Molly Worthen hits another home run

Open discussion on general Baptist-related topics of interest to Baptists around the world.

Moderator: Dave Roberts

Re: Molly Worthen hits another home run

Postby Sandy » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:11 pm

Molly Worthen wrote:By contrast, the worldview that has propelled mainstream Western intellectual life and made modern civilization possible is a kind of pragmatism. It is an empirical outlook that continually — if imperfectly — revises its conclusions based on evidence available to everyone, regardless of their beliefs about the supernatural. This worldview clashes with the conservative evangelical war on facts, but it is not necessarily incompatible with Christian faith.


Not anywhere in the article does Worthen deny any cardinal doctrine interpreted by conservatives and right wing Christians. What she points out is that the pieces of what gets labelled as a "Biblical worldview" are presuppositions based on someone's interpretation of what they think such a view should be, not on any perspective that actually comes from scripture.

Jesus makes pretty definitive statement in Matthew 5:17, "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Well, then. No wonder the political-religious establishment of the Jews at the time wanted to eliminate him. Then he underlines that statement again, recorded in Matthew 22:37-40, by stating that all of the Law and the Prophets depend on the two greatest commandments, love God, and love others. Everything in his teaching and in the servant-leader example he set rests on that foundation, and that's how a Biblical worldview is determined. He ate with "tax collectors and sinners," went out of his way to heal people, most notably those who were outcasts because of their disease, or lacked the means to even access help. Healing and forgiveness were abundant in his ministry, condemnation and cricitism almost non-existent. He didn't like divorce, was more concerned about spiritual matters, not legalistic interpretations of the scripture, and his teaching differed from that of the religious leadership on exactly the same passages of scripture. After his resurrection, his followers lived communally, sharing their possessions to ensure that the poorest among them had their daily needs met. And one of his most radical statements is found in Matthew 19:18-24. Interpret that literally, in the context of an inerrant, infallible text.

So if you want to talk about what a "Christian worldview" looks like in terms of what happens in the world today, you look at Jesus and answer the questions in accordance with the inerrant, infallible text. Are you in favor of your country turning away refugees from terror in the middle east, especially those whose lives have been ripped apart by the violence that has been caused? Do you value peace, or glorify and advocate for war as a means of resolving problems between nations? Do you nuke North Korea? Iran? What's more effective against abortion, your reliable Republican vote or your ministry of mercy to those who are forced into considering it? Is taking a stand the best approach, or, since the word of God reveals pretty clearly that Jesus said "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," what does that do to your politics? Did God really mean it when he said, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit"?

A Biblical worldview starts with Jesus, not with the condemnation of the media, or in the voting booth.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Molly Worthen hits another home run

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:05 am

Sandy wrote:But you are claiming that YOU are the one who gets to say what the Bible says. You've pointed to zilch when it comes to your claim that the linked articles were "stupid." You just made a blanket statement that they were stupid and provided nothing, not even a verse twisted out of context, to back up your claim.


I am not claiming to be the one who gets to say what the Bible says. I am clearly saying, the bible says something very specific and many want to deny what it says and bring in something it does not say (referencing the first 11 chapters of Genesis).

Also, I did not say anyone was stupid (yet)... I did comment that the article linked was clearly stupid. I think you know this but for some reason needed to make it seem like I said something I did not say... or... you actually interpreted what I said a,s I called someone stupid. If that is the case, maybe that is the reason you believe the Bible is not inerrant.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Molly Worthen hits another home run

Postby Sandy » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:05 am

Jon Estes wrote:Plain stupid...


You're calling someone or something stupid, related to either or both articles Stephen posted. Someone wrote the article.

There are several interpretations of the first eleven chapters of Genesis that are consistent with inerrancy and infallibility, without requiring a literalist perspective.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Molly Worthen hits another home run

Postby JE Pettibone » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:20 am

Ed: What Jon said is that a portion of what Worthen wrote was stupid not that she is stupid. He is entitled to his opinion. Of course you believe he is wrong, but you can not prove it.

Can any one believe I am defending Jon E. :wink:
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Molly Worthen hits another home run

Postby Sandy » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:26 am

Semantics. He's entitled to his opinion, true, though he provided no substantiation for his claim, but simply used the term. Yeah, his opinion, though he claims his perspective is equal to the Biblical perspective.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Molly Worthen hits another home run

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:16 pm

Sandy wrote:Semantics. He's entitled to his opinion, true, though he provided no substantiation for his claim, but simply used the term. Yeah, his opinion, though he claims his perspective is equal to the Biblical perspective.


The biblical perspective is to believe God said let there be light... and there was... I'm not changing His words but taking them as He gave them. To deny this is to choose mans interpretation over what scripture clearly says. Please tell me the name of one inerrantist who believes Genesis 1-11 are myth. Just one I can contact and seek their explanation.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Molly Worthen hits another home run

Postby Sandy » Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:32 pm

I didn't say anything about an inerrantist believing the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis were myth. I said that you can hold an inerrantist perspective and not necessarily believe in a flat literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters. But that's beside the point, since that doesn't have anything to do with your labelling the article "stupid."
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Lets be clear about the takeover definition

Postby Stephen Fox » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:19 pm

Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

Let's don't play the obfuscation game with what really matters in the last 50 years of Southern Baptist history.

That's why Wuthnow's Rough Country and Worthen's book and others like them are so significant. I would include Harold Bloom's The American Religion at getting to the guts of what the takeover and how it used the rubric of Inerrancy for the takeover as getting to the truth of the matter.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Lets be clear about the takeover definition

Postby Jon Estes » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:53 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

Let's don't play the obfuscation game with what really matters in the last 50 years of Southern Baptist history.

That's why Wuthnow's Rough Country and Worthen's book and others like them are so significant. I would include Harold Bloom's The American Religion at getting to the guts of what the takeover and how it used the rubric of Inerrancy for the takeover as getting to the truth of the matter.


Now Stephen... please show me where Criswell or Patterson held the position that the creation account was a myth. I have heard them both speak on this subject and claiming science and history can be seen in the creation account, in no way denies the creation as told in Genesis.

Nice try but wrong about these two inerrantists again.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Lets be clear about the takeover definition

Postby KeithE » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:49 pm

Jon Estes wrote:
Stephen Fox wrote:Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

Let's don't play the obfuscation game with what really matters in the last 50 years of Southern Baptist history.

That's why Wuthnow's Rough Country and Worthen's book and others like them are so significant. I would include Harold Bloom's The American Religion at getting to the guts of what the takeover and how it used the rubric of Inerrancy for the takeover as getting to the truth of the matter.


Now Stephen... please show me where Criswell or Patterson held the position that the creation account was a myth. I have heard them both speak on this subject and claiming science and history can be seen in the creation account, in no way denies the creation as told in Genesis.

Nice try but wrong about these two inerrantists again.


Ah, Jon, Stephen did not say that "Criswell or Patterson held the position that the creation account was a myth”. Quite the opposite, he said Patterson & Pressler & Criswell said “the first eleven chapters were science and History"
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Lets be clear about the takeover definition

Postby JE Pettibone » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:11 pm

KeithE wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
Stephen Fox wrote:Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

Let's don't play the obfuscation game with what really matters in the last 50 years of Southern Baptist history.

That's why Wuthnow's Rough Country and Worthen's book and others like them are so significant. I would include Harold Bloom's The American Religion at getting to the guts of what the takeover and how it used the rubric of Inerrancy for the takeover as getting to the truth of the matter.


Now Stephen... please show me where Criswell or Patterson held the position that the creation account was a myth. I have heard them both speak on this subject and claiming science and history can be seen in the creation account, in no way denies the creation as told in Genesis.

Nice try but wrong about these two inerrantists again.


Ah, Jon, Stephen did not say that "Criswell or Patterson held the position that the creation account was a myth”. Quite the opposite, he said Patterson & Pressler & Criswell said “the first eleven chapters were science and History"


Ed: And Keith, Jon who has had personal acquaintance with both Patterson and Chriswell says that they claimed that " science and history can be seen in the creation account", not that "the first eleven chapters were science and History". I Believe it was Stephen who introduced the idea that they Criswell and Patterson, believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth. As you quote, "Stephen Fox wrote:
Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

No one with the slightest knowledge of the take over would intentionally say that Patterson, Crisswell or Pressler would have called the first 11 chapter of Genesis "Myth". They each are on record castigating scholars who refer to those passages in such a manner.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Lets be clear about the takeover definition

Postby KeithE » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:19 pm

JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, Jon who has had personal acquaintance with both Patterson and Chriswell (sic) says that they claimed that " science and history can be seen in the creation account", not that "the first eleven chapters were science and History". I Believe it was Stephen who introduced the idea that they Criswell and Patterson, believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth. As you quote, "Stephen Fox wrote:
Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

No one with the slightest knowledge of the take over would intentionally say that Patterson, Crisswell or Pressler would have called the first 11 chapter of Genesis "Myth". They each are on record castigating scholars who refer to those passages in such a manner.


I certainly agree with your last sentence and I see your distinction that Jon said P&C said " science and history can be seen in the creation account” as opposed to "the first eleven chapters were science and History”. A slight difference. And I suspect that P&P&C (Patterson, Pressler and Criswell) would prefer the second quote more, but perhaps Jon who you say knows P&C personally can correct me.

But it was not Stephen "who introduced the idea that they Criswell and Patterson, believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth” as you “believed” in red above. Stephen had said something quite the opposite in blue above.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Lets be clear about the takeover definition

Postby JE Pettibone » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:08 am

KeithE wrote:
JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, Jon who has had personal acquaintance with both Patterson and Chriswell (sic) says that they claimed that " science and history can be seen in the creation account", not that "the first eleven chapters were science and History". I Believe it was Stephen who introduced the idea that they Criswell and Patterson, believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth. As you quote, "Stephen Fox wrote:
Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

No one with the slightest knowledge of the take over would intentionally say that Patterson, Crisswell or Pressler would have called the first 11 chapter of Genesis "Myth". They each are on record castigating scholars who refer to those passages in such a manner.


I certainly agree with your last sentence and I see your distinction that Jon said P&C said " science and history can be seen in the creation account” as opposed to "the first eleven chapters were science and History”. A slight difference. And I suspect that P&P&C (Patterson, Pressler and Criswell) would prefer the second quote more, but perhaps Jon who you say knows P&C personally can correct me.

But it was not Stephen "who introduced the idea that they Criswell and Patterson, believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth” as you “believed” in red above. Stephen had said something quite the opposite in blue above.


Ed: So who introduce it into this thread? Since no one other than myself here identifies their statements or questions who said what tends to get lost in longer threads.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Lets be clear about the takeover definition

Postby Jon Estes » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:37 am

JE Pettibone wrote:
KeithE wrote:
JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, Jon who has had personal acquaintance with both Patterson and Chriswell (sic) says that they claimed that " science and history can be seen in the creation account", not that "the first eleven chapters were science and History". I Believe it was Stephen who introduced the idea that they Criswell and Patterson, believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth. As you quote, "Stephen Fox wrote:
Patterson and Pressler with the definition of inerrancy that mattered that defined the takeover said the first eleven chapters were science and History as did Criswell.

No one with the slightest knowledge of the take over would intentionally say that Patterson, Crisswell or Pressler would have called the first 11 chapter of Genesis "Myth". They each are on record castigating scholars who refer to those passages in such a manner.


I certainly agree with your last sentence and I see your distinction that Jon said P&C said " science and history can be seen in the creation account” as opposed to "the first eleven chapters were science and History”. A slight difference. And I suspect that P&P&C (Patterson, Pressler and Criswell) would prefer the second quote more, but perhaps Jon who you say knows P&C personally can correct me.

But it was not Stephen "who introduced the idea that they Criswell and Patterson, believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth” as you “believed” in red above. Stephen had said something quite the opposite in blue above.


Ed: So who introduce it into this thread? Since no one other than myself here identifies their statements or questions who said what tends to get lost in longer threads.


Keith - I brought the myth topic into the conversation previous with Sandy I believe. My questioning Stephen the way I did was to make the point PP and WC and the scientific / historic position had nothing to do with my comment about myth, so I asked Stephen to show me where PP and WC came down on that.

I saw Stephens comments as trying to say something negative about the men while ignoring the previous few comments on the myth controversary.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Previous

Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dave Roberts and 2 guests