The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby Stephen Fox » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:51 pm

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/ ... ntroversy/

Mohler was on NPR Talk of the Nation Weds of this week, or Thursday, 21 or 22. I talked to a Beeson Div School student yesterday of Timothy George's school who wasn't buying Mohler's gobbledygook.

You put the column above with Mohler's national discussion with a scholar from Calvin College and Southern Baptists have talked themselves into a corner.
How long will public school teachers continue to fund this nonsense with their Cooperative Program Dollars.

Bring Rachel Held Evans to Shorter College to discuss Evolving in MonkeyTown with Mohler and then maybe Florida Atlantic. Take it on the road.
Google Mohler on Talk of the Nation and listen closely.


Thanks to Aaron Weaver for pointing out Mohler's blog above in his Baps Today blog wrapup of last week.

Find a copy of Gus Niebuhr's Beyond Tolerance and read his ten pages on Mohler.
"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: 8941
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby Sandy » Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:22 pm

I guess I am not getting what this has to do with public school teachers funding the Cooperative Program. I'm scratching my head over that one.

If you'd care to point out where Mohler is mistaken, I'll read what you have to say.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8043
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby KeithE » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:06 am

Stephen Fox wrote:http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona-controversy/

Mohler was on NPR Talk of the Nation Weds of this week, or Thursday, 21 or 22. I talked to a Beeson Div School student yesterday of Timothy George's school who wasn't buying Mohler's gobbledygook.

Gobbledygook is apropos of Mohler's arguments about the Resurrection accounts being harmonizable within a "inerrancy" framework. While Mohler's article above that Stephen linked (thanks Stephen) generally praises Michael Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Mohler just had to point an error in Licona (midrashish treatment of Matthew 27:51-54) in his self appointed role of gate keeping. Mohler does not posit any real re-interpretations or explanations here, but just complains about Licona in this one instance (he also lambasts John Dominic Crossan, and Robert Gundry - read the article).

Such gate keeping puts Mohler right in there with the Teachers of the Law and we all know what Jesus had to say about them throughout Matt 23.

Perhaps we all could use this Lord's Day to re-read all 4 accounts (actually 5 with 1 Cor 15). On essentials they agree; on details they diverge. Inerrancy claims all details are correct and harmonizable.

Remember Jesus repeatably says "you have heard it said of old, but I say to you" and Paul repeatably says "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". The devil is in clinging to the details with religious fervor best used on essentials (e.g. calls to repentence, helping the poor, being hospitable to all, bringing about the Kingdom on earth; and Jesus said, if you love me, you will follow me).
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: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby Gene Scarborough » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:21 pm

Hasn't anyone figured out---Mohler is the Chief Orangatang of the Baptist Monkey tree climbing special unit???? :wave: :blech:
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby Sandy » Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:38 pm

Now that's an intelligent, reasoned response, Gene. So why should anyone take you seriously?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8043
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby Gene Scarborough » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:54 am

Anyone watching and listening to the rantings of CR over some 30+ years who has a brain / a little bit of Bible training / ANY knowledge of Jesus' command to "love and forgive one another"---cannot help but draw the same conclusion!!!

This is why many churches have taken "Baptist" off the sign!!!
:brick:
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby Gene Scarborough » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:52 am

I just read an interesting debate between Mohler and one of his fellow conservatives:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/michael-licona-responds-to-al-mohler-on-matthew-27/

The language and details are interesting and more than nit-picky.

Opinions not confirmed by evidence

There are degrees of understanding topics based on what sort of learning you have done to understand them. Reading about how to replace an engine is one thing, but replacing an engine is a completely different level of knowledge. Michael Licona has actually had to read a lot of history that he disagrees with, and to write papers that were peer-reviewed, and to defend his views with opposing scholars in formal academic debates. Al Mohler hasn’t done nearly as much of that, especially the debating. And that tells me something about Al Mohler. You see, the danger with not having to prepare for debates with your opponents is that you don’t really know whether what you say you believe is actually true. Everything sounds good to a person before they are cross-examined.

Preaching to the choir instead of persuading opponents

When you take a look at Al Mohler’s writings, it seems to me that he just compares his views to other people who disagree with him, and then he shuns the other people, and urges people who have the same preferences as he does to shun them, too. He doesn’t make factual arguments against the people with whom he disagrees. Let’s see some specific posts.


Does it bespeak the future that even fundies have difficulty getting along without to-the-core debate over minutia?
Last edited by Gene Scarborough on Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby Sandy » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:43 pm

The irony here is that moderate Baptists are putting together a discussion between two individuals who completely affirm the Chicago Statement on inerrancy, which they do not affirm, to claim that there is a devil in Mohler's inerrancy details. The fact of the matter is that you don't buy Lincona's interpretation or explanation, either, but only use him to make a point about Mohler.

Lincona's position, in fact, is exactly why inerrantists can claim that the accounts of the resurrection can be reconciled, and why the little prooftexts often cited by non-inerrantists to point out difficulty with the position, such as whether it was God or Satan who moved David to conduct the census, don't prove the point.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8043
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: The Devil in Mohler's Inerrancy Details

Postby KeithE » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:15 pm

Sandy wrote:The irony here is that moderate Baptists are putting together a discussion between two individuals who completely affirm the Chicago Statement on inerrancy, which they do not affirm, to claim that there is a devil in Mohler's inerrancy details. The fact of the matter is that you don't buy Lincona's interpretation or explanation, either, but only use him to make a point about Mohler.

Lincona's position, in fact, is exactly why inerrantists can claim that the accounts of the resurrection can be reconciled, and why the little prooftexts often cited by non-inerrantists to point out difficulty with the position, such as whether it was God or Satan who moved David to conduct the census, don't prove the point.



If you are talking about me, I just requested you read the gospel accounts for yourself and judge whether inerrancy in historical detail is even viable position. I did not use any disagreement between Mohler and Licona to make any point wrt inerrancy. I did point out how Mohler is acting like a "Teacher of the Law" in his treatment of Licona and Gundry and Crossan - on that point you are correct.

I guess you are saying that Licona's position/interpretation of Matt 27:51-54 (Mohler's point of dissension with Licona) - about the curtain being torn at Jesus's death, the earth shook, and many of God's people left their graves - somehow supports reconciliation of the contradictions in details between the gospels wrt the resurrection (e.g. # of women, their reactions to the empty tomb, who met who when, Jesus's state, where Jesus's ascension took place) . Interesting but hardly a defense of innerrancy of the resurrection accounts. Nor does who moved David to conduct the census have anything to do with the resurrection accounts historical micro-accuracy. Perhaps you are saying midrash sort of interpretations in general aid defense of overall biblical inerrancy. You will have to explain what you meant in your second paragraph 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: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL


Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron