Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Copan and Wallace on Licona and Geisler

This isn't a full entry, but I wanted to share two vids in which Paul Copan and Daniel Wallace weigh in on the Geisler-Licona matter. I think Geisler will need a shovel the size of John Loftus' ego to dig a hole big enough to hide in before too long.


  1. What is being exposed in this episode of theological bullying, is exactly the problem Christians have in relating to others. There usually is seen, among popular culture, that Christianity is closed-minded and never willing to really talk things through in a realistic way. This is all to obvious.

    Now those who should remain outside of such nonsense, namely Geisler has now chimed in with the same attitude atheists manifest. Good job Geisler ;/...

  2. Geisler is pushing back again: http://normangeisler.net/public_html/ResponseMLEPS.html

    Just posted to his facebook page

  3. Ha -- what a crock of bovine excrement it is, too. :D


    "However, President Joseph Holden of Veritas Evangelical Seminary who was involved in this matter responded in a letter to Gary Habermas, saying, “It would be difficult for me to believe you are not aware of this uninformed statement about the ‘uninvite,’ and failure to correct Licona on this.” Rather, it was “…because of your own view of inerrancy that was contrary to the Veritas Seminary doctrinal statement on inerrancy. That is, your view accepts: the belief that inerrancy is consistent with the view that rejects Gospel narratives as completely historical (angels at the tomb, falling down of those seizing Jesus, and resurrection of saints)... It is difficult for me to believe that you were not aware of Licona’s EPS paper, and did nothing to correct this falsehood that insinuates VES is punishing those who voice opinions... I am disappointed that you would allow such an uninformed statement be left uncorrected, since it portrays VES as the one wielding unjustified ‘punitive measures.’ I would hope that you would clarify this fact with Licona who is clearly uniformed on the matter” (Letter, 11/21/11)."

    In other words, it was precisely because he supported Licona's view that he got uninvited. Geisler and Holden are trying to force an artificial distinction because they know they've been exposed as bullies.

    I also notice there's no mention of Dan Wallace by name, though there's an allusion that's telling: "Second, one can always find scholars somewhere—even evangelical scholars—who agree with their deviant views." Not even Geisler has the stomach to directly say (by name) that it is someone as prestigious as Daniel Wallace who is holding to what he calls a "deviant" view.

    There's a lot more bovine in that, and I may decide to make note of it later today in a posting.