every week, SB Churches in little towns and big cities all across this land, helping people keep the lights and the heat on; feeding children, etc.; then I rejoice.

I’m not sorry for being a Christian.  I’m thrilled to be a Christ Follower.  I’m excited about being a child of God.  I’m ecstatic about what God is doing thru the Church.  I’m delighted that God uses Christians to do so much good in our world.  Sorry?  Apologize?  Why?  Why should we apologize for being a Christian?  Aren’t you glad to be Christian?

Listen to the podcast using the player below, or visit our iTunes page to subscribe. A click on the link in the sidebar (or on the image in this post) will take you there, and while you’re at it, write us a review or give us a rating. And as always, we welcome your comments here on issues we discuss or on how we can improve the podcast. Thanks for listening.

Links to items discussed:

• Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary
• The Camel Method – Endorsements
• Great Commission Resurgence Task Force
• The Sacred Desk