The purpose of this channel is to facilitate the media outlet for Dr. Bill Roach and his regular video series Timeless Dialogues and other media outlets. Dr. Roach can be reached online through his website www.williamroach.org
Thank you for this. A lot went over my head, I fear, but I got the main gist. And your question at the end about Licona's view of God is exactly what I keep wondering.
Let me guess: John MacArthur shouting "Heretic!" at anyone who doesn't agree with him on absolutely everything? Also, don't know who Bill Roach is, but his velar fricatives are on point.
I think Mike went too far . I actually think recognising that the gospels are Greco Roman biographies is not a bad thing at all reason being it actually shatters the so called contradictions the skeptics bring up . Like the women at the tomb . If gospels are Greco Roman bios and the writes were just using telescoping (which was fine in that genre ) it shatters the objection and we even see later following the tomb writers give away that their were other women such as “we” in John . Mike took it too far though with the saints though.
I think that terms like "infallibility" and "inerrancy" make great slogans but terrible epistemology. As slogans, they're a great way to summarize saying, "I'm at a place where I'm going to take the words of the Bible seriously in moral matters." There's a whole series of conversations that roll out of that which are meaningful, important, and useful. But it puts statements like, "That's just the word of bronze age goat herders" out of bounds. I'd rather listen to inspired goat herders from the bronze age (however we parse both the truths and the errors in that) than the self-absorbed ramblings of a 21st century dictator with a doctorate. Even if we take the question of inspiration out and set that to one side for a comparative example, Euclid's Elements are still taken seriously as a foundation for mathematical thinking by mathematicians today, and it's between the age of the Prophets and the New Testament. Just a few years ago on the Numberphile RU-vid Channel, Dr. James Grime spoke about that and I found that interesting. So the idea of just decoupling or distancing ourselves from the text just for its antiquity or inconvenience or language or picking and choosing what's convenient for a political or personal cause is out of bounds. We may not like personally, it may say things that we find inconvenient theologically or, or it may be hard to reconcile politically, but we wrestle with it and we seek to understand it first and make what it means for us to do and seek a priority over personal preference or theological investigation or political commitment. As epistemology, these kinds of terms are used to shut down conversation and build pseudo-political parties. Taking the example of the saints raised with Jesus in Matthew, Licona notes that something like this that only occurs in one historical source are viewed skeptically by historians. I've known people personally that found that comforting, and the reasons are varied enough to not need to go into all of them, but to give two it assured one that I knew that he hadn't missed the resurrection and for another it helped to relieve anxiety that the resurrection would be temporary since we don't still have first century saints walking around. Others find the idea that Matthew might have included this as a rhetorical device to be very uncomfortable because then they fear that the whole thing is just one long rhetorical device, including the resurrection. Words like inerrancy and infallibility are pulled out when someone has one particular kind of anxiety to the detriment of those that have the other kind of anxiety. It's a way of saying, "If that's your anxiety, then get out of the church: only my kind of anxiety is welcome here." I personally find that unhelpful. For me, everything is open to question and criticism and investigation and scrutiny. My only allegiance is to the truth, and if the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is used shut down conversations seeking truth just because it lessons one group's anxiety, then I have no use for it. Further, it creates pseudo-political divisions. It turns into a "I hold up inerrancy better than you do!" game. Then you get someone that really does run off the rails with it, really does hold it higher, and it turns into a "Oh, well, that doesn't count because…" game. The easy examples are the Hebrew Roots nuts that fixate on kosher dietary laws and Old Testament festivals and such. Then there are those that say we should start kissing each other when church starts. (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14, Exodus 18:7, 1 Samuel 20:41, Proverbs 24:26) or excommunicate anyone involved in a civil lawsuit with another Christian (1 Corinthians 6:5-7) and they've gone too far. But they're really just playing the same game, only they're committing to the bit a little more. They're holding things up as infallible that are inconvenient and uncomfortable, and criticizing those of us that say they're expressions of speech and cultural. That's the problem with these pseudo-political divisions: there's always someone willing to commit to the bit even harder than you are and they'll create a faction that criticizes you for not going far enough, then they'll turn it into a vehicle for abuse. Even among the Great Creeds, the Nicene Creed had to be tempered with the Definition of Chalcedon because there were those running off the deep end of Jesus's divinity to the exclusion of his humanity and the divisions or mixtures of his divinity and humanity. If even the greatest creed of all time could turn into a vehicle of abuse when over applied, I think there's room for humility in our own modern understanding of these important concepts.
Lol so you cant oppose the genocide in Palestine unless youre a Marxist (which is a dead meme ideology at this point). The complete capture of Christian culture/institutions by Jewish interests will be studied by historians with great interest and enthusiasm. All these apologetics and general Christian culture channels ive subscribed to have been such dishonest liars on this topic. Appealing to their audience's biases and pretending its about "Marxism" and not the dead Palestinians, or that its about the dangers of Islam, or some other stupid reframing of the conflict to make Jewish enemies into Christian enemies. Just awful. It's also unnatural. Islam has a much higher view of Christ than Judaism does, albeit still not as high as Christianity. The only reason for this alliance is the ridiculously disproportionate amount of control this tiny group of people has over our culture/institutional chokepoints through money.
You are right! I am an SBC minister for an Hispanic church, and an apologist. When SBC kept Re. 9 they let the Trojan House in. Our youngest Hispanic pastors are guided by SBC; unfortunately this also allowed subjectivism in the door. Last year many Hispanic pastors were either given or told to read Christianity and Critical Race Theory by Roberto Romero. Rez 9 was pivotal, opening the door for books such as this to be recommended and to color the practice theology in our Hispanic Churches. As an Hispanic I do not support Rez 9, or the Law Amend.
@@floydmorgan6048 Licona is making up that charge. Ironically, the same charge of a form of determinism could be made against any of his Molinist friends (WLC too). Licona is a neo orthodox theologian.
I was with you in lock step until you mentioned Doug Wilson being “problematic”.. I looked into all these false accusations of him and failed to see anything of the sort…is it the CN thing or is it the FV “works based salvation” association that has been thoroughly debunked?
So not true!!!! There are atheists who have come to know the Lord Jesus because of a near death experience. Have you been to heaven? Do you speak for the Sovereign Lord? In my heart and soul, I believe the Lord Jesus will do what it takes to save his children!!!!
What I find strange is while John MacArthur denounces Christian Nationalism, when MacArthur explained his political views and how his Christian faith affects his political views, all the Christian Nationalists consider John MacArthur as one of them even though he denounces them.
I ask One question, are you considering LEE STROBLE as Christian????? NO HE IS NOT, HE IS AN SDA. They have different everything, God, Jesus, Gospel and so on and so on .
Arguing against Christians holding national power and authority over the culture and the government, in order to restrain degeneracy and the destruction of Western Civilization defies all commen sense. Opposition to CN is liberal thinking.
For anyone who would like to go beyond name calling and investigate the context in which Paul was using the terminology of justification, to see where it actually fits into the new creation plan of God, then go ahead and read N T Wright's book entitled simply "Justification". Nothing heretical in there. In fact, it is more in line with Calvin's conception than many reformed pastors might wish to admit.
Jesus "My kingdom is not of this world", Jesus regarding the coin he told Peter to get out of the fish, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God" Jesus made it clear and simple.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with Pastor John on Martin Luther King, and I am an elderly black woman who remembers all of the Civil Rights agendas, the marches, etc., but don't ever remember MLK preaching the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ! I found out for myself several years ago that the negative things said about MLK was true! He was NOT a Christian at all!
Dr. Roach, that was a good and succinct video on the subject. As a Christian who practices martial arts ( for almost 4 decades now), one of the biggest annoyances I’ve seen on the subject, is Christians commenting on the subject from a incomplete Biblical view and a lot of ignorance about martial arts in general. Often they’ll make definitive statements and give advice by repeating what other people say, without actually knowing what they’re talking about on the given subject. We all have the human tendency to do that with things. The Bible certainly stands as the final authority in any matter of our lives. As you know, in relating martial arts to it requires a little more research in history, various cultures, indigenous religions and the intentions of founders or organizations involving different martial arts. Not to mention each individual instructor, while there may not be a problem, per say with Art, the teacher may be into and incorporate things that are problematic for Christians. Because martial arts are so diverse, you have to understand each art properly in order to weigh it against the word of God and hopefully be in prayer while doing so, as with anything. I hope you do more videos on this as I think you’re coming from a solid Theological background as well as having firsthand knowledge about martial arts. I think you were referring to “internal” martial arts when you mentioned arts with mindfulness and meditation etc., and my guess “Ninjitsu “ when talking about going out of your body? I wish you would have mentioned a few names of those arts that contain those so people know exactly what you’re talking about and help them cut to the chase. It would be nice to know what you think about internal arts like Tai Chi? Thanks.
Excellent video, Bill Roach! I see how definitive it is to deal correctly with Inspiration, which has a direct impact on Inerrancy or vice versa. I would like to advise that Dr Michael R. Licona will be releasing a new book this month (the 28th) titled "Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently". I would like you to provide a concise and unobtrusive Review of this work, given Licona's neo-orthodox views of Inspiration (and Inerrancy) and also that you have a long history of critical interaction with Licona's previous works. Hugs!
The church did not have the “Bible” for another 400 years after Christ died….the Bible specifically the New Testament was brought together by a man who, you guessed it had a vision. “Sola scriptura” did not exist in the early church. Most churches probably didn’t even have half the Old Testament and may have only had 1 letter or gospel from the New Testament. Christians themselves did not have their own Bible. The great John MacArthur and Paul Washer weren’t born yet to tell you what to think. Jesus brought many people back from the dead….over 500 just at his crucifixion alone….bot to mention Lazarus, and the little girl who was “sleeping”.There are many, many strange things in the “Bible”. There are false prophets and real ones….people can decide, for you to dismiss everyone because you are uncomfortable with how to reconcile an experience to scripture reminds of the Pharisees dismissing the blind man’s testimony because it happened on the sabbath.
So everyone is lying? Doubt it…..maybe some….I know non Christians who flat lined and saw their body on the bed in the hospital.He died….plain and simple. He saw himself and heard the doctors and nurses speak. So you are saying forget his “experience” it didn’t really happen? How stupid.
Experience isn’t a test for truth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.
So everyone is lying? Doubt it…..maybe some….I know non Christians who flat lined and saw their body on the bed in the hospital.He died….plain and simple. He saw himself and heard the doctors and nurses speak. So you are saying forget his “experience” it didn’t really happen? How stupid.
The most exhaustive philological study of the meaning of theopneustos is John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (London: T & T Clark, 2021). The book goes well beyond what both Roach and Licona say about the word. And (to answer Roach's concern) it also addresses how a consideration of the context of 2 Tim 3:16 helps us understand what theopneustos means. I hope you will give it a read.
I had Licona in my last semester of Seminary. For my final paper, I used more of Dr. Geisler's books regarding the resurrection. I understand why he didn't take my choice well and wanted to give me a low grade-he even decided to take my whole experience and make it seem like I wasn't at the graduate level. P.S. I graduated with over a 3.8 GPA.
Person X denies inerrancy, Person Y defends inerrancy. Person X is damaging the church and contributing to people potentially shipwrecking their faith. I don't care how "nice" Person X is, they need to be marked, avoided and rebuked. Playing nice only enables them.
