Parchment & Pen Blog

Charles L. Quarles of Louisiana College has a lengthy review of Michael R. Licona’s book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010) in the newest issue, which I just received in yesterday’s mail, of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54, 4 (Dec. 2011): 839-44. Although the [...]

I believe in inerrancy. This means I believe that there are no errors in the Bible. Of course, this comes with the usual disclaimers which say that we must be talking about the original manuscripts and we must be assuming that the Bible is being interpreted correctly. In other words, none of our Bible translations [...]

One of the greatest attacks on Scripture comes from those who misunderstand the doctrine of inerrancy. A couple of years ago this chart was brought to my attention. I did not think it was serious, but it really is. It is supposed to represent the thousands of contradictions in the Bible. However, all it really [...]

Norman Geisler has taken issue with a portion of my recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, in which I proposed that the story of the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53 should probably be interpreted as apocalyptic imagery rather than literal history. In response, Dr. Geisler has offered strong criticisms in two [...]

Bultmann was not right about everything, but he was certainly right when he recognized that presuppositionless exegesis was not possible. There are few texts where an exegete’s presuppositions can cloud his interpretation more than Mark 2.26. The issue here is not simply a conservative vs. liberal debate. Of course, battle lines are drawn by one’s [...]

Just after my wife and I were married, she worked as a teller at a bank. One of her co-workers was a devout Muslim who was schooled in Muslim apologetics against Christianity. Every day she would come home with a list of objections that he had to the Bible. Three out of four times the [...]

Two nights ago I got pulled over. When I saw the police lights turn on behind me, I knew exactly why he was pulling me over. I was with my twelve-year-old daughter, Katelynn, and had just left the Credo House after teaching a session on the development of orthodoxy. Feelings of embarrassment were released from [...]

There would certainly be little quibble from someone who suggested that doctrine develops. There would also be no problems when someone suggests that earlier writers of the Old Testament knew less than later writers. The idea here is doctrinal development within the canon, often referred to as the doctrine of progressive revelation. For example, we [...]

My first case study in inerrancy comes from the story of David when he was on the run from King Saul. 1 Sam. 26:5-16: 5 David then arose and came to the place where Saul had camped. And David saw the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner, the commander of his army; [...]

I believe in a doctrine called inerrancy. More particularly, I call it “reasoned inerrancy” to distinguish it from other more “technically precise” models. In short: I believe that the Bible, when interpreted correctly, is true in everything that it intends to teaches. Those are some important qualifiers: “in everything it intends to teach” and “when interpreted rightly.” This [...]

Added to my “. . . And Other Stupid Statements” series. Consider this story (adapted from a true story): Greg Jones was an evangelical Christian, active in his church, a regular preacher, teacher and served on the elder board. He says that he was addicted to fundamentalism. He slept, ate, and drank the truths of Christianity. [...]

Those who believe in biblical inerrancy (i.e., the Bible does not contain any errors, historic, scientific, or otherwise) normally start with a theological conviction which is arrived at deductively. They believe, like I do, that God is perfect and without error. They also believe, like me, that the Bible is God’s word. Conclusion? The Bible [...]