BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Haruo wrote:

Ed Pettibone wrote:BTW, why is this thread on the CBF Forum?

B/c that's where Fox started it.

I had not noticed it was in my forum at first. It's still here because this little forum is so quiet most of the time that I haven't felt a need to do more than enjoy having something here.

Ed Pettibone wrote:Now I have a dilemma. What is a suitable word to to explain the forces at work when some one does "serious study" and is still unmoved in his or her errant opinion?

Try the word "re-enforced” or “strengthened” in one’s opinion even if wrong.

If one feels so led, one should discuss/argue the facts out with those whom one disagrees. Not just label them “biased” and therefore not worthy of further consideration - that is the easy way out that leads to hardening of one’s opinions. If not so led, then try the word “tolerate”.

I did call inerrantists “not credible” and that may be viewed as “intolerant”. But note that I entered into discussion/argumentation when I linked supporting sources that:

1) showed the contradictions- see Short List of Biblical Contradictions

2) discussed the matter more philosophically and historically for those so inclined - See long time Baptist Dennis Bratcher’s inerrancy is not credible

in the Spirit of 1 Peter 3:15:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Neery a comment back wrt the links.

Many people herein are largely here to make proclamations (without supporting reason) and do not even engage others when challenged.

Oh well I’ll keep on trying.

KeithE wrote:

Ed Pettibone wrote:Now I have a dilemma. What is a suitable word to to explain the forces at work when some one does "serious study" and is still unmoved in his or her errant opinion?

Try the word "re-enforced” or “strengthened” in one’s opinion even if wrong.

If one feels so led, one should discuss/argue the facts out with those whom one disagrees. Not just label them “biased” and therefore not worthy of further consideration - that is the easy way out that leads to hardening of one’s opinions. If not so led, then try the word “tolerate”.

I did call inerrantists “not credible” and that may be viewed as “intolerant”. But note that I entered into discussion/argumentation when I linked supporting sources that:

1) showed the contradictions- see Short List of Biblical Contradictions

2) discussed the matter more philosophically and historically for those so inclined - See long time Baptist Dennis Bratcher’s inerrancy is not credible

in the Spirit of 1 Peter 3:15:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Neery a comment back wrt the links.

Many people herein are largely here to make proclamations (without supporting reason) and do not even engage others when challenged.

Oh well I’ll keep on trying.

Ed: Keith where do you find your " long time Baptist Dennis Bratcher" ?

Are their 2 associated with CRI ? I find "Dennis R. Bratcher, Treasurer and Executive Director - A retired professor of Old Testament; he has earned the PhD in Biblical studies from Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, and has served as a educator in the church for more than 25 years. He is an ordained minister in the Church of the Nazarene, and has recently served on staff at a United Methodist church. " Source Dennis Bratcher | Christian Resource Institute | ZoomInfo.com http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Dennis-Bratcher/17938497

And what do you know about the source for the "Short List of Biblical Contradictions"

I have to get ready for a memorial service for one of our recently departed church members and then wrap up a lot of little details before we leave after the worship service tomorrow for our vacation and the ABC-USA Biennial trip, to so I am not sure when I will get back to this. The trip will be South to Heightstown - NJ, W. Palm Beach and St Petersburg - Fl, Macon- Ga, B'Ham- AL, Arkadelphia- AR, Branson- MO, and Overland Park- KS.. Not quite sure of the stops on the way back to NY. they may depend on what the check book looks like by then. I love the Gas Buddy app on my phone and will have probaly earned a couple free motel stays by then. Will be visiting at least two Baptist Institutions of Higher Education, my Alma Mater, Ouachita University and Central Seminary where Molly Marshal will be leading a tour. For old time sake I may drive by Baptist, Samford U. and independent South Eastern Bible College while in Birmingham. And to be sure we cover the full BAPTIST theological spectrum maybe I should work in a stop in Richmond or maybe Rochester Seminaries.

I was apparently wrong about Dennis Bratcher being a "long-time Baptist" (not that that should invalidate his voice). I had memories of him being involved in the inerrancy debate circulating the SBC in the 80’s (should have checked that out further). He is recently with the Church of the Nazarene and/or Methodist these days (and may have never been Baptist - my memory is far from inerrant).

BTW, the Church of the Nazarene is also having forment over the nature of the the Bible and Evolution these days.
The Bible Tells Me So
Nazarenes Exploring Evolution
James Dobson and a Dennis Bratcher (or more contemporarily, one of my favorite theologians Thomas Jay Oord) shows the theological spread in that denomination. Oord was recently “laid-off” from the Northwest Nazarene University but then reinstated after a student revolt.

Wrt the “short list of contradictions" perhaps one should look at the evidence they present before one looks at their credentials. The main author is clearly atheistic but again that should not invalidate the points he makes wrt the “phenomena of scripture”.

Have a nice trip. If you are so inclined I’d drive to Birmingham to meet for a meal (or you could stay overnight at our house in Huntsville) so that we can again see each other face-to-face. Lately we’ve been at each other throats blog-to-blog where it is easy to misunderstand. For instance I no longer know where you stand on the inerrancy question. My cell # is (256) 656-1328.

KeithE wrote:I was apparently wrong about Dennis Bratcher being a "long-time Baptist" (not that that should invalidate his voice). I had memories of him being involved in the inerrancy debate circulating the SBC in the 80’s (should have checked that out further). He is recently with the Church of the Nazarene and/or Methodist these days (and may have never been Baptist - my memory is far from inerrant).

BTW, the Church of the Nazarene is also having forment over the nature of the the Bible and Evolution these days.
The Bible Tells Me So
Nazarenes Exploring Evolution
James Dobson and a Dennis Bratcher (or more contemporarily, one of my favorite theologians Thomas Jay Oord) shows the theological spread in that denomination. Oord was recently “laid-off” from the Northwest Nazarene University but then reinstated after a student revolt.

Wrt the “short list of contradictions" perhaps one should look at the evidence they present before one looks at their credentials. The main author is clearly atheistic but again that should not invalidate the points he makes wrt the “phenomena of scripture”.

Have a nice trip. If you are so inclined I’d drive to Birmingham to meet for a meal (or you could stay overnight at our house in Huntsville) so that we can again see each other face-to-face. Lately we’ve been at each other throats blog-to-blog where it is easy to misunderstand. For instance I no longer know where you stand on the inerrancy question. My cell # is (256) 656-1328.

Ed: First Keith. Let me say I would enjoy a set down conversation with you but when leave Macon after visiting our middle son and having coffee with Neal we will be pushing to get to Branson by the evening of the 21st, Trudy says she wants the day off from travel on her birthday the 22nd.

As for inerrancy my position hasn't changed since before Flick and I where the first moderators on BL.C. I believe it is a hoax. Even from back before they (tic) closed down the old SBCnet to shut up David and I. Some of my CBF friends who attended SBC seminaries when I was there the firs time (63-64) and before are rather sure that several of the take over cable didn't preach it when thy where in seminary together, And I know there are still folk in SBC churches who have never bought into it just as there are in a number people of the inerrancy inclination in ABC-USA. Unfortunately the SBC take over crowd of whom many are not fundamentalist did not see any reason to fight with folk in their churches to whom it was established "Sacred ground". Quite honestly despite Sandy's protest in the opposite direction, we of a moderate inclination did not get together a well rehearsed sales pitch to counter the bloody flags waved by the Pressler, Patterson followers. We had people that we held in high esteem but no legion of heroes beyond bring questioned.

If you have paid attention you would have seen me argue with Sandy's claim of the opponents of the takeover being a well established elitist "Good ol Boy group" who controlled the Convention and all of its sub parts. Instead we moderates lost some early close races because we split our votes in too many directions while the take over crowd selected and promoted and rangeld enough votes to elect their pre chosen front runner . Not smart politics on our part.

I would love to develop this further but it is getting time for me to load the car.

KeithE wrote:
Try the word "re-enforced” or “strengthened” in one’s opinion even if wrong.

If one feels so led, one should discuss/argue the facts out with those whom one disagrees. Not just label them “biased” and therefore not worthy of further consideration - that is the easy way out that leads to hardening of one’s opinions. If not so led, then try the word “tolerate”.

I did call inerrantists “not credible” and that may be viewed as “intolerant”. But note that I entered into discussion/argumentation when I linked supporting sources that:

1) showed the contradictions- see Short List of Biblical Contradictions

2) discussed the matter more philosophically and historically for those so inclined - See long time Baptist Dennis Bratcher’s inerrancy is not credible

in the Spirit of 1 Peter 3:15:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Neery a comment back wrt the links.

Many people herein are largely here to make proclamations (without supporting reason) and do not even engage others when challenged.

Oh well I’ll keep on trying.

Been through the short list, the longer list, Clayton Sullivan's book Toward a Mature Faith: Does Biblical Inerrancy Make Sense?, and some atheist websites. Most of those objections are dealt with in a more scholarly way than a message board instruction in Jimmy Draper's work, Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists, and in W. A. Criswell's Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True, among others.

Aside from the details of the subject of volumes, inerrancy has a very practical, working definition for those who are outside the realm of theological schools, Bible colleges and the ins and outs of training preachers, pastors, theologians and Bible scholars. It is the old Reformation idea that human beings are not required to have a theology degree or be endorsed by the church's standard of ordination with clergy status in order to intelligently, practically, and correctly divide the word of truth, but that a believer, indwelled by the Holy Spirit and with an illuminated mind, can interpret and understand the meaning of scripture without the assistance of a theology professor or clergy. For those people, who make up the bulk of the membership of most churches, all they want to know is that the Bible they are reading is accurate, represents God's revelation of himself to humanity, and as such, carries the weight of his authority in its teaching. That's what they mean by use of the terms "inerrant" and "infallible," and it is a principle you yourself have demonstrated here by citing 1 Peter 3:15.

It is that point, regarding the spiritual nature of inspiration and illumination, where I say Worthen is biased, and as a result, cannot make an accurate analysis of conservative, evangelical Christianity, and in particular, the SBC.

1. I find it sad Pettybone pontificates, engages a thread at length about a book he refuses to read.

Worthen is a must read for any who would discuss inerrancey at it reviews the tragedy of the Southern Baptist Convention.

My late Grandfather Fox who passed in 79 with an 8th grade education probably would have no problem with ?Sandy's definition of inerrancy, but he championed two of his sons, and several grandchildren who got college and seminary educations who came to find the insidious way in which Criswell and Pressler politicized the term troublesome tom put it mildly, and was proud of a daughter in law- My Moother, who walked out on Charles Stanley and Jerry Vines for demonizing Randall Lolley.

4. In the last few days I happened on the summer fall 99 BHHS paper on the Ralph Elliot controversy of the early 60s. Much damage was done by Herschel Hobbs attemptsto massage the controversy; among other things no seminary proffs were allowed on the committee to rewrite the BFM of 63, Those boycotted included Roy Honeycutt and Morris Ashcraft.

That's where a careful reading of Worthen comes into play where she discusses staff at the BSSB in early 60s trying to gently introduced folks in the pew to what was going on with academic studies of the Bible.

WD Shorty Fox, loved the Bible as God's word, but he was proud friends of his sons like Randall Lolley and Stewart Newman and Bill Self were investigating it in ways Ken Chafin would champion when he said in 87 in my hearing: A "A Bible in the hands of a believer who will not submit it to rational means of investigation is a dangerous thing, and has often been used to buttress up injuxtice"!

That's where Jesse Helms and APressler's connections to the Far right came is as Bill Moyers called them out on it; and now we have Trey Gowdy's te Party operationg under the cover of FBC Spartanburg and Billy Graham whistling Dixie all the way through his deathbed!

Check NPR Fresh Aire yesterday on the latest on the Nixon Tapes and Nixon's Line of succession.

Such is Sandy's "inerrant" wolrd view!

In last few days I've read the Bill Mpoyers intro to Brent Walker's tribute to James Dunn in the Amyth and Helwys tribute book of a few years ago. Moyers is scorching.

And for Sandy and William Thornton and others I have posted my Feb 21 89 letter from Grady Cothen in the History section of this board in the Harvard Expository thread.

Stephen Fox wrote:In last few days I've read the Bill Mpoyers intro to Brent Walker's tribute to James Dunn in the Amyth and Helwys tribute book of a few years ago. Moyers is scorching.

And for Sandy and William Thornton and others I have posted my Feb 21 89 letter from Grady Cothen in the History section of this board in the Harvard Expository thread.

Ed: I talked with Brent here at the ABC/USA Missions Conference in KC.K. this afternoon. He said he saw Bruce last week at the CBF meeting in Texas.