Did I Get J.I. Packer Wrong? My response to Bill Roach.

____________________

Mike Licona is Professor of New Testament Studies at Houston Christian University. HCU offers an accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HCU campus in Houston.

[DrKippDavis]

How sad for you, Mike, that you have to deal with garbage like this. I am frustrated on your behalf about the obstacles you encounter in your attempts to just do good scholarship. This kind of stuff would drive me nuts.

[jimamberg]

I initially disagreed with your view pretty strongly but your book and discussions have swayed me far closer to your view. Keep up the great work!

[roycevanblaricome]

Thank you, Mike! I first became aware of this from your FB post which took me to Pt. 2. GREATLY appreciate your transparency and providing Pt. 1 and Dr. Roach's video as well. That SPEAKS volumes to your integrity and desire for truth.

I like to watch and critique all sides of a debate as it helps edify my own understanding and often brings clarity. I'll be watching all three.

[roycevanblaricome]

Just finished watching Roach's video and am now about 30min into this. One of the things I really like about Mike is that he approaches things in a very courtly evidentiary manner and Biblical manner with at least 2 or more witnesses.

In addressing one of Bill's claims Mike does something that I often do with folks quoting the Bible. Mike referred back to the immediate preceding and subsequent things said that bookcase the quote. And he shows where he actually says just the opposite of Bill's claim. Thus proving the CONTEXT of what Mike said in totality refutes Bill's claim. This brings into question Bill's ability to clearly and fairly address what Mike says and from what place Bill is coming from. Obviously the Flesh and NOT spirit-led.

[Tom-jvf]

What we learn from this is the very real possibility that the debate at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was probably more complex than the way Luke portrays it. When there is a focused theological disagreement between groups, accusations of misrepresentation or misunderstanding fly, and almost never do all participants agree that any proposed solution is sufficient. I'm sure that Luke's account suppresses evidence against Paul that was supplied by the Judaizers, and it's hard to believe that the apostles would have found so easily in Paul's favor so soon after merely considering Paul's and Barnabas's miracle-testimony.

[waynemershon]

Harsh truth:
Anybody claiming to be a Christian while not being 100% certain of God's Word is not a Christian.
The followers of Christ throughout the centuries that gave their lives for our Lord didn't hold to 85% certainty. They believed all the way.
So it's all or nothing sir.
You need to get over your doubts and decide whether you are in or out.
I stand with Dr. Roach.

[roycevanblaricome]

Almost done with this. A few final observations. While I understand the purpose of the video, and perhaps the need for it, I REALLY dislike these kind of videos that amount to not much more than he said/she said stuff. And that dislike is multiplied a thousand times when it involves speaking for the dead who can no longer speak for themselves.

But, that said, I think this was FAR MORE fairly and accurately dealt with that Bill's video. I believe Mike bringing Packer into this was an effort to give credence to his work based on the credibility of one highly regarded amongst theologians.

I also took Mike and the others comments about Packer as not being denigrating or derogatory but rather an example of something that we see FAR TOO MUCH these days. Folks just do NOT wanna get involved in a conflict. Confrontation of any sort is almost anathema and shied away from like a rabid skunk. It's also not surprising because it's seen more and more in the elderly. Packer said it well himself. To give an answer would take 10's of 1000's of words and he just didn't have the energy left to do that. NOTHING wrong with that.

The thing I didn't see, which I would have liked to, is a more meaty discussion of the specific problems that arise with the suppositions that Mike has made. But I understand that wasn't the intent of the video.

I believe Mike to be a man of integrity and I do not believe he has or is intentionally trying to mislead anyone. Which Bill Roach alluded to several times in his video. If not outright claimed a time or two. It's bad enough when the World and Satan's minions attack the Messenger because they can't attack the Message but it's pathetic and has NO place amongst Christians.

All in all I think Mike was successful in accomplishing his intent and goal in this video. I have to go back and read the CSBI again but as I recall I agree with it. Which means I need to go read Mike's paper on why he disagrees with it and get my thoughts together on that.

The final summarization that Mike makes in the last couple of minutes of the video were well stated and I'd say spot on.

[Datroflshopper]

While I respect your commitment to trying to stay on the right side of Evangelicals, ultimately if your exploration of the Gospels were to truly move you away from something like the Chicago statement then I don't think there's reason to be afraid of that.

Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hold views of scripture that would have no problem with your analysis - not trying to swing you to one denomination or the other, it's moreso that you shouldn't feel penned in by the Chicago statement if that's where the data takes you.

Love your work!

[_bibleap_com]

Thanks God for Dr. Roach and his faithfulness to the Word of God! God will judge those who reject inerrancy of His word weather through blatant rejection or through redefining it. Scholars will be judged even more severely than average Christians: Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (James 3:1) This is something that these gentlemen in the video must remember.

[OneStepToday]

Last two minutes are the most imp info u shared that u reject the chicaco creed, otherwise it appeared that you're trying to maintain that tradition of faith. It's absolutely true that inerrancy as defined by the dogmatic and Chicago creed makes the whole bible mythical historical. It's to defend the laughable "evolution denial" basically, which should make all sensible Christians leave religion, and it also defends senseless contradictions as described by Bart Ehrman in his blog where he mocks dogmatic people. It's right to denounce inerrancy in this context the same way Jesus denied Sabbath law by saying its made for man not vice versa.

I will need to read who is this Guy Greg Mannet and your article.
In reality u all including Dan have to go far from here to understand the narrative nature of the gospels. Most of it is narrative including virgin birth and many miracles, not just the zombie passage and contradiction solutions.

This is not about Geisler but the whole dogmatic tradition we are dealing with, you have to denounce your allegiance to all creeds of tradition including Nicene pagan roman creed. We shouldn't believe the virgin birth and it's genealogies which our greatest apostle Paul condemned. There's no need of affirming narrative accounts as historical, it's only wise to understand how literature and narrative works. Don't keep it limited to the few passages. There's no slippery slope which forces us to doubt Jesus death and resurrection if the gospels are narrative. They are written on the basis of his death and resurrection. Apostle Paul is an anti mythological historian.

[flintlock]

11:00 It seems that Dr. Wallace is incorrect here because, from my understanding, Dr. Licona holds that the audience would *not* be able to detect these changes or know when they are being employed. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if Packer said this because I'm not at all sure he would have understood the implications of Licona's view since Licona goes out of his way to downplay the radical nature of his view, when speaking in conservative contexts.