Farnell reminded this room full of pastors that the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) claims that they subscribe to Biblical inerrancy but many have redefined what this important term means. In other words, not everyone who says the affirm the inerrant Test really does. This is no insignificant thing.
The responsibility of a pastor is not to be thought of as a great "scholar" but to be faithful to the Word of God. The Lordship of Jesus Christ must consistently reign over scholarship. The evangelical use of historical-critical ideologies is like a pig with lipstick. The grammatico-historical hermeneutic on the other hand lets the text say what it is meant to say. "The weight of any theologians underlying hermeneutical presuppositions is monumental (House)." Many evangelicals have bought into "scientism" which forces them to deny the historical account of creation as detailed by prophet Moses in Genesis 1-2. Others say that two or three guys besides Isaiah wrote the book. Others deny the historicity of the first man (Adam); which greatly impacts the salvation theology of Romans 5. Still others deny that Jonah spent three literal days in the belly of a literal great fish. Others deny the historicity of the Resurrection of the saints post crucifixion (Matt. 27:45-54; eg. Michael Licona); and/or that the Magi actually visited Jesus (Matt. 2:1-12); and/or that King Herod actually killed babies in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth; and/or that Paul actual wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles (Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; TItus 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1).
Now here is where the rubber meets the road: Most critical scholars today profess that they are inerrantists. Further most substitute or promote inerrancy with a perverted definition. This is often done in effort to keep up with the theological Jones'. The fear of man and an unhealthy desire to be respected by the academic elite is a recipe for theological compromise.
Dr. Farnell provide many examples of scholars who have been impacted by the Historical-Critical methodology (Karl Barth, etc):
Including but not limited to: Dan Wallace, "Whose Afraid of the Holy Spirit? The uneasy conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical," p. 8.
Baruch Spinoza (a Theological Political Treatise).
Darrell Bock mocks 'inerrantists' as holding to "brittle fundamentalism" while Roger's and McKim say that our side has fallen prey to "Scottish common sense realism."
Andy Stanley- "If the bible is the foundation of our faith, as the Bible goes so goes our faith."
The Jesus Crisis crowd in 1998 said that many of the sermons and accounts in the 4 Gospels never happened.
J.P. Holding and Nick Peters (endorsed by Craig Blomberg) wrote a book titled Defining Inerrancy (against Norman Geisler). This is more of the same from those who do not truly embrace the inerrancy of Scripture as articulated in the ICBI.
J.P. Moreland (of Biola University) and Brennan Manning sees "over-commitment" to the Bible as harming the church.
We should still beware of Robert Gundry's influence (Westmont College). Gundry claims that Matthew believed that the apostle Peter was an apostate who lost his salvation and that the infancy narratives in the Gospels are not historically true (they're midrash). Some in ETS are trying to invite Gundry back.
Pay careful attention to those scholars who use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD (notice Dan Wallace's updated grammar) in fear of offending people comparing it to the modern day of the Confederate flag (note also Rom. 9:33).
Licona's work "cautions naive conservatives who rely on simplistic harmonizations and pat answers that really do not do justice to the phenomena" per Craig Evans and friends at SBL. Licona thanks Bock, Keener, Wallace, and others from ETS for their help in helping him write his recent book. Tyler McNabb chaired ETS breakout session on Licona's new book (McNabb converted to Rome).
Michael Licona of Houston Baptist calls the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as muddied waters. The gospels have a mixture of history and legend/myth (such as Matt. 27:45-54; note also Bultman and Biola's William Lane Craig position on this inspired narrative; N.T. Wright says he's not sure if this passage is authentic or not). Licona and friends uses phrases like "compositional devices," "embellishments," "accurate gists," "criterias of authenticity" to justify historical-critical (closet liberal) positions.
Blomberg says he supports ICBI but that Licona's position does not violate ICBI (i.e. he and others love to play on both sides of the fence). He also came out in defense of Robert Gundry being invited back into Evangelical Theological Society; (Dr. Al Mohler has greatly opposed this). Whenever these critics find a passage they do not like they often hide behind "literary forms and genre" positions and then interpret the passages however they like. You cannot hide behind genre to dehistoricize the historical narratives of Scripture (yet many do).
Robert Yarborough of Covenant Theological Seminary and Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary praises Bloomberg's views and interpretations. Note also Bock's book, "Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus." This is the new search for the historical Jesus using post-modern historiography. This position wrongly concludes that because history is always a matter of interpretation and therefore one should not be too dogmatic.
Today the new position is to use the phrase "poetic history" which is often a clever disguise for allegorical interpretation and hermenutically trickery. The speech act theory is also the flavor of the day (locution, illocution, etc). John Walton and D. Brent Sande of Wheaton College have promoted this (see the Lost World of Scripture). Evangelicals now promote things such as Theistic evolution. This method of interpretation is a clear violation of Chicago State on Hermeneutics (see article XVII).
Derek Kidner also denies the historical interpretation of Genesis 2-3 in order to harmonize with secular philosophies and "scientific pre-conclusions."
THE SLIPPERLY SLOPE: 1) How do you know if a literal, bodily resurrection of Christ ever happened if the Scriptures are not inspired, infallible, and inerrant?
2) Bart Ehrman is at least honest about the fact that he denies inerrancy (and has since lost the faith).
3) If their are errors in the bibles how do we know anything with certainty (including the virgin birth, the substitutionary death of Christ, the resurrection, etc, etc).
4) Tragically, the following evangelicals have gone on record that Licona's view as being compatible with biblical inerrancy (Blomberg, Lane Craig, Keener, Moo, Moreland, Wallace). This does not mean these scholars hold Licona's view but they have accommodated a distorted and dangerous view of sacred Scripture. In contrast listen to James White helpful refutation of Mark 6.
5) Historical Critical scholars suggest that the Gospels are "ancient biography (like Plutarch Lives)" full of embellishments, myths, etc. They claim that the gospels are Greco-Roman bioi. In large part, this makes us wholly dependent on these scholars to tell us what is real history and what is not (a so called "criteria of authenticity").
6) Many seminaries today are nurseries of unbelief. This is highly problematic for "as go the theological seminaries go so go the churches." Machen.
The resurrection of the saints is not historical per William Lane Craig because of it's apocalyptic genre (per Lane Craig debate video). Concerning the simple question "were there guards at the tomb" of Christ Lane Craig told John Ankerberg that it is clearly "unhistorical" in part because it is only found in Matthew. He also said that he can hardly think of anyone (i.e. any true biblical scholars) who hold to Matthew's account of the guard of the tomb. "Fortunately this (error) is of little significance." Inerrancy is a peripheral belief compared to the deity of Christ according to this camp.
7) ETS should merge with SBL if they will not really defend ICBI (as they claim to do).
Response to "Bibliolatry" claims and other accusations against inerrantists:
1) Do these educated "elite" know better than God's Word (1 Cor. 1:20-25)? One must not commit "scholarolatry." The Jewish unbelievers in the first century were offended by Jesus' cross and the Greeks mocked the doctrine of the resurrection.
What was Jesus' view of the Bible (see Matthew 15; 10:35; 5:18). See also Psalm 138:2; Heb. 4:11-12? See Kevin DeYoung's, Taking God at His Word: Why the Bible Is Knowable, Necessary, and Enough, and What That Means for You and Me
The Model of the Gospels is the Old Testament not Greco-Roman "Bioi."
Evangelical "scholarolatry" is a fruit of pride that will in turn greatly harm the precious Body of Christ.
