Uploaded July 2024 | Updated September 2026, 4 days ago
normangeisler.com/dr-r-c-sprouls-judgmentnot-even-remotely-compatible-with-icbi
normangeisler.com/the-misuse-of-j-i-packer-to-defend-mike-liconas-denial-of-inerrancy
normangeisler.com/a-response-to-misstatements-about-j-i-packers-supposed-support-of-liconas-view
Lydia McGrew: I'm still reading through the transcript of the interview that came out yesterday. So you'll find this interesting. Link below. In answer to a question from the audience, Licona says, "The concept of inspiration, given the middle knowledge, is that inspired basically means it is ultimately from God, and God has put his stamp of approval on what we have. I would say, yes, even any errors that may be in there, in that sense, is inspired. God breathed. Now, are they inerrant in a Chicago sense? No, they wouldn't be. Are they inerrant in more of a flexible inerrancy sense? Yes."
So there you have it, right out there. Not inspired in a Chicago sense. And we can recall that back when the whole controversy with Geisler was going on, it was about whether Mike himself could *affirm* inerrancy in the Chicago sense. It wasn't *just* about whether this particular view of his or that was compatible with Chicago inerrancy, because he was supposed to be signing on personally that he *personally* affirmed inerrancy, in a context where the Chicago statement was in view (SES).
https://www.youtube.com/live/N5N5snM1PSQ...
“As the former and only President of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Dr. Michael Licona’s views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI.
R.C. Sproul
May 22nd, 2012
As a framer of the ICBI statement on biblical inerrancy and once studied Greco-Roman literature at advanced level, I judge Mike Licona’s view that, because the Gospels are semi-biographical, details of their narratives may be regarded as legendary and factually erroneous, to be both academically and theologically unsound (Letter, 5/8/14). J.I. Packer
normangeisler.com/dr-r-c-sprouls-judgmentnot-even-remotely-compatible-with-icbi
normangeisler.com/the-misuse-of-j-i-packer-to-defend-mike-liconas-denial-of-inerrancy
normangeisler.com/a-response-to-misstatements-about-j-i-packers-supposed-support-of-liconas-view
Lydia McGrew: I'm still reading through the transcript of the interview that came out yesterday. So you'll find this interesting. Link below. In answer to a question from the audience, Licona says, "The concept of inspiration, given the middle knowledge, is that inspired basically means it is ultimately from God, and God has put his stamp of approval on what we have. I would say, yes, even any errors that may be in there, in that sense, is inspired. God breathed. Now, are they inerrant in a Chicago sense? No, they wouldn't be. Are they inerrant in more of a flexible inerrancy sense? Yes."
So there you have it, right out there. Not inspired in a Chicago sense. And we can recall that back when the whole controversy with Geisler was going on, it was about whether Mike himself could *affirm* inerrancy in the Chicago sense. It wasn't *just* about whether this particular view of his or that was compatible with Chicago inerrancy, because he was supposed to be signing on personally that he *personally* affirmed inerrancy, in a context where the Chicago statement was in view (SES).
https://www.youtube.com/live/N5N5snM1PSQ...
“As the former and only President of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Dr. Michael Licona’s views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI.
R.C. Sproul
May 22nd, 2012
As a framer of the ICBI statement on biblical inerrancy and once studied Greco-Roman literature at advanced level, I judge Mike Licona’s view that, because the Gospels are semi-biographical, details of their narratives may be regarded as legendary and factually erroneous, to be both academically and theologically unsound (Letter, 5/8/14). J.I. Packer
