I have to give credit to someone else for the post. I never went back through Norm Geisler’s petition to check if his reference to the ICBI statement was accurate. I guess most of us simply took him to be honest and quoted it accurately. To much disappointment it appears that we have been mistaken and Geisler conveniently left out important statements from the ICBI statement. Below is the comparison between the ICBI statement and Geisler’s use of it. For complete transparency, please view the ICBI document here. (What appears in black is taken from the ICBI statement, what appears in red is Geisler’s use of the statement, and what appears in blue is a note of comment).
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes,
exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
WE AFFIRM THAT SCRIPTURE IN ITS ENTIRETY IS INERRANT, BEING FREE FROM ALL FALSEHOOD, FRAUD, OR DECEIT. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in THE FIELDS OF HISTORY AND SCIENCE.
NOTE: Geisler completely leaves out the section of the article that relates to scientific hypotheses about earth history. Couldn’t the young earthers use this against him?
We affirm that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate
literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.
We deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.
WE DENY THAT ANY EVENT, DISCOURSE OR SAYING REPORTED IN SCRIPTURE WAS INVENTED BY THE BIBLICAL WRITERS OR BY THE TRADITIONS THEY INCORPORATED.
NOTE: Geisler again leaves out the affirmation section prior to the denial that talks about the variety of literary forms used in scripture.
We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
IT “AFFIRMS THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS FACTUAL, AS IS THE REST OF THE BOOK.”
The denial makes is evident that views which redefine error to mean what ‘MISLEADS,’ RATHER THAN WHAT IS A MISTAKE, MUST BE REJECTED.
NOTE: Geisler leaves out the denial section of this article which one would think could be used against his old earth position and certainly against Packer’s framework theory. I have to wonder if he did this in order to be able to garner the support of young earthers who may have noticed the inconsistency.
Most grievous of all is that Geisler did not mention the following article at all:
We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and
cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything
else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture
teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. .
We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
NOTE: The selective use of quotes from the ICBI and ICBH along with his misquoting Mike leads me to believe that this is a conscious effort to mislead in order to get the results Geisler desires. It doesn’t matter if he has to use dishonesty in order to get those results. The end justifies the means since, in his mind, it is for the greater good.
I find Geisler’s use of the ICBI statement dishonest, intentionally deceitful by omitting conflicting statements, and a complete abuse of the ICBI document.
To view Geisler’s petition and to get my commentary on the petition please view it here: In Promptu Ponere–A Response to Norm Geisler’s Petition Against Mike Licona.