"Brilliant" Al Mohler sets Evolution "straight"

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/603 ... llComments

I was the first to comment there

Please Scarborough, read Robinson and let's gets some focus on this matter.

Hoping the folks at Broadway in KC are up to speed on her or it will be grand conference wasted even with the supernal Ken Miller in attendance

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6020/43/

Where the water may hit the wheel in regard the strange career of Al Mohler; if the revenants have the presence of mind to be well versed in Robinson's Absence of Mind

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Timothy--

Do you believe our BF&M 2000 is led by the Holy Spirit?

While many people see a mysterious perfection in long away days of the Early Church, I look behind the scenes based on what I see today: egos in competition / great interest in church income / control issues / etc.

Paul and Peter had the first conflict around ministry to Gentiles and Jews--same as us over gays and racial issues.
The big bruhaha over transubstantiation and consubstantion was a philosophical one having little to do with the common man--lots to do with more ego conflict = Roman control vs. Greek control.
You name them and there is a story behind the "official" story. Remember: the winnners write the history.

Scholars now translating and studying the non-canonical writings are giving them back to us---and I don't see the great "heretical" things told us years ago. Again there were egos and presuppostions involved. The Gospel of Mary simply elevates Mary to the turf of the Apostles and there was certainly an ego battle there.

The "mysterium tremendum" posited to our assumptions may be just the "winners" putting the Holy Spirit in position to undergird their "rightness." Then they dare anyone to say, "It just ain't so!"

[Tim Bonney]

You didn't answer my question. What criteria should be used for the creation of the canon? It almost sounds like you don't have a criteria. In which case anything could be in the bible and anything could be Christian scriptures. Consequently anything could be Christian doctrine.

I would also suggest that the early ecumenical creeds are far different than individual denominational confessions. The Nicene and the Apostles Creed among others was what determined what ended up being scripture. The BFM attempts to interpret an already existing canon. Could the BFM have been led by the Holy Spirit? I am sure that folks in the SBC would think so. But it doesn't exist as a statement of what all Christians believe. It is a particular denominational statement that only speaks for what the SBC teaches.

The Nicene Creed is the basis on which we understand the incarnation. And while Southern Baptist won't claim the Creed, it is the basis for exluding gnostic writers from the Bible among others. So, without acknowledging it, Southern Baptist believe in what the creed teaches because they believe in the canon created by adherence to the creed. You cannot say that about the BFM unless the SBC changes the canon to fit the statement.

[Gene Scarborough]

Timothy--

The Canon is closed and we have it today.

When the Canon was closed on the NT there were criteria:
1) Written by an Apostle
2) Accepted by the majority of early churches
3) In ageement with the Nicean Creed

It was set by majority vote of those attending---just like the meeting which formed CBF / the one which passed BF&M 2000. With the passing of time we now view it as somehow a direct result of the Holy Spirit. I view it as the Spirit working through people at that time---just as it does today---no more / no less.

The fact non-canonicals exist although there were attempts to destroy them is EQUALLY a result of the Holy Spirit so we can know about things not included in a "perfect divine" text. We have NO original autographs which the Chicago Statement says are "inerrant." Again, we are making ideal things in the distant past a mental exercise over a production of hard evidence. We are put in the realm of Faith whether we like it or not!

So what don't you really understand about my description?????

[Tim Bonney]

Thanks for the clarification Gene. I was getting the impression that you were creating your own canon (Gospel of Mary for example). I would disagree that we can know that the preservation of non-canonical texts has anything to do with the Holy Spirit or not. We don't know that. A lot of things survive that may or may not have any inspired value. I can get a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It has survived centuries. But that is hardly an argument for its inspiration. Some things survive because people like them. Other writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls survived basically by luck. So just because a Christian wrote it, it didn't get in the canon, and yet survives that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit had anything to do with it.

As to inerrancy and the original autographs, I never mentioned those. I do not believe in the Johnny-come-lately theory of Biblical inerrancy nor is it a concern of mine that we don't have the original autographs since I don't believe in mechanical views of inspiration in any shape or form.

What I do believe is that many Christians don't want to think about how we got the canon because they either don't want to admit to any early authority of the ecumenical church or because they don't want to admit to any authority of the ecumenical creeds. So it is easier to pretend or act as if the 66 books of the Bible dropped out of the sky complete in the KJV with Scofield notes than to actually deal with the canonization issues that are presented by history.

[Gene Scarborough]

Tim--

I think we are on the same track on this.

I hope you would agree that the more people know about the Bible, the less prone they are to someone telling them a bunch of bull to get them to bow down and do their bidding. Most people want the easy / fat / dumb / stupid approach just requiring the sheep to fall in line.

I can't believe the supposedly educated people who have no clue, and worse, don't care to. The equally sad thing is that those using SBC literature would learn far more about the Bible watching the Discovery and National Geographic Channels. If the church does not have the wisdom to include such information to the average Baptist--especially teens and young adults--we have a bunch of dummies set up for a good fleecing. LIke it or not, the truth always comes out sooner or later!!!

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my statements.

[Dave Roberts]

Baptists have always fought over the battle lines of the Charlestonian and Sandy Creek traditions. Charleston demanded an educated clergy and sought to educate the laity. Sandy Creek sought for spiritual validation by the display of emotion in preaching and worship. The Sandy Creek tradition has often been interpreted to be anti-educational--"Don't led education steal your faith." The problem is that when we deny people the knowledge with which to relate to the wider Christian world, we leave them vulnerable to the very loss of faith against which the Sandy Creek tradition has been interpreted. If faith cannot stand up to education, it cannot stand up at all. We rob people not teaching them a more fully informed faith, but many of them only want the feel-good faith.

[Gene Scarborough]

Thanks for this wise addition!!!

I have always contended that a faith which cannot stand some good questions is a little faith.

What troubles me is those who thought SEBTS would "ruin" students with "liberalism." It did nothing for me other than expand my faith---and sometimes bug me with conservatism among some of the Professors. However, I was not there to have my smaller faith stroked, but to have it widened by views of all sorts. With a diverse group of Professors, I got just that.

ON the other hand, a fellow classmate I well know who led the CR push in our Association claimed from the bottom of his heart that SEBTS was nothing but corrupt. He had been warned by his conservative preacher in the Norfolk area to go to Richmond and defend himself against being "ruined" and carried it with him to SEBTS. All he could tell about U. Richmond was that they drank at the fraternities. What he missed along the way is astounding---and tragic.

It really all comes from your mindset when you venture out into the world. A fearful person with a feaful and shallow faith comes away from it with nothing more than fear to infect his congregation from the pulpit. Everything had to have a conservative view and its words attached.

[Dave Roberts]

I am eternally grateful that the church in which I grew up never instilled fear in me. Pastors and ministers of education and youth there were people who still read, had a grasp on using your mind faithfully and on learning in order to grasp what God is doing in the wider world. That was important to me. I carried that attitude into college and on to SBTS, and both of them challenged and expanded my faith. I purposely stayed out of the religion department in college because I wanted a broader education. I almost think that should be a requirement for ministers to have a degree in something besides Bible or religion when entering seminary. We need more people conversant with history, literature, psychology, a foreign language that is currenly spoken, the sciences and mathmatics, and the social sciences. My degree was in English with minors in German and history. My degree is from a traditional Baptist college. My wife finished her degree from a state university in human services. Our son, a current seminary student, has his college degree in history and psychology. Ministers need to get out of the religious ghetto to be prepared to serve in the 21st century.

[Haruo]

I agree. My dad's undergraduate degree was in metallurgical engineering. Oddly enough, Mrs H's father (who has never been devout let alone clerical) also studied metallurgy (but left for the war before graduating).

[Gene Scarborough]

Since our conversation has naturally steered toward educations in general, let's look at it some.

is sponsoring a Webinar today at 2 p.m. EST which addresses the Evolution vs. Creation issue. I plan to participate and free registration is required. I just hit on this one yesterday on ABP News.

I was NOT going into the ministry due to how I saw a church mistreat my father. I started as pre-med at Emory. I did not like to memorize and my chemestry background was weak so I saw the light my Sophomore year and majored in Psychology. I had my minister at Decatur First, Bill Lancaster, ask me a question I could not shake: "What will happen if intelligent young men like you do not take responsibility for the church?"

It spoiled my plans for a PhD in Psychology with applications in at outstanding schools! In a week's time I answered the call from that troubling question. It was obvious for most of my life that, outside my father and Bill Lancaster, most of the preachers I knew were weak on brains. We went as a family to Home MIssions Week at Ridgecrest / had gone to several SBC meetings as a family / through BSU I had heard good preaching at Ridgecrest also, but the average Atlanta preacher would hardly win any IQ tests, in my opinion. The ones who drew my attention had brains and an ability to communicate in 20 minutes. Atlanta large churches of all faiths have drawn sharp ministers.

What got my attention in my "calling" time was my GRE score: I was in the 90th percentile for ministers and 50th percentile for Psychology. That simple difference in 1967 clearly showed ministers were not nearly as sharp as Psychologists. In Baptistland, anyone can come forward to say, "I'm called!" That's our main standard and we do not, as a whole, require more. Smart ones usually ultimately get the big church, but too many with little real sense get in easily.

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

You get what you ask for---and preachers lie about their real intent as well as churches.

I guess that's what makes being Baptist so much fun = lie / cheat / steal your way into a church or denominational takeover.

I should have gone from Emory to Candler School of Theology. They don't let anyone into the UMC pulpit without proper personality profile analysis---and the DS serves as a middle ground of protection for both Pastor and Church. Before the advent of the local UMC church committee for personnel, the pastors had to stay unless they killed them!

While representing Ministers Life Insurance, the Eastern NC meeting in Fayetteville was one of my favorites. There I found Methodist clergy with a sense of humor, for one thing. The old minister was chatting with the newly assigned one to tell of what they did with the local "sticks of dynomite" the new minister faced.

When I asked for honest analysis from my Baptist predecessors, they usually lied and said, "Oh they are just a normal church." That translates to "I am pretending I had no problems and you just do your best to survive, you fat, dumb, next piece of meat." Had only 1 exception to this picture!!!

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Timothy---

Frankly, I had not noticed, but I congratulate you on your wisdom!!! I have several good SEBTS friends who have switched over. One suffered a divorce early in his career and made the change over Baptists pretending no divorced person is worthy. Another friend is now supply preaching because the Methodists don't have enough clergy with that interest. The Methodists didn't think he would ruin a church needing temporary help. Try finding a Baptist church with this outlook.

My good friend, Randall Lolley, advised his daughter when she felt a call to seek her future with the Methodists. Again, a sad fact of Baptist life. Now we are kicking out churches with female ministers! What a mess.

Now I know why you have such a big smile in your picture!!!

[Tim Bonney]

Gene,

I'd not heard that story about Dr. Lolley's daughter but I'm not surprised. I served in the ABC for a number of years and even as open as the ABC is to women clergy, senior pastors in the ABC are still not a very great percentage of the pastorates. The denomination is very supportive but they have trouble getting local churches to come along.

I know that in the Iowa Conference gender, race, and ethnicity are not considerations in appointment. Churches cannot say that they don't want a woman or a person of a certain ethnic group etc. to be their pastor.

Each system has their own strengths and weaknesses. But I am finding the UMC to be a good fit for me in ministry.

[Chris]

[linda]

We were out of the Baptist loop for many years, living in an area with no Baptist churches of any kind.

Can someone explain to me when literal 24/6 day creationism complete with young earth became the standard by which to judge a person?

I grew up hearing many explanations in SS: long days, gap theory, literal understanding with old age of earth accepted, YEC, day age theory, and "we just don't know."

Did I miss something? Has someone made some fantastic discovery?

Seriously, I have very scientific minded little one to help raise, and I have about had it with her being taught to check her brains at the door, sit down, shut up, and "be sweet."

Hogwash. She's a budding petroleum engineer or geologist who's greatest delight in life is to go down in a mine.

Let her think! God isn't scared of it. Why should we be?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Chris]

I would like CBF to BE a denomination. I don't care what it looks like or breaks from. I am tired of being a denomination-less person.

[William Thornton]

[johnfariss]

Linda,

Well said! My own perspective is that however we (the human race) got here is HOW God intended for us to get here. Within that context, one can argue young earth, old earth, evolution, intelligent design, whatever, and it is intellectually stimulating, but does not result in calling one another names.

John

[johnfariss]

I should have added: my faith in Chris as Lord and savior is not dependent on any interpretation of the first 3 (or 11) chapters of Genesis, especially one with 16th Century European presuppositions.

John