Mike Licona Responds to Bill Roach Part 2

A critic of Dr. Mike Licona (Dr. Bill Roach) has challenged Licona on his claims regarding JI Packer, as well as his understanding of the Chicago Statement, inerrancy, and inspiration. Here, Licona reacts to some of what Roach has said. This is part two of two videos reacting to Roach. The first is available at: • Did I Get J.I. Packer ...
Bill Roach's video to which Licona is responding may be viewed at Bill Roach’s video: • Unpacking Mike Licona'...
At 1:26:19, I respond to Roach's claim that I turned his book "Defending Inerrancy" into an "anti-Mike" book. As part of my response, I claimed that he and his co-author Norman Geisler had to self-publish it because no publisher was interested in it. Whereas it is true that a major publisher told me that Dr. Geisler had approached it with a book proposal, which they had declined, Dr. Roach corrected me that "Defending Inerrancy" was not that book and that he and Dr. Geisler had proposed that book to Baker and they accepted it immediately. As a result, I want to apologize for my inaccurate claim and set the record straight.
____________________
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.
📜For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z
🎓You can also earn a Master of Divinity degree that can be completed entirely online at bit.ly/3po5uEX
👨🏻‍🎓 HCU offers a rigorous Doctorate of Ministry degree: hc.edu/houston...
🌐WEBSITE: www.risenjesus...
💻FACEBOOK: / drmikelicona
📱TWITTER: / drmikelicona
📚 Buy “Jesus, Contradicted”: bit.ly/48H0FNM
📚 Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
📚Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
📚Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
📚Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
🅿️ If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus or make a tax-deductible contribution(s) as allowed by law by going to Mike's secured website:
✋www.risenjesus...

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

At 1:26:19, I respond to Roach's claim that I turned his book "Defending Inerrancy" into an "anti-Mike" book. As part of my response, I claimed that he and his co-author Norman Geisler had to self-publish it because no publisher was interested in it. Whereas it is true that a major publisher told me Dr. Geisler had approached it with a book proposal, which they had declined, Dr. Roach corrected me that "Defending Inerrancy" was not that book and that he and Dr. Geisler had proposed that book to Baker and they accepted it immediately. As a result, I want to apologize for my inaccurate claim and set the record straight.

[@christiangadfly24]

I was raised Christian, became an atheist at 25 and eventually became a Christian again. Your views are the closest to mine of any New Testament scholar. I really appreciate your work.

[@chadgarber]

Way to go Mike! Humility and honesty.

[@juliescheving7951]

Well worth listening to it in its entirety. I have gone through anger, prayer, back to talking to my screen in frustration, ending in prayer. For the aggressor, the video facilitator, and always, ALWAYS for my wise brother in Christ. To God be the glory. In my closing prayer, God reminded me of Romans 8:28. He is at work in you and through you, Mike.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks much, Julie!

[@ericchabot6512]

As one of my friends in the apologetics community one said "There's orthodoxy, and there is Geisler Orthodoxy"...🙄

[@randyscott232]

Hey Mike, this must have been very challenging for you and Debbie on a personal level. I appreciate your transparency on this and glad to hear that you stuck with what you believe is true. May the Lord bless you for it.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks much, Randy!

[@ChristOrChaos777]

Good discussion! It’s pretty shocking that Roach questions your doctrine of God. But with McGrew, who outright DENIES inerrancy, it’s crickets 🦗🦗

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Indeed! And yet the silence, the inconsistent ways of reacting to such a matter continues.

[@pragmaticoptimist46]

Thanks Mike. Just picked up your new book, looking forward to reading it. This discussion reminds me of CS Lewis’ writings on first and second things. It’s a shame when “everything” becomes a first thing. But….I’m sure only members of one denomination will see each other in heaven, and none of us will have disagreed on theological points😊

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Hahaha!

[@michaelroots6931]

Great response video. I’d be interested in finding out about others that met Dr Giesler in his later years, Dr James White said similar things about meeting Dr Geisler. Did he has legitimate concerns or was he just a cranky old man.

[@traymac11]

This is awesome, thanks for sharing, Mike!

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Glad you enjoyed it, brother!

[@chadgarber]

Is the the other dude essential all upset with Mike because of Mike's understanding of the Bible? What does that have to do with him?

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Agreed. Rather than just criticizing my views, Roach makes it personal. Of course, he's free to do whatever he desires. And I'm free not to participate.

[@chadgarber]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial "inerrancy police"

[@DrBillRoach]

@@MikeLiconaOfficialcalling out DARVO is not an ad hominem or making it personal. Rather, it reveals the dynamic you pull anytime someone actually criticizes your theological views. In fact, the way you’re responding to the accusation of DARVO is another instance of DARVO.

[@ravissary79]

​@@DrBillRoachthat's circular. At some point the popular cultural criticism of the leftist mind viruses needs to itself be purged of reactionary mind viruses like this. Your "proof" is just as absurd as when leftists claim that a heterosexual male's revulsion to a same sex advance is just evidence they are themselves a repressed homosexual. It's a non-falsifiable standard that explains away reasonable responses of denial as clearly some kind of conformation. Cops say only guilty people run... false. Only wrong people are defensive... false. You wouldn't deny it if it wasn't true!... huh? That's exactly what an honest person would do if it WASN'T true. You're living in a mind virus feedback loop of confirmation bias.

[@ravissary79]

​​@@DrBillRoachdenying DARVO isn't proof of DARVO. That's a confirmation bias logic loop. DARVO applies to abusive relationships and is how abusive partners deflect accountability by blame throwing and gaslighting. Preemptively accusing people of things way beyond a simple right/wrong metric of academic factuality guarantees a denial from the vast majority of people. You've artificially taken an academic rivalry into a leftist style victim vs oppressor narrative and Preemptively poisoned the well so thoroughly you've made any possible response into proof Licona is a bad person. It's insidious.

[@DanielCathers]

1:44:15 Mike, I barely know who this Roach guy is, but the more I hear you talk about him, the more I think he has a point. It's pretty obvious why he would criticize your work and not Lydia's. Lydia's work itself doesn't argue for or against inerrancy. It seems like Roach thinks your work does argue against inerrancy. Lydia personally doesn't hold to inerrancy, but she often repeats that inerrantists could easily use her reportage model to support their position. I'm actually astounded you didn't understand this.

[@seekandfind1225]

I agree with Licona, but he says that the apostles had to have never errored, which is unreasonable to him. However, I feel like that’s an assumption that, while possible, isn’t necessarily true. With them having the Holy Spirit’s power and guidance, it very well could have never made a mistake in the sense of stating something wrongly. Apart from this I pretty much agree with everything.

[@ravissary79]

We know they erred. Acts shows this when Paul confronted Peter. The only person who never erred was Christ himself.

[@seekandfind1225]

@@ravissary79 by err I mean in teaching. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence that they ever erred in teaching.

[@ravissary79]

@@seekandfind1225 I don't think Licona's position is they did, or at least if they did it was corrected and the surviving writings are the retained end process of any hypothetical error in time wgich was resolved. If Peter wasn't corrected his behavior would have informed a flawed standard and tradition which would gave become apostolic error. He was corrected before any doctrinal error metastasized from behavioral error into something more lasting.

[@seekandfind1225]

@@ravissary79 his position seems to be that they had a “slip of the tongue” from time to time and that it’s possible they did in Scripture as well. That’s what I’m saying is wrong.

[@ravissary79]

@@seekandfind1225 right, but a slip of the tongue isn't a slip of their ideas, only a brief lapse in ideal presentation... allowing for a difference in how to convey an idea or perhaps they cognitively understood a theologically tertiary matter touching psychology or biology in a way we now view as inaccurate. This is pivotal to what you think inerrancy even means. Is scripture inerrant in the autographs, in all the authors were trying to convey? Or in unforseen technical arrangements of grammar later cultivate in quote mining expeditions to justify sectarian ideas? In general he's a little too... wiggly on that for my taste, but he still clearly holds to a type of inerrancy, just not the most fundamentalist hard-core version of it.

[@starwarsnerd1055]

Mike is it possible for you other Christian scholars to get together and write a new and alternative statement? I feel like the Chicago statement is causing many problems for interpretation and it’s actually contributing to the decline of Christianity

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

I wouldn't say "it's actually contributing to the decline of Christianity." But several have opined that it needs revision or abandonment. Michael Kruger said it needed revision during the Q&A of my paper. Darrel Bock told me it needs to be revised. Dan Wallace has never embraced the Chicago Statement. I think it should be abandoned because it's grounded in an incorrect view of inspiration. And an incorrect view of inspiration begets an incorrect view of inerrancy. And to your point, rigid views such as that forwarded by the Chicago Statement has led to some abandoning their faith when they observe some of the problems with such a view. I think it would be great for some Christian scholars to get together and come up with a different statement.

[@chadgarber]

Interesting question

[@chadgarber]

@@MikeLiconaOfficialI agree. I believe the doctrine of inherency as defined by Chicago statement does much damage, imo more than we can even fathom.

[@chadgarber]

@@MikeLiconaOfficialyou ever consider the possibility that we as Christians have made the Bible an idol and honored it more than God? I am starting to think this may be a real possibility.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

@@chadgarber Dan Wallace has referred to such as "bibliolatry."

[@derekallen4568]

Nothing beats Christian love.😄

[@ravissary79]

The only way Christian love fails is to not try it at all. The lovers are those who don't love.